Diet Soda and Weight Loss
Replies
-
reeks > wreaks
hugh > huge
fructose > natural sugar
aspartame > not scary
So relieved to get that off my chest.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Just to give my own personal opinon on food beliefs in todays society. Organic movement is basically just marketing, not a lot of merit to the idea that organic farming is somehow "healthier" or more sustainable than conventional. Anti-GMO movement is anti-science quackery up there with anti-vaxxers. Anti-processing...has some merits actually. I do believe that if you have the financial ability and resources to do so that whole foods are preferable for nutrition than processed foods. I think taking out the core macro from something like refining sucrose from sugar cane and then refining protein from say soy and then taking the two and adding food coloring and making a food product out of it isn't toxic, but its going to be less nutritious and have considerably less fiber than say just eating a whole vegetable and some chicken breast. You lose out on a lot with that sort of reductionist thinking in food, many of the micronutrients or benefits of fiber are lost from doing that.
That said I really detest how haughty and pretentious some people are with anti-processed foods, I'm glad @tamms_1965 that you did take the time to put in that you understand not everyone has access or financial ability to get that.
I don't think you understand what the problem with GMOs is. The problem has nothing to do with the science, the problem is political. Seed companies are using GMOs to prevent farmers from growing their own seed. That forces farmers to have to buy the seeds from the seed companies. Right now it is all about control and frankly the future food supply is at risk because of it. Risk is greatly reduced by redundant systems and that is what is being lost with the GMOs taking over the US. Right now patents are being abused by large seed companies. It isn't about protecting science it is about extracting profits.
There are valid scientific concerns about GMOs though. If a plant naturally produces a herbicide, there should be questions about how much of the herbicide is left in the plant and what the herbicide does to whatever consumes the plant. Here the point again falls back to politics because the seed companies themselves are responsible for the testing. So it still isn't the science it is the politics.
Hugh topic but little to do with diet soda.
I could certainly get into it, it is a topic of great interest to me, but I agree with you probably shouldn't derail the thread anymore than we already have. I did write a piece on my opinon on recent movements to label GMO foods so perhaps I'll just link to that and call it good.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/22/you-cant-judge-a-product-by-a-gmo-label/#a80eca82fbc9
By the way since it is hard to read tone in peoples posts I'm enjoying our conversation and hope you are as well. If it just frustrates you perhaps we should just call it quits.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
ADME PK is typically performed on small molecule drugs which are orally bioavailable and do not undergo rapid metabolism. A is for asbsorption and relates to the ability of the compound to transfer from a mucosal layer such as the intestine into the blood stream for distribution. Aspartame, as an example, is not absorbed into the blood. The M in ADME is for metabolism, related to if the compound is broken down in our body or remains intact. Aspartame, as an example, is rapidly broken down into components of phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol. Di is for distribution, which is the ability of the compound to be distrubuted to different tissues via the blood. For aspartame it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is no "D". E is for excretion, the removal of the compound from the blood to be excreted by the body and works in opposition to distribution. Again, for aspartame, it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is nothing to excrete. Finally PK is the summation of ADME plus seeing what peak levels compound reaches in the blood or in target tissues and how long that is sustained. Of course, in the case of aspartame, can't really do PK given its just immediately broken down.
Aspartame, and the other commonly used artificial sweetners, are metabolically labile and are quickly broken down in our bodies. There is nothing to study in terms of PK so not sure what you are really asking here.
Clearly you have a much deeper knowledge of the this subject area. My comment was from why some doctors say they can't take a position of the artificial sweeteners. At least with some discussions I've listened too. I don't have references because I didn't keep notes about it at the time because my concern was other topics. I can't deeply debate the merits because my background isn't strong. I'm merely accepting the expertise of others.
There literally dozens of artificial sweeteners, although many are uncommon. In my mind the main saving grace of these compounds is that they are typically many times sweeter than even fructose, so very little of the compounds are used. There are even many acute toxins we use routinely with good results. So in fact I'm not overly concerned with the toxicity. However I think it wise to keep an mind open about that. It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets. For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day. I actually think artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to refined sugars.
I personally do us a small amount of some artificial sweeteners, although since cutting back on sugar I surprising find myself comsuming much fewer things that contain them. My perception of sweet has been changing. In fact I've found myself being turned off by some things that are just too sweet.
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.
It really seems like you are spiting hairs here. Perhaps you would prefer fructose is a dosage dependent hepatic chronic poison. That actually sounds worse in some ways. Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. Your poor billionaire is just a oxymoron and really doesn't apply in this case or even make sense. The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science. Perhaps the verbal usages of the term is just more casual. What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?
Viewing it that way wouldn't anything your liver has to process be considered a hepatic chronic poison? What makes fructose more of a hepatic chronic poison than say lactose or galactose or glycogen of any variety?
:"Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. " Yes, their is the actual definition of the word and then there is the popularization of the word in common use in various blogs and websites on the internet that runs contrary to the actual definition. Toxin is a scientific term, it has a specific meaning...the public misusing the term doesn't somehow give it a new meaning it just means the public is misusing the term. They are treating it like toxin means something that is toxic and thats not what it means. I get that that is an easy mistake to make but its still a mistake.
Yes, poor billionaire is an oxymoron....so is chronic toxin. Chronic toxin makes as much sense as poor billionaire because billionaires are rich and toxins are acute poisons that are metabolic products of living organisms. There are no poor billionaies, there are no chronic toxins. That was my point.
"The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science."
What science? The links you provided at no point refered to fructose as a toxin nor as being toxic, you just kind of claimed that yourself. Can you perhaps link to something that says straight out that fructose is toxic?
If fructose was toxic then eating apples would be deadly. I don't really think that the "science is behind the controversy" on that one.
"What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?" Well frankly I wouldn't because I don't think that fructose is toxic. But lets see I can pick something that is toxic like cyanide. Cyanide is an element, it can be found in plants (it is concentrated in natural almonds) but it isn't a metabolic product of plants so it isn't a toxin. I'd think in the case of cyanide that poison would be the appropriate term.
What you seem to be doing is conflating things that might damage our bodies long term and expecting them to be called something like a toxin or a poison. The thing is pretty much everything metabolically damages our bodies. Oxygen reeks absolute havoc on our bodies, but its not "toxic" nor is it a "poison". To be toxic or a poison means a specific interaction, a mechanism of action that leads to specific damage not just wear and tear.
Let me use a car as an analogy because I think people are more comfortable with the concepts behind a car engine than they are with the metabolic functions of our bodies.
A car runs on gasoline. That gasoline is taken into the cars engine where it is ignited and explodes. This explosion leaves residues on the parts of the engine, causes general wear, and eventually the engine will fail. Is gasoline a "poison" or a "toxin" to the car? No, of course not. Lets say you put sugar into the cars gastank and when that is taken into the engine it causes abrupt and sudden damage that requires immediate repair...now we are talking about a poison (or a toxin).
You might argue that fructose causes damage to a human body in the way that gasoline causes damage to a car, but that doesn't make it toxic man. I don't know where you are getting that from and I really highly doubt you can point to any science text or any scientifically published paper or any scientific organizations website that would say that fructose is "toxic" or a poison or a toxin. Frankly I think you are just saying that over time consumption of fructose (or really any carbohydrate) puts stress on our liver much the same way gasoline puts stress on a car engine but you are choosing words that are more dramatic despite the fact that by choosing those words you are now just incorrect because the words you are using don't have the meanings that you are attempting to use them for.
So to boil it down, basically what you're saying is that all the fructose talk is grossly overhyped scaremongering which has no basic in biological science? Because that's pretty much what I've thought all along, just glad to see it confirmed by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
Honestly I wasn't even aware fructose concern was a thing. I mean people know thats the main sugar in all plant products right? The sweetness in all fruit is due to fructose. Are they advocating avoiding plants? I'm just not clear on what is being said. Yes, eating sugar or fat will put wear and tear on your liver...eating protein will do so on your kidneys. Eventually they will fail and you will die. Sorry for the bad news.
If its because of high fructose corn syrup I might be on board with the idea that overprocessing and refining sugar and having that as the main source of calories in a stripped down processed reductionist food is probably not healthy for reasons of calories to nutrition ratio and issues with obesity. But that has nothing to do with fructose, same would be true if you made a highly processed glucose syrup.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Just to give my own personal opinon on food beliefs in todays society. Organic movement is basically just marketing, not a lot of merit to the idea that organic farming is somehow "healthier" or more sustainable than conventional. Anti-GMO movement is anti-science quackery up there with anti-vaxxers. Anti-processing...has some merits actually. I do believe that if you have the financial ability and resources to do so that whole foods are preferable for nutrition than processed foods. I think taking out the core macro from something like refining sucrose from sugar cane and then refining protein from say soy and then taking the two and adding food coloring and making a food product out of it isn't toxic, but its going to be less nutritious and have considerably less fiber than say just eating a whole vegetable and some chicken breast. You lose out on a lot with that sort of reductionist thinking in food, many of the micronutrients or benefits of fiber are lost from doing that.
That said I really detest how haughty and pretentious some people are with anti-processed foods, I'm glad @tamms_1965 that you did take the time to put in that you understand not everyone has access or financial ability to get that.
I don't think you understand what the problem with GMOs is. The problem has nothing to do with the science, the problem is political. Seed companies are using GMOs to prevent farmers from growing their own seed. That forces farmers to have to buy the seeds from the seed companies. Right now it is all about control and frankly the future food supply is at risk because of it. Risk is greatly reduced by redundant systems and that is what is being lost with the GMOs taking over the US. Right now patents are being abused by large seed companies. It isn't about protecting science it is about extracting profits.
There are valid scientific concerns about GMOs though. If a plant naturally produces a herbicide, there should be questions about how much of the herbicide is left in the plant and what the herbicide does to whatever consumes the plant. Here the point again falls back to politics because the seed companies themselves are responsible for the testing. So it still isn't the science it is the politics.
Hugh topic but little to do with diet soda.
I could certainly get into it, it is a topic of great interest to me, but I agree with you probably shouldn't derail the thread anymore than we already have. I did write a piece on my opinon on recent movements to label GMO foods so perhaps I'll just link to that and call it good.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/22/you-cant-judge-a-product-by-a-gmo-label/#a80eca82fbc9
By the way since it is hard to read tone in peoples posts I'm enjoying our conversation and hope you are as well. If it just frustrates you perhaps we should just call it quits.
Great article about GMO's, Aaron.
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Viewing it that way wouldn't anything your liver has to process be considered a hepatic chronic poison? What makes fructose more of a hepatic chronic poison than say lactose or galactose or glycogen of any mono- di- or polysaccharide variety?
:"Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. " Yes, their is the actual definition of the word and then there is the popularization of the word in common use in various blogs and websites on the internet that runs contrary to the actual definition. Toxin is a scientific term, it has a specific meaning...the public misusing the term doesn't somehow give it a new meaning it just means the public is misusing the term. They are treating it like toxin means something that is toxic and thats not what it means. I get that that is an easy mistake to make but its still a mistake.
Yes, poor billionaire is an oxymoron....so is chronic toxin. Chronic toxin makes as much sense as poor billionaire because billionaires are rich and toxins are acute poisons that are metabolic products of living organisms. There are no poor billionaies, there are no chronic toxins. That was my point.
"The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science."
What science? The links you provided at no point refered to fructose as a toxin nor as being toxic, you just kind of claimed that yourself. Can you perhaps link to something that says straight out that fructose is toxic?
If fructose was toxic then eating apples would be deadly. I don't really think that the "science is behind the controversy" on that one.
"What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?" Well frankly I wouldn't because I don't think that fructose is toxic. But lets see I can pick something that is toxic like cyanide. Cyanide is an element, it can be found in plants (it is concentrated in natural almonds) but it isn't a metabolic product of plants so it isn't a toxin. I'd think in the case of cyanide that poison would be the appropriate term.
What you seem to be doing is conflating things that might damage our bodies long term and expecting them to be called something like a toxin or a poison. The thing is pretty much everything metabolically damages our bodies. Oxygen wreaks absolute havoc on our bodies, but its not "toxic" nor is it a "poison". To be toxic or a poison means a specific interaction, a mechanism of action that leads to specific damage not just wear and tear.
Let me use a car as an analogy because I think people are more comfortable with the concepts behind a car engine than they are with the metabolic functions of our bodies.
A car runs on gasoline. That gasoline is taken into the cars engine where it is ignited and explodes. This explosion leaves residues on the parts of the engine, causes general wear, and eventually the engine will fail. Is gasoline a "poison" or a "toxin" to the car? No, of course not. Lets say you put sugar into the cars gastank and when that is taken into the engine it causes abrupt and sudden damage that requires immediate repair...now we are talking about a poison (or a toxin). Perhaps if you put a very small amount of sugar into the gas and repeatedly ran that gas it wouldn't fail immediately but would fail over time as more residue was added, but you could tell that sugar is poisonous by simply adding more sugar and seeing it do instant and verifiable damage.
You might argue that fructose causes damage to a human body in the way that gasoline causes damage to a car, but that doesn't make it toxic man. If fructose was toxic to our bodies like it is to a car then if you injested much more of it it would cause direct and easily measurable harm...it doesn't. I don't know where you are getting that from and I really highly doubt you can point to any science text or any scientifically published paper or any scientific organizations website that would say that fructose is "toxic" or a poison or a toxin. Frankly I think you are just saying that over time consumption of fructose (or really any carbohydrate) puts stress on our liver much the same way gasoline puts stress on a car engine but you are choosing words that are more dramatic despite the fact that by choosing those words you are now just incorrect because the words you are using don't have the meanings that you are attempting to use them for.
The toxic effects of fructose come from the amount that is metabolized. Aside from very minor amounts it has to be metabolized in the liver. There are multiple metabolic pathways it can take in the liver but the real problems occur with the liver doesn't have capacity to handle it. At the point fructose is converted to lipids and mostly stored in the liver itself. That produces disease. The diease shortens life expectancy. This is far beyond the normal negative impacts of metabolism. Disease typically isn't caused by just stress. Phyiscial damage is more than just stress in biological or physical systems.
You are correct that other foods can show toxic effects. For example, it is possible to end up with renal damage from consuming too much protein, but that is currently a problem few will ever encounter. The problem with fructose is that it is now everywhere in our food supply and it is difficult to avoid. It used to only show up in fruits and very small amounts in other foods. Now it is in massive amounts in many liquids and in large amounts in commonly consumed processed foods. It is very difficult to avoid in modern foods. The default has become over consumption.
If the modern world weren't so overexposed to fructose, it really wouldn't be an issue. However we now have teens developing type 2 diabeties. Instead of taking many decades to develop it is happening in years. NAFLD is becoming common and metabolic symdrome has emerged as a new world-wide problem. This is quickly becoming the leading cause of death in the world. It is fine if you don't want to consider it toxic, but that doesn't change that fact that it is a major problem.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Just to give my own personal opinon on food beliefs in todays society. Organic movement is basically just marketing, not a lot of merit to the idea that organic farming is somehow "healthier" or more sustainable than conventional. Anti-GMO movement is anti-science quackery up there with anti-vaxxers. Anti-processing...has some merits actually. I do believe that if you have the financial ability and resources to do so that whole foods are preferable for nutrition than processed foods. I think taking out the core macro from something like refining sucrose from sugar cane and then refining protein from say soy and then taking the two and adding food coloring and making a food product out of it isn't toxic, but its going to be less nutritious and have considerably less fiber than say just eating a whole vegetable and some chicken breast. You lose out on a lot with that sort of reductionist thinking in food, many of the micronutrients or benefits of fiber are lost from doing that.
That said I really detest how haughty and pretentious some people are with anti-processed foods, I'm glad @tamms_1965 that you did take the time to put in that you understand not everyone has access or financial ability to get that.
I don't think you understand what the problem with GMOs is. The problem has nothing to do with the science, the problem is political. Seed companies are using GMOs to prevent farmers from growing their own seed. That forces farmers to have to buy the seeds from the seed companies. Right now it is all about control and frankly the future food supply is at risk because of it. Risk is greatly reduced by redundant systems and that is what is being lost with the GMOs taking over the US. Right now patents are being abused by large seed companies. It isn't about protecting science it is about extracting profits.
There are valid scientific concerns about GMOs though. If a plant naturally produces a herbicide, there should be questions about how much of the herbicide is left in the plant and what the herbicide does to whatever consumes the plant. Here the point again falls back to politics because the seed companies themselves are responsible for the testing. So it still isn't the science it is the politics.
Hugh topic but little to do with diet soda.
I could certainly get into it, it is a topic of great interest to me, but I agree with you probably shouldn't derail the thread anymore than we already have. I did write a piece on my opinon on recent movements to label GMO foods so perhaps I'll just link to that and call it good.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/22/you-cant-judge-a-product-by-a-gmo-label/#a80eca82fbc9
By the way since it is hard to read tone in peoples posts I'm enjoying our conversation and hope you are as well. If it just frustrates you perhaps we should just call it quits.
Great article about GMO's, Aaron.
Good to see some actual science from somebody who actually does science, to dispel some of the myths.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
ADME PK is typically performed on small molecule drugs which are orally bioavailable and do not undergo rapid metabolism. A is for asbsorption and relates to the ability of the compound to transfer from a mucosal layer such as the intestine into the blood stream for distribution. Aspartame, as an example, is not absorbed into the blood. The M in ADME is for metabolism, related to if the compound is broken down in our body or remains intact. Aspartame, as an example, is rapidly broken down into components of phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol. Di is for distribution, which is the ability of the compound to be distrubuted to different tissues via the blood. For aspartame it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is no "D". E is for excretion, the removal of the compound from the blood to be excreted by the body and works in opposition to distribution. Again, for aspartame, it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is nothing to excrete. Finally PK is the summation of ADME plus seeing what peak levels compound reaches in the blood or in target tissues and how long that is sustained. Of course, in the case of aspartame, can't really do PK given its just immediately broken down.
Aspartame, and the other commonly used artificial sweetners, are metabolically labile and are quickly broken down in our bodies. There is nothing to study in terms of PK so not sure what you are really asking here.
Clearly you have a much deeper knowledge of the this subject area. My comment was from why some doctors say they can't take a position of the artificial sweeteners. At least with some discussions I've listened too. I don't have references because I didn't keep notes about it at the time because my concern was other topics. I can't deeply debate the merits because my background isn't strong. I'm merely accepting the expertise of others.
There literally dozens of artificial sweeteners, although many are uncommon. In my mind the main saving grace of these compounds is that they are typically many times sweeter than even fructose, so very little of the compounds are used. There are even many acute toxins we use routinely with good results. So in fact I'm not overly concerned with the toxicity. However I think it wise to keep an mind open about that. It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets. For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day. I actually think artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to refined sugars.
I personally do us a small amount of some artificial sweeteners, although since cutting back on sugar I surprising find myself comsuming much fewer things that contain them. My perception of sweet has been changing. In fact I've found myself being turned off by some things that are just too sweet.
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.
It really seems like you are spiting hairs here. Perhaps you would prefer fructose is a dosage dependent hepatic chronic poison. That actually sounds worse in some ways. Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. Your poor billionaire is just a oxymoron and really doesn't apply in this case or even make sense. The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science. Perhaps the verbal usages of the term is just more casual. What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?
Viewing it that way wouldn't anything your liver has to process be considered a hepatic chronic poison? What makes fructose more of a hepatic chronic poison than say lactose or galactose or glycogen of any variety?
:"Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. " Yes, their is the actual definition of the word and then there is the popularization of the word in common use in various blogs and websites on the internet that runs contrary to the actual definition. Toxin is a scientific term, it has a specific meaning...the public misusing the term doesn't somehow give it a new meaning it just means the public is misusing the term. They are treating it like toxin means something that is toxic and thats not what it means. I get that that is an easy mistake to make but its still a mistake.
Yes, poor billionaire is an oxymoron....so is chronic toxin. Chronic toxin makes as much sense as poor billionaire because billionaires are rich and toxins are acute poisons that are metabolic products of living organisms. There are no poor billionaies, there are no chronic toxins. That was my point.
"The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science."
What science? The links you provided at no point refered to fructose as a toxin nor as being toxic, you just kind of claimed that yourself. Can you perhaps link to something that says straight out that fructose is toxic?
If fructose was toxic then eating apples would be deadly. I don't really think that the "science is behind the controversy" on that one.
"What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?" Well frankly I wouldn't because I don't think that fructose is toxic. But lets see I can pick something that is toxic like cyanide. Cyanide is an element, it can be found in plants (it is concentrated in natural almonds) but it isn't a metabolic product of plants so it isn't a toxin. I'd think in the case of cyanide that poison would be the appropriate term.
What you seem to be doing is conflating things that might damage our bodies long term and expecting them to be called something like a toxin or a poison. The thing is pretty much everything metabolically damages our bodies. Oxygen reeks absolute havoc on our bodies, but its not "toxic" nor is it a "poison". To be toxic or a poison means a specific interaction, a mechanism of action that leads to specific damage not just wear and tear.
Let me use a car as an analogy because I think people are more comfortable with the concepts behind a car engine than they are with the metabolic functions of our bodies.
A car runs on gasoline. That gasoline is taken into the cars engine where it is ignited and explodes. This explosion leaves residues on the parts of the engine, causes general wear, and eventually the engine will fail. Is gasoline a "poison" or a "toxin" to the car? No, of course not. Lets say you put sugar into the cars gastank and when that is taken into the engine it causes abrupt and sudden damage that requires immediate repair...now we are talking about a poison (or a toxin).
You might argue that fructose causes damage to a human body in the way that gasoline causes damage to a car, but that doesn't make it toxic man. I don't know where you are getting that from and I really highly doubt you can point to any science text or any scientifically published paper or any scientific organizations website that would say that fructose is "toxic" or a poison or a toxin. Frankly I think you are just saying that over time consumption of fructose (or really any carbohydrate) puts stress on our liver much the same way gasoline puts stress on a car engine but you are choosing words that are more dramatic despite the fact that by choosing those words you are now just incorrect because the words you are using don't have the meanings that you are attempting to use them for.
So to boil it down, basically what you're saying is that all the fructose talk is grossly overhyped scaremongering which has no basic in biological science? Because that's pretty much what I've thought all along, just glad to see it confirmed by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
Well that is what some organizations want you to believe. It interferes with profit if you understand what you eat can actually be harmful.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
ADME PK is typically performed on small molecule drugs which are orally bioavailable and do not undergo rapid metabolism. A is for asbsorption and relates to the ability of the compound to transfer from a mucosal layer such as the intestine into the blood stream for distribution. Aspartame, as an example, is not absorbed into the blood. The M in ADME is for metabolism, related to if the compound is broken down in our body or remains intact. Aspartame, as an example, is rapidly broken down into components of phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol. Di is for distribution, which is the ability of the compound to be distrubuted to different tissues via the blood. For aspartame it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is no "D". E is for excretion, the removal of the compound from the blood to be excreted by the body and works in opposition to distribution. Again, for aspartame, it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is nothing to excrete. Finally PK is the summation of ADME plus seeing what peak levels compound reaches in the blood or in target tissues and how long that is sustained. Of course, in the case of aspartame, can't really do PK given its just immediately broken down.
Aspartame, and the other commonly used artificial sweetners, are metabolically labile and are quickly broken down in our bodies. There is nothing to study in terms of PK so not sure what you are really asking here.
Clearly you have a much deeper knowledge of the this subject area. My comment was from why some doctors say they can't take a position of the artificial sweeteners. At least with some discussions I've listened too. I don't have references because I didn't keep notes about it at the time because my concern was other topics. I can't deeply debate the merits because my background isn't strong. I'm merely accepting the expertise of others.
There literally dozens of artificial sweeteners, although many are uncommon. In my mind the main saving grace of these compounds is that they are typically many times sweeter than even fructose, so very little of the compounds are used. There are even many acute toxins we use routinely with good results. So in fact I'm not overly concerned with the toxicity. However I think it wise to keep an mind open about that. It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets. For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day. I actually think artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to refined sugars.
I personally do us a small amount of some artificial sweeteners, although since cutting back on sugar I surprising find myself comsuming much fewer things that contain them. My perception of sweet has been changing. In fact I've found myself being turned off by some things that are just too sweet.
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.
It really seems like you are spiting hairs here. Perhaps you would prefer fructose is a dosage dependent hepatic chronic poison. That actually sounds worse in some ways. Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. Your poor billionaire is just a oxymoron and really doesn't apply in this case or even make sense. The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science. Perhaps the verbal usages of the term is just more casual. What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?
Viewing it that way wouldn't anything your liver has to process be considered a hepatic chronic poison? What makes fructose more of a hepatic chronic poison than say lactose or galactose or glycogen of any variety?
:"Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. " Yes, their is the actual definition of the word and then there is the popularization of the word in common use in various blogs and websites on the internet that runs contrary to the actual definition. Toxin is a scientific term, it has a specific meaning...the public misusing the term doesn't somehow give it a new meaning it just means the public is misusing the term. They are treating it like toxin means something that is toxic and thats not what it means. I get that that is an easy mistake to make but its still a mistake.
Yes, poor billionaire is an oxymoron....so is chronic toxin. Chronic toxin makes as much sense as poor billionaire because billionaires are rich and toxins are acute poisons that are metabolic products of living organisms. There are no poor billionaies, there are no chronic toxins. That was my point.
"The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science."
What science? The links you provided at no point refered to fructose as a toxin nor as being toxic, you just kind of claimed that yourself. Can you perhaps link to something that says straight out that fructose is toxic?
If fructose was toxic then eating apples would be deadly. I don't really think that the "science is behind the controversy" on that one.
"What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?" Well frankly I wouldn't because I don't think that fructose is toxic. But lets see I can pick something that is toxic like cyanide. Cyanide is an element, it can be found in plants (it is concentrated in natural almonds) but it isn't a metabolic product of plants so it isn't a toxin. I'd think in the case of cyanide that poison would be the appropriate term.
What you seem to be doing is conflating things that might damage our bodies long term and expecting them to be called something like a toxin or a poison. The thing is pretty much everything metabolically damages our bodies. Oxygen reeks absolute havoc on our bodies, but its not "toxic" nor is it a "poison". To be toxic or a poison means a specific interaction, a mechanism of action that leads to specific damage not just wear and tear.
Let me use a car as an analogy because I think people are more comfortable with the concepts behind a car engine than they are with the metabolic functions of our bodies.
A car runs on gasoline. That gasoline is taken into the cars engine where it is ignited and explodes. This explosion leaves residues on the parts of the engine, causes general wear, and eventually the engine will fail. Is gasoline a "poison" or a "toxin" to the car? No, of course not. Lets say you put sugar into the cars gastank and when that is taken into the engine it causes abrupt and sudden damage that requires immediate repair...now we are talking about a poison (or a toxin).
You might argue that fructose causes damage to a human body in the way that gasoline causes damage to a car, but that doesn't make it toxic man. I don't know where you are getting that from and I really highly doubt you can point to any science text or any scientifically published paper or any scientific organizations website that would say that fructose is "toxic" or a poison or a toxin. Frankly I think you are just saying that over time consumption of fructose (or really any carbohydrate) puts stress on our liver much the same way gasoline puts stress on a car engine but you are choosing words that are more dramatic despite the fact that by choosing those words you are now just incorrect because the words you are using don't have the meanings that you are attempting to use them for.
So to boil it down, basically what you're saying is that all the fructose talk is grossly overhyped scaremongering which has no basic in biological science? Because that's pretty much what I've thought all along, just glad to see it confirmed by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
Well that is what some organizations want you to believe. It interferes with profit if you understand what you eat can actually be harmful.
I can't dismiss scientifically established facts in the name of a conspiracy theory that easily. If I have feelz and science proves otherwise, I'm open to changing my point of view. Guess I'm just not the True Believer sort.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
ADME PK is typically performed on small molecule drugs which are orally bioavailable and do not undergo rapid metabolism. A is for asbsorption and relates to the ability of the compound to transfer from a mucosal layer such as the intestine into the blood stream for distribution. Aspartame, as an example, is not absorbed into the blood. The M in ADME is for metabolism, related to if the compound is broken down in our body or remains intact. Aspartame, as an example, is rapidly broken down into components of phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol. Di is for distribution, which is the ability of the compound to be distrubuted to different tissues via the blood. For aspartame it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is no "D". E is for excretion, the removal of the compound from the blood to be excreted by the body and works in opposition to distribution. Again, for aspartame, it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is nothing to excrete. Finally PK is the summation of ADME plus seeing what peak levels compound reaches in the blood or in target tissues and how long that is sustained. Of course, in the case of aspartame, can't really do PK given its just immediately broken down.
Aspartame, and the other commonly used artificial sweetners, are metabolically labile and are quickly broken down in our bodies. There is nothing to study in terms of PK so not sure what you are really asking here.
Clearly you have a much deeper knowledge of the this subject area. My comment was from why some doctors say they can't take a position of the artificial sweeteners. At least with some discussions I've listened too. I don't have references because I didn't keep notes about it at the time because my concern was other topics. I can't deeply debate the merits because my background isn't strong. I'm merely accepting the expertise of others.
There literally dozens of artificial sweeteners, although many are uncommon. In my mind the main saving grace of these compounds is that they are typically many times sweeter than even fructose, so very little of the compounds are used. There are even many acute toxins we use routinely with good results. So in fact I'm not overly concerned with the toxicity. However I think it wise to keep an mind open about that. It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets. For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day. I actually think artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to refined sugars.
I personally do us a small amount of some artificial sweeteners, although since cutting back on sugar I surprising find myself comsuming much fewer things that contain them. My perception of sweet has been changing. In fact I've found myself being turned off by some things that are just too sweet.
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.
It really seems like you are spiting hairs here. Perhaps you would prefer fructose is a dosage dependent hepatic chronic poison. That actually sounds worse in some ways. Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. Your poor billionaire is just a oxymoron and really doesn't apply in this case or even make sense. The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science. Perhaps the verbal usages of the term is just more casual. What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?
Viewing it that way wouldn't anything your liver has to process be considered a hepatic chronic poison? What makes fructose more of a hepatic chronic poison than say lactose or galactose or glycogen of any variety?
:"Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. " Yes, their is the actual definition of the word and then there is the popularization of the word in common use in various blogs and websites on the internet that runs contrary to the actual definition. Toxin is a scientific term, it has a specific meaning...the public misusing the term doesn't somehow give it a new meaning it just means the public is misusing the term. They are treating it like toxin means something that is toxic and thats not what it means. I get that that is an easy mistake to make but its still a mistake.
Yes, poor billionaire is an oxymoron....so is chronic toxin. Chronic toxin makes as much sense as poor billionaire because billionaires are rich and toxins are acute poisons that are metabolic products of living organisms. There are no poor billionaies, there are no chronic toxins. That was my point.
"The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science."
What science? The links you provided at no point refered to fructose as a toxin nor as being toxic, you just kind of claimed that yourself. Can you perhaps link to something that says straight out that fructose is toxic?
If fructose was toxic then eating apples would be deadly. I don't really think that the "science is behind the controversy" on that one.
"What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?" Well frankly I wouldn't because I don't think that fructose is toxic. But lets see I can pick something that is toxic like cyanide. Cyanide is an element, it can be found in plants (it is concentrated in natural almonds) but it isn't a metabolic product of plants so it isn't a toxin. I'd think in the case of cyanide that poison would be the appropriate term.
What you seem to be doing is conflating things that might damage our bodies long term and expecting them to be called something like a toxin or a poison. The thing is pretty much everything metabolically damages our bodies. Oxygen reeks absolute havoc on our bodies, but its not "toxic" nor is it a "poison". To be toxic or a poison means a specific interaction, a mechanism of action that leads to specific damage not just wear and tear.
Let me use a car as an analogy because I think people are more comfortable with the concepts behind a car engine than they are with the metabolic functions of our bodies.
A car runs on gasoline. That gasoline is taken into the cars engine where it is ignited and explodes. This explosion leaves residues on the parts of the engine, causes general wear, and eventually the engine will fail. Is gasoline a "poison" or a "toxin" to the car? No, of course not. Lets say you put sugar into the cars gastank and when that is taken into the engine it causes abrupt and sudden damage that requires immediate repair...now we are talking about a poison (or a toxin).
You might argue that fructose causes damage to a human body in the way that gasoline causes damage to a car, but that doesn't make it toxic man. I don't know where you are getting that from and I really highly doubt you can point to any science text or any scientifically published paper or any scientific organizations website that would say that fructose is "toxic" or a poison or a toxin. Frankly I think you are just saying that over time consumption of fructose (or really any carbohydrate) puts stress on our liver much the same way gasoline puts stress on a car engine but you are choosing words that are more dramatic despite the fact that by choosing those words you are now just incorrect because the words you are using don't have the meanings that you are attempting to use them for.
So to boil it down, basically what you're saying is that all the fructose talk is grossly overhyped scaremongering which has no basic in biological science? Because that's pretty much what I've thought all along, just glad to see it confirmed by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
Well that is what some organizations want you to believe. It interferes with profit if you understand what you eat can actually be harmful.
Yeah okay that is sort of a conversation ender for me. Basically what you are saying here is that if any evidence is presented that contridicts your beliefs you will attribute the source of that evidence to some shadow organization conspiracy and dismiss it so as to continue believing what you believe.
So really why do you bother even talking about it? I don't see the purpose in continuing.21 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
ADME PK is typically performed on small molecule drugs which are orally bioavailable and do not undergo rapid metabolism. A is for asbsorption and relates to the ability of the compound to transfer from a mucosal layer such as the intestine into the blood stream for distribution. Aspartame, as an example, is not absorbed into the blood. The M in ADME is for metabolism, related to if the compound is broken down in our body or remains intact. Aspartame, as an example, is rapidly broken down into components of phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol. Di is for distribution, which is the ability of the compound to be distrubuted to different tissues via the blood. For aspartame it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is no "D". E is for excretion, the removal of the compound from the blood to be excreted by the body and works in opposition to distribution. Again, for aspartame, it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is nothing to excrete. Finally PK is the summation of ADME plus seeing what peak levels compound reaches in the blood or in target tissues and how long that is sustained. Of course, in the case of aspartame, can't really do PK given its just immediately broken down.
Aspartame, and the other commonly used artificial sweetners, are metabolically labile and are quickly broken down in our bodies. There is nothing to study in terms of PK so not sure what you are really asking here.
Clearly you have a much deeper knowledge of the this subject area. My comment was from why some doctors say they can't take a position of the artificial sweeteners. At least with some discussions I've listened too. I don't have references because I didn't keep notes about it at the time because my concern was other topics. I can't deeply debate the merits because my background isn't strong. I'm merely accepting the expertise of others.
There literally dozens of artificial sweeteners, although many are uncommon. In my mind the main saving grace of these compounds is that they are typically many times sweeter than even fructose, so very little of the compounds are used. There are even many acute toxins we use routinely with good results. So in fact I'm not overly concerned with the toxicity. However I think it wise to keep an mind open about that. It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets. For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day. I actually think artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to refined sugars.
I personally do us a small amount of some artificial sweeteners, although since cutting back on sugar I surprising find myself comsuming much fewer things that contain them. My perception of sweet has been changing. In fact I've found myself being turned off by some things that are just too sweet.
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.
It really seems like you are spiting hairs here. Perhaps you would prefer fructose is a dosage dependent hepatic chronic poison. That actually sounds worse in some ways. Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. Your poor billionaire is just a oxymoron and really doesn't apply in this case or even make sense. The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science. Perhaps the verbal usages of the term is just more casual. What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?
Viewing it that way wouldn't anything your liver has to process be considered a hepatic chronic poison? What makes fructose more of a hepatic chronic poison than say lactose or galactose or glycogen of any variety?
:"Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. " Yes, their is the actual definition of the word and then there is the popularization of the word in common use in various blogs and websites on the internet that runs contrary to the actual definition. Toxin is a scientific term, it has a specific meaning...the public misusing the term doesn't somehow give it a new meaning it just means the public is misusing the term. They are treating it like toxin means something that is toxic and thats not what it means. I get that that is an easy mistake to make but its still a mistake.
Yes, poor billionaire is an oxymoron....so is chronic toxin. Chronic toxin makes as much sense as poor billionaire because billionaires are rich and toxins are acute poisons that are metabolic products of living organisms. There are no poor billionaies, there are no chronic toxins. That was my point.
"The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science."
What science? The links you provided at no point refered to fructose as a toxin nor as being toxic, you just kind of claimed that yourself. Can you perhaps link to something that says straight out that fructose is toxic?
If fructose was toxic then eating apples would be deadly. I don't really think that the "science is behind the controversy" on that one.
"What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?" Well frankly I wouldn't because I don't think that fructose is toxic. But lets see I can pick something that is toxic like cyanide. Cyanide is an element, it can be found in plants (it is concentrated in natural almonds) but it isn't a metabolic product of plants so it isn't a toxin. I'd think in the case of cyanide that poison would be the appropriate term.
What you seem to be doing is conflating things that might damage our bodies long term and expecting them to be called something like a toxin or a poison. The thing is pretty much everything metabolically damages our bodies. Oxygen reeks absolute havoc on our bodies, but its not "toxic" nor is it a "poison". To be toxic or a poison means a specific interaction, a mechanism of action that leads to specific damage not just wear and tear.
Let me use a car as an analogy because I think people are more comfortable with the concepts behind a car engine than they are with the metabolic functions of our bodies.
A car runs on gasoline. That gasoline is taken into the cars engine where it is ignited and explodes. This explosion leaves residues on the parts of the engine, causes general wear, and eventually the engine will fail. Is gasoline a "poison" or a "toxin" to the car? No, of course not. Lets say you put sugar into the cars gastank and when that is taken into the engine it causes abrupt and sudden damage that requires immediate repair...now we are talking about a poison (or a toxin).
You might argue that fructose causes damage to a human body in the way that gasoline causes damage to a car, but that doesn't make it toxic man. I don't know where you are getting that from and I really highly doubt you can point to any science text or any scientifically published paper or any scientific organizations website that would say that fructose is "toxic" or a poison or a toxin. Frankly I think you are just saying that over time consumption of fructose (or really any carbohydrate) puts stress on our liver much the same way gasoline puts stress on a car engine but you are choosing words that are more dramatic despite the fact that by choosing those words you are now just incorrect because the words you are using don't have the meanings that you are attempting to use them for.
So to boil it down, basically what you're saying is that all the fructose talk is grossly overhyped scaremongering which has no basic in biological science? Because that's pretty much what I've thought all along, just glad to see it confirmed by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
Well that is what some organizations want you to believe. It interferes with profit if you understand what you eat can actually be harmful.
Using that rationale, how do you know that anything you eat or drink is safe for you? I mean after all, anything and everything could have a shadow organization with a secret agenda to poison/kill mankind behind it. How do you determine who's telling the truth and who's not, since it's obvious that science isn't considered a valid criteria.
Now I'm honestly starting to believe that you're just yanking our chains.10 -
tamms_1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How are you defining "processed"? People so often seem to define it in unusual, counterintuitive ways.
Anyway, I don't really drink diet coke at the moment (cutting down on caffeine and coffee is my preferred source), but have gone off and on, and absolutely zero problems quitting snacking when I was drinking an occasional diet soda. If anything it was an easy and satisfying replacement for a snack if I wanted something between meals (so is coffee).
I should have stated "ultraprocessed," because technically processed can mean just cooking something.
Yeah, getting people to clarify this is my version of tilting at windmills, because I see "processed" used incorrectly all the time, and as if it were a synonym for unhealthy.
I'm a fan of whole foods for my own reasons, and think for many people cooking from whole foods will be tastier and make eating well easier, but I also understand why some use more convenience foods than I do and hate the way that not eating them gets used as an "I care more about nutrition than you" kind of thing. Not saying you were doing this -- I've just seen it on MFP, and I also live in a neighborhood/sub-culture where being into local, seasonal, artisan, foodie blah blah (which others would think I fall into too, probably) is extremely commonplace, so I have a contrarian impulse against it.
Anyway, even apart from foods we process ourselves, I think most people can acknowledge that there are nutritional benefits from many "processed" foods (smoked salmon and greek yogurt are two of my favorites), that ultra processed foods can be helpful to people, especially as a once in a while thing or supplement, and that others (like store-bought ice cream or gelato) may have a place in moderation in an overall healthful diet.
On your own list, to take just one bit, I don't buy canned soup or lunch meat either (not really something I gave up, just not my thing), but I do buy canned tomatoes and would defend that as in many ways a better choice than "fresh" out of season, when they are tasteless.
Of course, if I weren't lazy I'd can my own, I've got millions at the moment, but haven't learned, no time to do so currently, and so it remains a "maybe next year" project!
I have basically cut out diet soda as noted above (trying to cut back on caffeine and prefer other drinks that happen not to have artificial sweeteners, not because of aspertame). Sadly, none of the magic weight loss some seem to experience. ;-( (Luckily I was not expecting it.)3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
...
Clearly you have a much deeper knowledge of the this subject area. My comment was from why some doctors say they can't take a position of the artificial sweeteners. At least with some discussions I've listened too. I don't have references because I didn't keep notes about it at the time because my concern was other topics. I can't deeply debate the merits because my background isn't strong. I'm merely accepting the expertise of others.
There literally dozens of artificial sweeteners, although many are uncommon. In my mind the main saving grace of these compounds is that they are typically many times sweeter than even fructose, so very little of the compounds are used. There are even many acute toxins we use routinely with good results. So in fact I'm not overly concerned with the toxicity. However I think it wise to keep an mind open about that. It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets. For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day. I actually think artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to refined sugars.
I personally do us a small amount of some artificial sweeteners, although since cutting back on sugar I surprising find myself comsuming much fewer things that contain them. My perception of sweet has been changing. In fact I've found myself being turned off by some things that are just too sweet.
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.
It really seems like you are spiting hairs here. Perhaps you would prefer fructose is a dosage dependent hepatic chronic poison. That actually sounds worse in some ways. Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. Your poor billionaire is just a oxymoron and really doesn't apply in this case or even make sense. The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science. Perhaps the verbal usages of the term is just more casual. What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?
Viewing it that way wouldn't anything your liver has to process be considered a hepatic chronic poison? What makes fructose more of a hepatic chronic poison than say lactose or galactose or glycogen of any variety?
:"Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. " Yes, their is the actual definition of the word and then there is the popularization of the word in common use in various blogs and websites on the internet that runs contrary to the actual definition. Toxin is a scientific term, it has a specific meaning...the public misusing the term doesn't somehow give it a new meaning it just means the public is misusing the term. They are treating it like toxin means something that is toxic and thats not what it means. I get that that is an easy mistake to make but its still a mistake.
Yes, poor billionaire is an oxymoron....so is chronic toxin. Chronic toxin makes as much sense as poor billionaire because billionaires are rich and toxins are acute poisons that are metabolic products of living organisms. There are no poor billionaies, there are no chronic toxins. That was my point.
"The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science."
What science? The links you provided at no point refered to fructose as a toxin nor as being toxic, you just kind of claimed that yourself. Can you perhaps link to something that says straight out that fructose is toxic?
If fructose was toxic then eating apples would be deadly. I don't really think that the "science is behind the controversy" on that one.
"What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?" Well frankly I wouldn't because I don't think that fructose is toxic. But lets see I can pick something that is toxic like cyanide. Cyanide is an element, it can be found in plants (it is concentrated in natural almonds) but it isn't a metabolic product of plants so it isn't a toxin. I'd think in the case of cyanide that poison would be the appropriate term.
What you seem to be doing is conflating things that might damage our bodies long term and expecting them to be called something like a toxin or a poison. The thing is pretty much everything metabolically damages our bodies. Oxygen reeks absolute havoc on our bodies, but its not "toxic" nor is it a "poison". To be toxic or a poison means a specific interaction, a mechanism of action that leads to specific damage not just wear and tear.
Let me use a car as an analogy because I think people are more comfortable with the concepts behind a car engine than they are with the metabolic functions of our bodies.
A car runs on gasoline. That gasoline is taken into the cars engine where it is ignited and explodes. This explosion leaves residues on the parts of the engine, causes general wear, and eventually the engine will fail. Is gasoline a "poison" or a "toxin" to the car? No, of course not. Lets say you put sugar into the cars gastank and when that is taken into the engine it causes abrupt and sudden damage that requires immediate repair...now we are talking about a poison (or a toxin).
You might argue that fructose causes damage to a human body in the way that gasoline causes damage to a car, but that doesn't make it toxic man. I don't know where you are getting that from and I really highly doubt you can point to any science text or any scientifically published paper or any scientific organizations website that would say that fructose is "toxic" or a poison or a toxin. Frankly I think you are just saying that over time consumption of fructose (or really any carbohydrate) puts stress on our liver much the same way gasoline puts stress on a car engine but you are choosing words that are more dramatic despite the fact that by choosing those words you are now just incorrect because the words you are using don't have the meanings that you are attempting to use them for.
So to boil it down, basically what you're saying is that all the fructose talk is grossly overhyped scaremongering which has no basic in biological science? Because that's pretty much what I've thought all along, just glad to see it confirmed by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
Well that is what some organizations want you to believe. It interferes with profit if you understand what you eat can actually be harmful.
Yeah okay that is sort of a conversation ender for me. Basically what you are saying here is that if any evidence is presented that contridicts your beliefs you will attribute the source of that evidence to some shadow organization conspiracy and dismiss it so as to continue believing what you believe.
So really why do you bother even talking about it? I don't see the purpose in continuing.
There isn't any point in continuing. There are two very different schools of thought on refined sugar. Studies funded by the American Beverage Association or food companies tend to downplay any harmful effects. These studies tend to push a "calorie is a calorie" concept, whatever that really means. Studies coming from other groups tend to show harmful effects related to refined sugar consumption. The fact that you don't even want to acknowledge that bias exists is a bit shocking. I may have overstated it a bit, but it is that doesn't mean it isn't real. We have seen this before with tobacco. I'm not claiming refined sugar is worse or better than tobacco, but there sure was a lot of biased science around tobacco and we are seeing the same around refined sugar.
Trying to label me with shadow organization conspiracy nonsense is an extreme overstatement on your part. I don't have an issue with you objecting to fructose being toxic. It took me a great deal of time to accept it myself and I only did so when I was able to verify first hand that cutting back on refined sugar really helped my health. I do have a bit of an issue with personal attacks.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
ADME PK is typically performed on small molecule drugs which are orally bioavailable and do not undergo rapid metabolism. A is for asbsorption and relates to the ability of the compound to transfer from a mucosal layer such as the intestine into the blood stream for distribution. Aspartame, as an example, is not absorbed into the blood. The M in ADME is for metabolism, related to if the compound is broken down in our body or remains intact. Aspartame, as an example, is rapidly broken down into components of phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol. Di is for distribution, which is the ability of the compound to be distrubuted to different tissues via the blood. For aspartame it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is no "D". E is for excretion, the removal of the compound from the blood to be excreted by the body and works in opposition to distribution. Again, for aspartame, it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is nothing to excrete. Finally PK is the summation of ADME plus seeing what peak levels compound reaches in the blood or in target tissues and how long that is sustained. Of course, in the case of aspartame, can't really do PK given its just immediately broken down.
Aspartame, and the other commonly used artificial sweetners, are metabolically labile and are quickly broken down in our bodies. There is nothing to study in terms of PK so not sure what you are really asking here.
...
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.
It really seems like you are spiting hairs here. Perhaps you would prefer fructose is a dosage dependent hepatic chronic poison. That actually sounds worse in some ways. Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. Your poor billionaire is just a oxymoron and really doesn't apply in this case or even make sense. The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science. Perhaps the verbal usages of the term is just more casual. What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?
Viewing it that way wouldn't anything your liver has to process be considered a hepatic chronic poison? What makes fructose more of a hepatic chronic poison than say lactose or galactose or glycogen of any variety?
:"Not to create a debate but there does seem to be a multiple definitions of toxins in use. " Yes, their is the actual definition of the word and then there is the popularization of the word in common use in various blogs and websites on the internet that runs contrary to the actual definition. Toxin is a scientific term, it has a specific meaning...the public misusing the term doesn't somehow give it a new meaning it just means the public is misusing the term. They are treating it like toxin means something that is toxic and thats not what it means. I get that that is an easy mistake to make but its still a mistake.
Yes, poor billionaire is an oxymoron....so is chronic toxin. Chronic toxin makes as much sense as poor billionaire because billionaires are rich and toxins are acute poisons that are metabolic products of living organisms. There are no poor billionaies, there are no chronic toxins. That was my point.
"The toxic effects of fructose are real as reveled my current science."
What science? The links you provided at no point refered to fructose as a toxin nor as being toxic, you just kind of claimed that yourself. Can you perhaps link to something that says straight out that fructose is toxic?
If fructose was toxic then eating apples would be deadly. I don't really think that the "science is behind the controversy" on that one.
"What term do you suggest to refer to the toxic effects of fructose?" Well frankly I wouldn't because I don't think that fructose is toxic. But lets see I can pick something that is toxic like cyanide. Cyanide is an element, it can be found in plants (it is concentrated in natural almonds) but it isn't a metabolic product of plants so it isn't a toxin. I'd think in the case of cyanide that poison would be the appropriate term.
What you seem to be doing is conflating things that might damage our bodies long term and expecting them to be called something like a toxin or a poison. The thing is pretty much everything metabolically damages our bodies. Oxygen reeks absolute havoc on our bodies, but its not "toxic" nor is it a "poison". To be toxic or a poison means a specific interaction, a mechanism of action that leads to specific damage not just wear and tear.
Let me use a car as an analogy because I think people are more comfortable with the concepts behind a car engine than they are with the metabolic functions of our bodies.
A car runs on gasoline. That gasoline is taken into the cars engine where it is ignited and explodes. This explosion leaves residues on the parts of the engine, causes general wear, and eventually the engine will fail. Is gasoline a "poison" or a "toxin" to the car? No, of course not. Lets say you put sugar into the cars gastank and when that is taken into the engine it causes abrupt and sudden damage that requires immediate repair...now we are talking about a poison (or a toxin).
You might argue that fructose causes damage to a human body in the way that gasoline causes damage to a car, but that doesn't make it toxic man. I don't know where you are getting that from and I really highly doubt you can point to any science text or any scientifically published paper or any scientific organizations website that would say that fructose is "toxic" or a poison or a toxin. Frankly I think you are just saying that over time consumption of fructose (or really any carbohydrate) puts stress on our liver much the same way gasoline puts stress on a car engine but you are choosing words that are more dramatic despite the fact that by choosing those words you are now just incorrect because the words you are using don't have the meanings that you are attempting to use them for.
So to boil it down, basically what you're saying is that all the fructose talk is grossly overhyped scaremongering which has no basic in biological science? Because that's pretty much what I've thought all along, just glad to see it confirmed by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
Well that is what some organizations want you to believe. It interferes with profit if you understand what you eat can actually be harmful.
Using that rationale, how do you know that anything you eat or drink is safe for you? I mean after all, anything and everything could have a shadow organization with a secret agenda to poison/kill mankind behind it. How do you determine who's telling the truth and who's not, since it's obvious that science isn't considered a valid criteria.
Now I'm honestly starting to believe that you're just yanking our chains.
You replied twice to the same post and consider me yanking your chain? When did I ever say anything about some secret agenda? If corporations don't exist to make money, what do they exist for?
Really it is pretty simple. If processed food has to be changed, remove the sugar, have more fiber ... that has huge negative impacts on the current processed food industry. There isn't any secrets about that. Nor even secrets about the lobbying for up to 25% of calories from sugar as being part of a well balanced diet.
However there is hope, it seems the government might be actually starting to take notice.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/07/federal-dietary-guidelines/77151060/
I hope it works out.0 -
When did I ever say anything about some secret agenda?
Right here:Well that is what some organizations want you to believe. It interferes with profit if you understand what you eat can actually be harmful.
You are saying their are "organizations" which know something is harmful but "want you to believe" that it is not because if you knew it was harmful it would "interfere with their profit". I presume they are not public about this "fact" and are therefore keeping it as part of their agenda secret. Hence you seem to believe that there organizations with a secret agenda which are controlling the flow of information and seem to use that as a justification to ignore certain pieces of information because they are clearly biased by said organization secret agenda.
Unless you have evidence of this what you have is a theory that there is some sort of conspiracy which is perhaps why it is sometimes referred to as a conspiracy theory.9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »When did I ever say anything about some secret agenda?
Right here:Well that is what some organizations want you to believe. It interferes with profit if you understand what you eat can actually be harmful.
You are saying their are "organizations" which know something is harmful but "want you to believe" that it is not because if you knew it was harmful it would "interfere with their profit". I presume they are not public about this "fact" and are therefore keeping it as part of their agenda secret. Hence you seem to believe that there organizations with a secret agenda which are controlling the flow of information and seem to use that as a justification to ignore certain pieces of information because they are clearly biased by said organization secret agenda.
Unless you have evidence of this what you have is a theory that there is some sort of conspiracy which is perhaps why it is sometimes referred to as a conspiracy theory.
As I already stated just read the some published studies that deal with the safety of sugar. There is no doubt about bias. I never claimed that organizations were working together as a conspiracy, although I guess that could be happening. That fact that there is more than one or two different parties in the studies makes it "some". The real problem is HFCS is very cheap and alternatives aren't. If there is any glue that holds organizations together, that is what it would be it. You are reading a lot more into my statement than what I said.
You are very persistent about this. Are you trying to claim there is never any bias in science?0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Honestly I wasn't even aware fructose concern was a thing. I mean people know thats the main sugar in all plant products right? The sweetness in all fruit is due to fructose. Are they advocating avoiding plants? I'm just not clear on what is being said. Yes, eating sugar or fat will put wear and tear on your liver...eating protein will do so on your kidneys. Eventually they will fail and you will die. Sorry for the bad news.
If its because of high fructose corn syrup I might be on board with the idea that overprocessing and refining sugar and having that as the main source of calories in a stripped down processed reductionist food is probably not healthy for reasons of calories to nutrition ratio and issues with obesity. But that has nothing to do with fructose, same would be true if you made a highly processed glucose syrup.
Actually how glucose is metabolized completely different than how fructose is metabolized. Glucose can be used by every cell in the body, fructose can't and has to be handled by the liver. That is why fructose and glucose cause completely different problems. High levels of glucose in the blood is a very serious problem. You don't have to call it toxic but it leads to loss of limbs, blindness, heart attack, organ failure and stroke. (Diabeties) However you are completely correct, both of these simple sugars can be problems in high amounts but for completely different reasons.
There is a relationship but it is more of one set of problems leading to the other. Additionally you don't have to consume glucose to have high levels of glucose since carbs mostly are made up of glucose and even if you don't have enough glucose the liver can produce glucose form other sources. Without glucose we die. Without fructose we are just fine. The sugars aren't the same to the body.0 -
This thread all of a sudden reminds me of when I was watching the Olympics with my 5 year old (who fancies himself to be pretty fast) when he boldly claimed that he could probably beat Usain Bolt if he ever got a chance to race him...20
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »tamms_1965 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »How are you defining "processed"? People so often seem to define it in unusual, counterintuitive ways.
Anyway, I don't really drink diet coke at the moment (cutting down on caffeine and coffee is my preferred source), but have gone off and on, and absolutely zero problems quitting snacking when I was drinking an occasional diet soda. If anything it was an easy and satisfying replacement for a snack if I wanted something between meals (so is coffee).
I should have stated "ultraprocessed," because technically processed can mean just cooking something.
Yeah, getting people to clarify this is my version of tilting at windmills, because I see "processed" used incorrectly all the time, and as if it were a synonym for unhealthy.
I'm a fan of whole foods for my own reasons, and think for many people cooking from whole foods will be tastier and make eating well easier, but I also understand why some use more convenience foods than I do and hate the way that not eating them gets used as an "I care more about nutrition than you" kind of thing. Not saying you were doing this -- I've just seen it on MFP, and I also live in a neighborhood/sub-culture where being into local, seasonal, artisan, foodie blah blah (which others would think I fall into too, probably) is extremely commonplace, so I have a contrarian impulse against it.
Anyway, even apart from foods we process ourselves, I think most people can acknowledge that there are nutritional benefits from many "processed" foods (smoked salmon and greek yogurt are two of my favorites), that ultra processed foods can be helpful to people, especially as a once in a while thing or supplement, and that others (like store-bought ice cream or gelato) may have a place in moderation in an overall healthful diet.
On your own list, to take just one bit, I don't buy canned soup or lunch meat either (not really something I gave up, just not my thing), but I do buy canned tomatoes and would defend that as in many ways a better choice than "fresh" out of season, when they are tasteless.
Of course, if I weren't lazy I'd can my own, I've got millions at the moment, but haven't learned, no time to do so currently, and so it remains a "maybe next year" project!
I have basically cut out diet soda as noted above (trying to cut back on caffeine and prefer other drinks that happen not to have artificial sweeteners, not because of aspertame). Sadly, none of the magic weight loss some seem to experience. ;-( (Luckily I was not expecting it.)
^^^ This....I buy canned tomatoes, etc. out of season as well. . . Not worth canning. I do can my pizza sauce, taco sauce, and other "specialty" goodies. But I, too, refuse to buy "fresh" tomatoes out of season ...blah! I started my shift because I enjoy food prep and cooking, and it slowly transformed into something much larger in our household. I still love an occasional "fried food" or Blizzard, but it's the exception now, not the norm.1 -
The best things to drink are water or sugarless iced tea. But if you like diet soda, drink it.
I call BS on these so-called studies that say it makes you fat, or it causes this disease or that disease. After gazillions of gallons of the stuff drank, by now we would have some clear evidence, just like we have clear evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. With diet soda, we don't.
I've also heard the "look at those obese people with all the diet soda in their shopping cart" line. Perhaps they drink diet soda because they don't want to get fatter?
Sometimes I wonder if these studies are bought and paid for by the sugar industry.7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Science is catching up with the controversy"
I'm going to go ahead and wait for it to catch up before I believe it then.
Science is behind schedule. Blame it on the grad students.
Nah, it's obviously [insert name of political ideology opposite of what you believe]'s fault.2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The best things to drink are water or sugarless iced tea. But if you like diet soda, drink it.
I call BS on these so-called studies that say it makes you fat, or it causes this disease or that disease. After gazillions of gallons of the stuff drank, by now we would have some clear evidence, just like we have clear evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. With diet soda, we don't.
I've also heard the "look at those obese people with all the diet soda in their shopping cart" line. Perhaps they drink diet soda because they don't want to get fatter?
Sometimes I wonder if these studies are bought and paid for by the sugar industry.
Studies paid for by The Sugar Association are declared, as required by law. They do not pay for results, but for research. These are two very different things. I have reviewed a fair number of original research papers funded by them as part of the peer review process, and others published in their technical journal.
The standards of rigor demanded for publication were and are equal to anything out of the Royal Chemical Society of the American Chemical Society, and superior to some other mainstream organisations and journals in my opinion. Their standards as funders of research likewise are modeled after and similar to other competitive grant-funding agencies.
As far as I'm aware, the anti-artificial sweetener movement is driven primarily by a combination of chemophobia and anti-corporation sentiment. These are not coming out of the sugar industry, which has a history going back as long as its been around of driving technical and scientific innovation. The sugar industry is in the receiving end of attacks from many of the same groups.
DISCLAIMER
I do not currently work for any sugar-related company, but I have in the past been a chemist at a sugar refinery, which was a cooperative owned wholly by the farmers who grew the sugar beets. My area of research expertise has centered on carbohydrate metabolism, and I have personally never been funded by The Sugar Association. My opinion is wholly my own based upon more than 20 years of professional experience.4 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The best things to drink are water or sugarless iced tea. But if you like diet soda, drink it.
I call BS on these so-called studies that say it makes you fat, or it causes this disease or that disease. After gazillions of gallons of the stuff drank, by now we would have some clear evidence, just like we have clear evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. With diet soda, we don't.
I've also heard the "look at those obese people with all the diet soda in their shopping cart" line. Perhaps they drink diet soda because they don't want to get fatter?
Sometimes I wonder if these studies are bought and paid for by the sugar industry.
Studies paid for by The Sugar Association are declared, as required by law. They do not pay for results, but for research. These are two very different things. I have reviewed a fair number of original research papers funded by them as part of the peer review process, and others published in their technical journal.
The standards of rigor demanded for publication were and are equal to anything out of the Royal Chemical Society of the American Chemical Society, and superior to some other mainstream organisations and journals in my opinion. Their standards as funders of research likewise are modeled after and similar to other competitive grant-funding agencies.
As far as I'm aware, the anti-artificial sweetener movement is driven primarily by a combination of chemophobia and anti-corporation sentiment. These are not coming out of the sugar industry, which has a history going back as long as its been around of driving technical and scientific innovation. The sugar industry is in the receiving end of attacks from many of the same groups.
DISCLAIMER
I do not currently work for any sugar-related company, but I have in the past been a chemist at a sugar refinery, which was a cooperative owned wholly by the farmers who grew the sugar beets. My area of research expertise has centered on carbohydrate metabolism, and I have personally never been funded by The Sugar Association. My opinion is wholly my own based upon more than 20 years of professional experience.
Thanks for the info!
Whoever funds these studies, I'm just not buying them. I want to see clear concrete evidence that diet soda drinking can lead to this disease or that disease.
Want to minimize your risk of lung cancer? Don't smoke. Want to minimize your risk of Type 2 diabetes or high cholesterol/heart disease? Be the right weight and exercise.
What exactly am I minimizing by not drinking diet soda? I'm all ears.2 -
Not sure about the science portion but just from personal experience I use to drink a diet soda or 2 or 3 everyday and now I completely cut out sugary drinks and my stomach feels so much less bloated0
-
kjerome101 wrote: »Not sure about the science portion but just from personal experience I use to drink a diet soda or 2 or 3 everyday and now I completely cut out sugary drinks and my stomach feels so much less bloated
I'm confused. Did you cut out diet soda or sugary drinks? Because there isn't sugar in diet soda...
Regardless, glad you are happy with the results!8 -
@Aaron_K123
Thank you for your contributions to the MFP forums.
Refreshing to read your logical, reasonable, insightful and science-based posts.
This place would be overrun with woo and primitive beliefs without people like you giving up their time.9 -
Do you want to know what else happens exclusively in the liver? Deamination of amino acids (any amino acid) to turn them into alpha-keto acid for further use, for example gluconeogenesis.
So of course, that means all protein is a toxin and the act of low carbing and bodybuilding is toxic on the body.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The best things to drink are water or sugarless iced tea. But if you like diet soda, drink it.
I call BS on these so-called studies that say it makes you fat, or it causes this disease or that disease. After gazillions of gallons of the stuff drank, by now we would have some clear evidence, just like we have clear evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. With diet soda, we don't.
I've also heard the "look at those obese people with all the diet soda in their shopping cart" line. Perhaps they drink diet soda because they don't want to get fatter?
Sometimes I wonder if these studies are bought and paid for by the sugar industry.
Studies paid for by The Sugar Association are declared, as required by law. They do not pay for results, but for research. These are two very different things. I have reviewed a fair number of original research papers funded by them as part of the peer review process, and others published in their technical journal.
The standards of rigor demanded for publication were and are equal to anything out of the Royal Chemical Society of the American Chemical Society, and superior to some other mainstream organisations and journals in my opinion. Their standards as funders of research likewise are modeled after and similar to other competitive grant-funding agencies.
As far as I'm aware, the anti-artificial sweetener movement is driven primarily by a combination of chemophobia and anti-corporation sentiment. These are not coming out of the sugar industry, which has a history going back as long as its been around of driving technical and scientific innovation. The sugar industry is in the receiving end of attacks from many of the same groups.
DISCLAIMER
I do not currently work for any sugar-related company, but I have in the past been a chemist at a sugar refinery, which was a cooperative owned wholly by the farmers who grew the sugar beets. My area of research expertise has centered on carbohydrate metabolism, and I have personally never been funded by The Sugar Association. My opinion is wholly my own based upon more than 20 years of professional experience.
Thanks for the info!
Whoever funds these studies, I'm just not buying them. I want to see clear concrete evidence that diet soda drinking can lead to this disease or that disease.
Want to minimize your risk of lung cancer? Don't smoke. Want to minimize your risk of Type 2 diabetes or high cholesterol/heart disease? Be the right weight and exercise.
What exactly am I minimizing by not drinking diet soda? I'm all ears.
I'm actually on your side. I have seen no convincing evidence that artificial sweeteners in general, and aspartame in particular, pose a health hazard in the human diet.1 -
As far as I can tell, it's never hurt my weight loss or maintenance. You know what's worse? Drinking a crap ton of sugar. That DOES affect me!!!
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions