Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sweetener - Good or Bad?
Replies
-
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
You posted your unquantifiable anecdotes in a debate thread, but you don't want to argue, learn the basis for opposing views, review relevant science, or read the opinion of experts in the field? I'm not sure that is a good way to participate in a debate. Do you consider the vast body of decades worth of established science all invalid because it was biased? If so, how was it biased?
I posted PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. NOT "anecdotes".
Your personal experiences, which include no specific results, numbers, methods, or even a hypothesis, are by definition, unquantifiable anecdotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
By the way, glad to see you are arguing now
I don't need all that to know how it affects me. You may need to do all that to determine how you feel, but I'm pretty good at detecting when I feel sick.1 -
I'll say also, I meant to address but I did forget. I did not realize that was the debate forum until some one mentioned it. I rarely look at the forum title, I usually just look at the posts column. Yeah, I know. That makes me a rotten and despicable person. To err is human.0
-
No such thing. It's been cultivated from a source. Sugar doesn't grow from trees or underground.GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
You posted your unquantifiable anecdotes in a debate thread, but you don't want to argue, learn the basis for opposing views, review relevant science, or read the opinion of experts in the field? I'm not sure that is a good way to participate in a debate. Do you consider the vast body of decades worth of established science all invalid because it was biased? If so, how was it biased?
I posted PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. NOT "anecdotes".
Your personal experiences, which include no specific results, numbers, methods, or even a hypothesis, are by definition, unquantifiable anecdotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
By the way, glad to see you are arguing now
I don't need all that to know how it affects me. You may need to do all that to determine how you feel, but I'm pretty good at detecting when I feel sick.
Do you?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116212
They didn't.5 -
Where you get your information on aspartame matters. And many just get opinionated ones and not actual scientific info.I do have a taste for Diet Coke, but I'm trying to stop drinking it because it's sweetened with Aspartame, and it's supposed to be very bad for your insides when it's metabolised. I think the jury is out about Insulin response and Sweeteners, but a lot of main stream diets do say to avoid sweeteners because they `can' stall your progress. Best to try it and make your own mind up.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I find that in most of these debates that the people who believe artificial sweeteners are bad in some way are so firmly set in their beliefs that there's no point in discussing things further with them. I've seen the science, I'm convinced they're safe. I've been drinking diet soda since the 60's.
I have a place for regular sugar, sucralose, stevia, and xylitol in different places in my diet. I like them all for different things.
There are some others who think they are okay and so set in THEIR beliefs they refuse to believe that people who avoid them have had a bad reaction. This making them BAD for THAT person.
The only scientifically sound "bad" reaction to artificial sweeteners that I'm aware of is migraine for some migraneurs.
Other than that, I'm sorry, I have to go with the other posters that you're finding confirmation bias.4 -
I have tried all the artificial sweeteners and do not like the aftertaste of any of them. I prefer to include the calories in my daily allotment and use natural sweeteners, mostly honey or maple syrup.0
-
Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.
I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.9 -
Not to be nit-picky, but turbinado sugar is what you get when you crystallize sugar cane juice once.
White sugar (pure sucrose) is what you get when you crystallize sugar beet juice once.
In order to get pure sucrose (white sugar) from sugar cane, you have to run it through a bone char filter and crystallize it a second time. But it's not "less processed" or "more natural". It's ground up sugar cane that's been boiled and the sugar crystallized out.5 -
The only ones I like are Splenda and Stevia. I don't get the side effects or bad after taste with them. I also like that you can cook with it like actual sugar.0
-
I love me some stevia and whatever they use to make those flavor drops from My Protein0
-
GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artificial = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
For me, Artificial = Worse because it tastes nasty to me.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.
I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.
@Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.
I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.
@Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.
Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.11 -
I drink/eat sweeteners like Splenda and aspartame and don't see it as good or bad just... neutral. It's simply another tool in my arsenal that is used to meet my weight loss goals.2
-
I am trying to limit my sugar intake because they all affect me, even fruits and more natural sweeteners. The only stuff I have daily is some raw honey and a serving or two of fruit (although the last couple of days have been a lot more due to apple season starting lol). I have maple syrup or molasses once in a blue moon, and that's about it. I don't miss sweets at all; in fact the last time I tried a vanilla latte - one of my favorite drinks - I had to throw it away after two sips.0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.
I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.
@Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.
Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.
Sometimes I know I am wasting my time with a particular poster but respond for the benefit of others in the thread or lurkers.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.
I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.
@Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.
Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.
Sometimes I know I am wasting my time with a particular poster but respond for the benefit of others in the thread or lurkers.
I think that's a fair mindset, but it's absolutely up to each person to decide where to put their energy. There have been lots of threads I've skipped because I didn't want to spend time wading through them hoping to get through to someone. More power to you if that's what you choose, but I don't think you get to imply that's what the rest of us should be doing.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.
I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.
@Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.
Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.
Sometimes I know I am wasting my time with a particular poster but respond for the benefit of others in the thread or lurkers.
I think that's a fair mindset, but it's absolutely up to each person to decide where to put their energy. There have been lots of threads I've skipped because I didn't want to spend time wading through them hoping to get through to someone. More power to you if that's what you choose, but I don't think you get to imply that's what the rest of us should be doing.
Agreed! Especially when you feel like the other person is doing this:
6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.
I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.
@Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.
Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.
Sometimes I know I am wasting my time with a particular poster but respond for the benefit of others in the thread or lurkers.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice it gets tiring. I've learned from experience that if I just respond to absolutely everyone on this topic I burn myself out and end up stopping posting altogether. Better to pace myself I feel and not jump in when someone literally says they don't want to pay attention to that.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.
I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.
@Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.
Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.
Sometimes I know I am wasting my time with a particular poster but respond for the benefit of others in the thread or lurkers.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice it gets tiring. I've learned from experience that if I just respond to absolutely everyone on this topic I burn myself out and end up stopping posting altogether. Better to pace myself I feel and not jump in when someone literally says they don't want to pay attention to that.
We got your back
1 -
MeganMoroz89 wrote: »
No such thing. It's been cultivated from a source. Sugar doesn't grow from trees or underground.GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But there is a such thing called Sugar in the Raw, which is what I think they were talking about. We have some at our office right now, although in cubed form.
http://www.thekitchn.com/whats-the-difference-muscovado-145157
It's all sugar, even delicious, toffeeish muscavado. That turbanido looks indistinguishable from demerara, anyhow, and, apart from the depth of flavour which distinguishes it from the white stuff, it's still sticky and calorific and still adds just as many calories to the blueberry & banana muffins I make for the boys.3 -
And yeah, for the record, I think it's better to re-educate your palate than seek out sugar substitutes. Some taste better than others, but I prefer to avoid them all, unless I want some coke for my vodka.1
-
So in other words it's gone through no "processing"? The sugar comes from somewhere, usually a fruit or cane. It's then extracted. Just because it's called "sugar in the raw", doesn't mean it's "raw" sugar.MeganMoroz89 wrote: »
No such thing. It's been cultivated from a source. Sugar doesn't grow from trees or underground.GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But there is a such thing called Sugar in the Raw, which is what I think they were talking about. We have some at our office right now, although in cubed form.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
I don't know that there's much else that can be added to this conversation. I agree with many others that artificial sweeteners in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. If a particular person finds that a certain sweetener gives them migraines, it is "bad" only for that person, in the same way that peanuts are "bad" for a person with a peanut allergy but not for the population at large.
As a personal anecdote, I've been regularly ingesting aspartame for over 20 years - I started drinking Diet Coke as a kid. I've also been using Splenda (my sweetener of choice) in my coffee, cooking and baking for about 10 years. I find sweeteners a wonderful option for lowering calories without sacrificing the sweetness I love. All of this without any medical problems. Even as a migraine sufferer, I have not found aspartame consumption to be a precipitating event.
Do what works for you.3 -
I have to wonder if the people who avoid sweeteners also avoid foods that are smoked, charred, or cured. After all, sweeteners, perhaps the most studied food related chemicals in the world, have been showed by dozens of studies to be safe. Smoked, charred, and cured foods are *known* to contain carcinogens by virtue of being smoked. Thoughts?0
-
jaya_the_playa wrote: »I have to wonder if the people who avoid sweeteners also avoid foods that are smoked, charred, or cured. After all, sweeteners, perhaps the most studied food related chemicals in the world, have been showed by dozens of studies to be safe. Smoked, charred, and cured foods are *known* to contain carcinogens by virtue of being smoked. Thoughts?
I avoid smoked foods but drink diet soda daily.0 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
Why would you even ask that??
My first assumption when debating a topic and someone says "maybe we should call so and so" is that the person must know a lot about the topic, not that they would be coming to beat me up.ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
Nope. Not true at all.
Totally true depending on whom you ask. I say yes it's worse. The stomach problems and funky neurological side effects do not make artificial sweeteners in any way a good choice for me or my kids. The putrid after taste that doesn't go away for over 2 hours is also a massive annoyance.
Neurological side effects?
And is this something the general population has to worry about, or a select few, who should avoid consuming whatever it is causing their uncommon problem (similar to how someone allergic to peanuts should avoid peanuts)?
Sounds like unnecessary fear mongering to me.
I am not speaking for the population, I am speaking for myself. Hence the words "I say yes it's worse." Not "it's worse for us ALL." I did not attempt to apply this to everyone in any way.
So you and your children have suffered neurological side effects from ingesting artificial sweeteners?
I did and my child had a serious stomach problem that was caused by sucralose. So FOR US, we say it's worse than sugar. To each his or her own.
This was the official diagnosis? How was the doctor able to determine conclusively that sucralose was the cause?ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
You posted your unquantifiable anecdotes in a debate thread, but you don't want to argue, learn the basis for opposing views, review relevant science, or read the opinion of experts in the field? I'm not sure that is a good way to participate in a debate. Do you consider the vast body of decades worth of established science all invalid because it was biased? If so, how was it biased?
I posted PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. NOT "anecdotes".
You do realize that your personal experience is an anecdote, right?
an·ec·dote
ˈanəkˌdōt/
noun
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
"told anecdotes about his job"
synonyms: story, tale, narrative, incident9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I find that in most of these debates that the people who believe artificial sweeteners are bad in some way are so firmly set in their beliefs that there's no point in discussing things further with them. I've seen the science, I'm convinced they're safe. I've been drinking diet soda since the 60's.
I have a place for regular sugar, sucralose, stevia, and xylitol in different places in my diet. I like them all for different things.
There are some others who think they are okay and so set in THEIR beliefs they refuse to believe that people who avoid them have had a bad reaction. This making them BAD for THAT person.
The only scientifically sound "bad" reaction to artificial sweeteners that I'm aware of is migraine for some migraneurs.
Other than that, I'm sorry, I have to go with the other posters that you're finding confirmation bias.
I think the diahhroea (sp?) effect from some artificial sweeteners is scientifically backed too.
I have found this effect from sugar free lollies at any rate.
But I drink Pepsi Max and Diet coke with no ill effects - different sweetener I think?
Other than the 'ready made' artificial sweetener in diet sodas I dont use artificial sweeteners - not because I have anything against them but because I dont sweeten food much anyway - I have coffee unsweetened and a small teaspoon of sugar on my breakfast cereal.
A 1kg packet of sugar lasts me nearly a year.
(Yes I realise there is plenty of sugar in foods I eat - but I dont add sugar or sweetener.)
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I find that in most of these debates that the people who believe artificial sweeteners are bad in some way are so firmly set in their beliefs that there's no point in discussing things further with them. I've seen the science, I'm convinced they're safe. I've been drinking diet soda since the 60's.
I have a place for regular sugar, sucralose, stevia, and xylitol in different places in my diet. I like them all for different things.
There are some others who think they are okay and so set in THEIR beliefs they refuse to believe that people who avoid them have had a bad reaction. This making them BAD for THAT person.
The only scientifically sound "bad" reaction to artificial sweeteners that I'm aware of is migraine for some migraneurs.
Other than that, I'm sorry, I have to go with the other posters that you're finding confirmation bias.
I think the diahhroea (sp?) effect from some artificial sweeteners is scientifically backed too.
I have found this effect from sugar free lollies at any rate.
But I drink Pepsi Max and Diet coke with no ill effects - different sweetener I think?
Other than the 'ready made' artificial sweetener in diet sodas I dont use artificial sweeteners - not because I have anything against them but because I dont sweeten food much anyway - I have coffee unsweetened and a small teaspoon of sugar on my breakfast cereal.
A 1kg packet of sugar lasts me nearly a year.
(Yes I realise there is plenty of sugar in foods I eat - but I dont add sugar or sweetener.)
The diarrhea is from sugar alcohols not aspartame and sucrolose, etc.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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