If it's artificial,, it can't be great,,,right?

Marigolds333
Marigolds333 Posts: 5 Member
edited November 2024 in Food and Nutrition
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/artificial-sweeteners-weight-gain-link-research-health-issues-diabetes-a7844611.html
Just a very short article on artificial sweeteners. If it is artificial, it can't be that great,, right?
«1

Replies

  • jennybearlv
    jennybearlv Posts: 1,519 Member
    Define artificial.
  • Marigolds333
    Marigolds333 Posts: 5 Member
    But something that says artificial sounds...artificial. I don't know if a lot of people on here remember the margarine craze of the 1970's. That was supposed to be super healthy. If I am correct ( which I may not be...
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    Yeah. I grew up—and still am—strictly kosher. That's more than just not eating pork. It's also not mixing meat with dairy. So cooking with butter? A no-no if you're having meat on the same plate. Or if you want to eat dairy immediately after meat. So, for example, enjoy many baked goods that contain butter. Oil is not always a good substitute. For frying? Sure. For bread? Some cultures dunk it in olive oil instead of spreading it with butter. Not how I grew up, but I could get into that habit. But for creaming with sugar? Making a frosting? You need something butter-like and that's where margarine comes in.

    I'll say that I probably use margarine only where oil won't work in most cases, but that's more to deal with two factors:
    • IME, the majority of the kosher-certified margarines available in my area contain some dairy, which defeats my main purpose for using them.
    • Many of the brands that are non-dairy and kosher-certified also contain trans-fats. I think there's one that doesn't and I can't always find it.
  • StealthHealth
    StealthHealth Posts: 2,417 Member
    Posting @supaflyrobby1 's excellent reply from over on the http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10578250/artificial-sweeteners-dont-help-people-lose-weight-new-study#latest thread (which discusses the same study)
    supaflyrobby1 wrote: »
    OliveGirl128 wrote: »
    From the link-
    And observational data suggest that the people who regularly consume these sweeteners are also more likely to develop future health problems – though those studies can't say those problems are caused by the sweeteners.

    Not impressed :p

    Yeah, and the paper itself also makes no such claim (http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929) only points out what it admits is a weak correlation. NPR takes a far more embellished approach in it's article. It's roughly akin to saying something along the lines of "people who wear pinstripe suits are at higher risk of developing heart disease". While a meta-analysis might be able to point this out from a statistical standpoint, it's of extremely limited value because of it's ambiguity and inability to account for about a million other significant variables. Such is the case with this study.

  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Yeah, I hate artificial lighting.
  • OliveGirl128
    OliveGirl128 Posts: 801 Member
    edited July 2017
    dp
  • OliveGirl128
    OliveGirl128 Posts: 801 Member
    edited July 2017
    dp
  • nokanjaijo
    nokanjaijo Posts: 466 Member
    edited July 2017
    OliveGirl128 wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Marigolds333 wrote: »
    But something that says artificial sounds...artificial. I don't know if a lot of people on here remember the margarine craze of the 1970's. That was supposed to be super healthy. If I am correct ( which I may not be...

    The issue here isn't exactly that it's artificial, the issue is that it was new. That's true of artificial sweeteners, as well. A new substance is an unknown. We don't know if it's dangerous or not. Most of the research on the new substance will be funded by the people who stand to profit from it being deemed safe. So, a lot of research is dubious and unreliable, likely to be affected by things like the file drawer effect.

    So, the fact is that most newer artificial foodstuff are unknowns. Not necessarily bad and no necessarily good. Potentially dangerous.

    I don't use artificial sweeteners because I am not a lab rat. I am not a guinea pig. That's my stance. I feel the same about drugs, btw. I don't take any prescription drugs nor would I unless it passed a stern risk analysis. By which I mean, I would have to be facing some fairly certain adverse consequences if I didn't take the drug in order to take it.

    How are you defining 'new'? Because artificial sweeteners have been around for a long time, one since the 1800s :p

    eta: In case anyone is wondering-saccharin was first produced in 1879. Today you'll most likely recognize it for its little pink packets ie Sweet n' Low

    I'm defining it that way.

    To give you an example of something with a similar history, I don't take aspirin for a headache. I'd take it if I thought I was having a heart attack or something but not to treat inflammation. That's how I'm defining new.

    [edit] Margarine is also that old, btw.
  • OliveGirl128
    OliveGirl128 Posts: 801 Member
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    OliveGirl128 wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Marigolds333 wrote: »
    But something that says artificial sounds...artificial. I don't know if a lot of people on here remember the margarine craze of the 1970's. That was supposed to be super healthy. If I am correct ( which I may not be...

    The issue here isn't exactly that it's artificial, the issue is that it was new. That's true of artificial sweeteners, as well. A new substance is an unknown. We don't know if it's dangerous or not. Most of the research on the new substance will be funded by the people who stand to profit from it being deemed safe. So, a lot of research is dubious and unreliable, likely to be affected by things like the file drawer effect.

    So, the fact is that most newer artificial foodstuff are unknowns. Not necessarily bad and no necessarily good. Potentially dangerous.

    I don't use artificial sweeteners because I am not a lab rat. I am not a guinea pig. That's my stance. I feel the same about drugs, btw. I don't take any prescription drugs nor would I unless it passed a stern risk analysis. By which I mean, I would have to be facing some fairly certain adverse consequences if I didn't take the drug in order to take it.

    How are you defining 'new'? Because artificial sweeteners have been around for a long time, one since the 1800s :p

    eta: In case anyone is wondering-saccharin was first produced in 1879. Today you'll most likely recognize it for its little pink packets ie Sweet n' Low

    I'm defining it that way.

    To give you an example of something with a similar history, I don't take aspirin for a headache. I'd take it if I thought I was having a heart attack or something but not to treat inflammation. That's how I'm defining new.

    [edit] Margarine is also that old, btw.

    Well I use aspirin and artificial sweetener and margarine-I like to live on the wild side :D Crazy thing is I'm in excellent health by every marker that my Dr. uses and I'm also maintaining a healthy weight-in spite of my daily use of artificial sweetener, weekly use of margarine, and occasional use of aspirin, (I was taking aspirin daily to prevent another blood clot, per doctor's orders, but have since cut back to just using it when I get a headache, which is rare).

    To each their own though :)
  • OliveGirl128
    OliveGirl128 Posts: 801 Member
    edited July 2017
    dp
  • OliveGirl128
    OliveGirl128 Posts: 801 Member
    edited July 2017
    dumb glitch-it's posting all my responses 3 times argghhh!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Marigolds333 wrote: »
    But something that says artificial sounds...artificial. I don't know if a lot of people on here remember the margarine craze of the 1970's. That was supposed to be super healthy. If I am correct ( which I may not be...

    The issue here isn't exactly that it's artificial, the issue is that it was new. That's true of artificial sweeteners, as well. A new substance is an unknown. We don't know if it's dangerous or not. Most of the research on the new substance will be funded by the people who stand to profit from it being deemed safe. So, a lot of research is dubious and unreliable, likely to be affected by things like the file drawer effect.

    So, the fact is that most newer artificial foodstuff are unknowns. Not necessarily bad and no necessarily good. Potentially dangerous.

    I don't use artificial sweeteners because I am not a lab rat. I am not a guinea pig. That's my stance. I feel the same about drugs, btw. I don't take any prescription drugs nor would I unless it passed a stern risk analysis. By which I mean, I would have to be facing some fairly certain adverse consequences if I didn't take the drug in order to take it.

    Lol..."new"
  • OliveGirl128
    OliveGirl128 Posts: 801 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Marigolds333 wrote: »
    But something that says artificial sounds...artificial. I don't know if a lot of people on here remember the margarine craze of the 1970's. That was supposed to be super healthy. If I am correct ( which I may not be...

    The issue here isn't exactly that it's artificial, the issue is that it was new. That's true of artificial sweeteners, as well. A new substance is an unknown. We don't know if it's dangerous or not. Most of the research on the new substance will be funded by the people who stand to profit from it being deemed safe. So, a lot of research is dubious and unreliable, likely to be affected by things like the file drawer effect.

    So, the fact is that most newer artificial foodstuff are unknowns. Not necessarily bad and no necessarily good. Potentially dangerous.

    I don't use artificial sweeteners because I am not a lab rat. I am not a guinea pig. That's my stance. I feel the same about drugs, btw. I don't take any prescription drugs nor would I unless it passed a stern risk analysis. By which I mean, I would have to be facing some fairly certain adverse consequences if I didn't take the drug in order to take it.

    Lol..."new"

    Did you read the poster's follow up post, it explains a lot.....
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    But... aspirin isn't artificial.

    :::scratches head:::

    Editing to add that its use isn't new either. Willow tree leaves have been used for over 2,000 years.

    you beat me to it.
  • nokanjaijo
    nokanjaijo Posts: 466 Member
    My understanding is that the aspirin found in CVS is artificial. They don't use willow tree leaves to make it.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited July 2017
    Very sensible; much more so than the knee jerk "man-made is bad" or "post 1750 is bad" or whatever. I also like to focus on specific ingredients and not whether something is technically "processed" or "artificial" or the like.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,647 Member
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    For me, personally, I find that reducing the argument all the way down to "artificial must equal bad" becomes unhelpful. I prefer to focus on actual ingredients than throw out an entire category just because they weren't pulled directly from the Earth with your bare hands. There are some artificial things I eat and some I won't, but I know why I'm choosing them and what I'm looking for on a label.

    For instance, I'm convinced by the science that artificially made trans fats are probably bad for me and I avoid them (made easier by the fact that almost every manufacturer has removed them now).

    On the flip side, I've seen the studies for bacon as a carcinogen and while I believe the information is accurate, I don't think it's enough of a risk factor for me to worry about. I still eat bacon about as frequently as I did before.

    I don't like the taste of sucrose, so if I'm buying something like canned fruit I will opt for the kind packed in fruit juice instead of the "light" sucrose syrup variety. It's not that I don't trust sucrose, I just don't like it.

    On the flip side, I don't mind the taste of aspartame and I've seen the research on it. I know what my risks are and I'm not concerned about them for me personally. I have about one diet soda a day with my afternoon snack because I find it curbs my cravings and increases the chances that I'll stick to my diet.

    Knowing the risks of a particular food or ingredient, imo, is far far more important than fearing everything unnatural. I don't take a lot of painkillers, but I do take my allergy medicine and antidepressants because the risk vs. reward there makes sense for me. Another person might make different choices, but if they're informed choices and not just fear of the unnatural then great. We're all adults here.

    tl;dr: Information is good. Don't avoid it.

    For clarification: did you mean sucralose? Because that I avoid. Can't stand the aftertaste.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories