Somebody lectured me about Splenda today
Options
Replies
-
NicoleHaki wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »jadkins389 wrote: »As a nutritionist I have to put my two cents in and say that research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss. Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such. Honey or Stevia are your best options for low-glycemic sweeteners. That being said, even as a nutritionist, we meet people where they are. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, and everyone is willing to sacrifice different things to achieve their goals.
Now as a human being, I must say it is completely inappropriate to confront a stranger in public telling them what they are doing "wrong". Even if you think you are "right", it is still just wrong.
Let me guess. You're a nutritionist, but not a dietitian, right?
I'm glad that the dietitian I see actually uses science, and not woo.
How is this not actual science? She's talking about glycemic indexes. Do you want her to pull some obscure study that took place over a course of months and use that as evidence for or against artificial sweeteners? What's wrong with using common sense?
Using science-y words is not what makes a conclusion "science".
Personally, I prefer sugar, because humans have been eating it and thriving (long enough to breed, at least), for hundreds to thousands of years. But not in coffee, because I think sweet coffee is yucky. Neither of those beliefs are science, either.
Again, what part of what she says do you find scientifically faulty? Do you disagree that some sweeteners have lower glycemic indexes than others?12 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
It's actually really easy to show that something causes harm.
What is hard is to prove that something doesn't cause harm.
It only takes about 5 or 6 samples to prove that getting punched in the face is bad for you.
Right I'm referring to the moral and ethical reasons why this type of research is not generally done. Using your example about getting punched in the face - is that a study you would want to conduct? Probably not, because it would be pretty unethical. We can instead use a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence to see that punching people in the face is generally something that should be avoided when possible. In the case of artificial sweeteners, we have something more than common sense, which is a robust body of correlational studies linking artificial sweeteners to health issues. That's good enough for me - again, I don't want to be the guinea pig who says I'll give artificial sweeteners a try until someone physically proves that it will definitely cause cancer or diabetes.
Except that EVERY SINGLE time. A blind study is done. the anecdotally reported claim that artificial sweeteners cause negative reactions. No reactions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/Double-blind trials have been carried out with aspartame at Duke University and in one of the best-designed of these studies, the effects of a single large dose of aspartame in people who had claimed to be sensitive to the substance was investigated. The results showed no difference in headache frequency, blood pressure, or blood histamine concentrations (a measure of the allergenic potential) between the experimental and control groupsIt is a fact that in large doses, methanol can lead to blindness and even to death. Methanol occurs naturally in foods. In fact, the “natural” methanol content of fruit juice is about 2.5 times higher than from aspartame-sweetened drinks. Even at the 99th percentile level of 34 mg per kg of body weight consumed per day, blood levels of methanol are undetectable.
So First, your claim that it's unethical. Tossed. Your claim that it can't or hasn't been. Tossed.
12 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
Please link the studies - the only studies that I have seen that show any evidence of these issues have been weak correlation studies that cannot show actual causal factors between the artificial sweeteners and the cancer/disease.
I am referring to the correlation studies. Last year, one found that new moms who reported consuming artificial sweeteners like Equal and Splenda during their pregnancies were twice as likely to have children who were overweight or obese within a year. Yes, this is a correlation study but that's probably a necessity for ethical reasons. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2521471
Again the type of research you're looking for would take years to conduct and it would also be pretty unethical. I hope no researchers out there are asking people to consume artificial sweeteners consistently for years and years to prove that it causes cancer and diabetes - that would be extraordinarily morally wrong.
Knowing what we do know (there are links between artificial sweeteners and a variety of serious health problems),we can all make decisions about what's important to us and where we want to compromise. I know people who smoke and drink knowing that these aren't good health choices, and that's their decision to make. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to consume artificial sweeteners knowing that at best, they aren't good for me, and at worst, they can cause serious health problems.
This has been done and is occurring on a daily basis in the REAL world - artificial sweeteners have been around for 50-60 years and outside of an occasional allergic reaction, the is not a single solitary piece of evidence that DIRECTLY shows any harm coming from their use.12 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »jadkins389 wrote: »As a nutritionist I have to put my two cents in and say that research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss. Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such. Honey or Stevia are your best options for low-glycemic sweeteners. That being said, even as a nutritionist, we meet people where they are. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, and everyone is willing to sacrifice different things to achieve their goals.
Now as a human being, I must say it is completely inappropriate to confront a stranger in public telling them what they are doing "wrong". Even if you think you are "right", it is still just wrong.
Let me guess. You're a nutritionist, but not a dietitian, right?
I'm glad that the dietitian I see actually uses science, and not woo.
How is this not actual science? She's talking about glycemic indexes. Do you want her to pull some obscure study that took place over a course of months and use that as evidence for or against artificial sweeteners? What's wrong with using common sense?
Because you're *not* using common sense. You're using woo.12 -
stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
Please link the studies - the only studies that I have seen that show any evidence of these issues have been weak correlation studies that cannot show actual causal factors between the artificial sweeteners and the cancer/disease.
I am referring to the correlation studies. Last year, one found that new moms who reported consuming artificial sweeteners like Equal and Splenda during their pregnancies were twice as likely to have children who were overweight or obese within a year. Yes, this is a correlation study but that's probably a necessity for ethical reasons. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2521471
Again the type of research you're looking for would take years to conduct and it would also be pretty unethical. I hope no researchers out there are asking people to consume artificial sweeteners consistently for years and years to prove that it causes cancer and diabetes - that would be extraordinarily morally wrong.
Knowing what we do know (there are links between artificial sweeteners and a variety of serious health problems),we can all make decisions about what's important to us and where we want to compromise. I know people who smoke and drink knowing that these aren't good health choices, and that's their decision to make. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to consume artificial sweeteners knowing that at best, they aren't good for me, and at worst, they can cause serious health problems.
It wouldn't be unethical, because artificial sweeteners are GRAS.
GRAS doesn't mean it wouldn't be unethical. There a variety of ingredients that are probably harmful that are considered GRAS - it's a pretty low bar. It can also be influenced by lobbyists. Check out this article: https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/23/fda-gras-rule-harmful/
From the article:
Even when the FDA has a concern about a chemical ingredient, the substance can still be used in food under the GRAS program....Conflicts of interest also permeate the GRAS determination procedure. Companies convene expert panels to make a determination on the safety of a new ingredient. But these panels often include company employees, company-paid experts, or experts identified by a consulting firm hired by the company. A 2010 report from the US Government Accountability Office concluded that business or financial affiliations could sway the decisions made on whether an ingredient should be generally recognized as safe.7 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »jadkins389 wrote: »As a nutritionist I have to put my two cents in and say that research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss. Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such. Honey or Stevia are your best options for low-glycemic sweeteners. That being said, even as a nutritionist, we meet people where they are. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, and everyone is willing to sacrifice different things to achieve their goals.
Now as a human being, I must say it is completely inappropriate to confront a stranger in public telling them what they are doing "wrong". Even if you think you are "right", it is still just wrong.
Let me guess. You're a nutritionist, but not a dietitian, right?
I'm glad that the dietitian I see actually uses science, and not woo.
How is this not actual science? She's talking about glycemic indexes. Do you want her to pull some obscure study that took place over a course of months and use that as evidence for or against artificial sweeteners? What's wrong with using common sense?
Common sense is not common and often doesn't make sense.9 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
Please link the studies - the only studies that I have seen that show any evidence of these issues have been weak correlation studies that cannot show actual causal factors between the artificial sweeteners and the cancer/disease.
I am referring to the correlation studies. Last year, one found that new moms who reported consuming artificial sweeteners like Equal and Splenda during their pregnancies were twice as likely to have children who were overweight or obese within a year. Yes, this is a correlation study but that's probably a necessity for ethical reasons. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2521471
Again the type of research you're looking for would take years to conduct and it would also be pretty unethical. I hope no researchers out there are asking people to consume artificial sweeteners consistently for years and years to prove that it causes cancer and diabetes - that would be extraordinarily morally wrong.
Knowing what we do know (there are links between artificial sweeteners and a variety of serious health problems),we can all make decisions about what's important to us and where we want to compromise. I know people who smoke and drink knowing that these aren't good health choices, and that's their decision to make. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to consume artificial sweeteners knowing that at best, they aren't good for me, and at worst, they can cause serious health problems.
Correlation is not causation.
People who drink water die.
Does that mean that drinking water will lead to death?14 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
It's actually really easy to show that something causes harm.
What is hard is to prove that something doesn't cause harm.
It only takes about 5 or 6 samples to prove that getting punched in the face is bad for you.
Right I'm referring to the moral and ethical reasons why this type of research is not generally done. Using your example about getting punched in the face - is that a study you would want to conduct? Probably not, because it would be pretty unethical. We can instead use a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence to see that punching people in the face is generally something that should be avoided when possible. In the case of artificial sweeteners, we have something more than common sense, which is a robust body of correlational studies linking artificial sweeteners to health issues. That's good enough for me - again, I don't want to be the guinea pig who says I'll give artificial sweeteners a try until someone physically proves that it will definitely cause cancer or diabetes.
So how does it work? It's a funny GIF but please feel free to vocalize any thoughts you might have!9 -
The key to using this line is saying it with sincerity and urgency: "Oh, please, stop right now. I am allergic to unsolicited advice. I have a very bad reaction to it." If they continue, you can always add, "I don't want anyone to go to the hospital today."21
-
stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
It's actually really easy to show that something causes harm.
What is hard is to prove that something doesn't cause harm.
It only takes about 5 or 6 samples to prove that getting punched in the face is bad for you.
Right I'm referring to the moral and ethical reasons why this type of research is not generally done. Using your example about getting punched in the face - is that a study you would want to conduct? Probably not, because it would be pretty unethical. We can instead use a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence to see that punching people in the face is generally something that should be avoided when possible. In the case of artificial sweeteners, we have something more than common sense, which is a robust body of correlational studies linking artificial sweeteners to health issues. That's good enough for me - again, I don't want to be the guinea pig who says I'll give artificial sweeteners a try until someone physically proves that it will definitely cause cancer or diabetes.
Except that EVERY SINGLE time. A blind study is done. the anecdotally reported claim that artificial sweeteners cause negative reactions. No reactions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/Double-blind trials have been carried out with aspartame at Duke University and in one of the best-designed of these studies, the effects of a single large dose of aspartame in people who had claimed to be sensitive to the substance was investigated. The results showed no difference in headache frequency, blood pressure, or blood histamine concentrations (a measure of the allergenic potential) between the experimental and control groupsIt is a fact that in large doses, methanol can lead to blindness and even to death. Methanol occurs naturally in foods. In fact, the “natural” methanol content of fruit juice is about 2.5 times higher than from aspartame-sweetened drinks. Even at the 99th percentile level of 34 mg per kg of body weight consumed per day, blood levels of methanol are undetectable.
So First, your claim that it's unethical. Tossed. Your claim that it can't or hasn't been. Tossed.
This is a literature review, not the type of study that would or has the potential to show a causal relationship between artificial sweeteners or illness.9 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
Please link the studies - the only studies that I have seen that show any evidence of these issues have been weak correlation studies that cannot show actual causal factors between the artificial sweeteners and the cancer/disease.
I am referring to the correlation studies. Last year, one found that new moms who reported consuming artificial sweeteners like Equal and Splenda during their pregnancies were twice as likely to have children who were overweight or obese within a year. Yes, this is a correlation study but that's probably a necessity for ethical reasons. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2521471
Again the type of research you're looking for would take years to conduct and it would also be pretty unethical. I hope no researchers out there are asking people to consume artificial sweeteners consistently for years and years to prove that it causes cancer and diabetes - that would be extraordinarily morally wrong.
Knowing what we do know (there are links between artificial sweeteners and a variety of serious health problems),we can all make decisions about what's important to us and where we want to compromise. I know people who smoke and drink knowing that these aren't good health choices, and that's their decision to make. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to consume artificial sweeteners knowing that at best, they aren't good for me, and at worst, they can cause serious health problems.
This has been done and is occurring on a daily basis in the REAL world - artificial sweeteners have been around for 50-60 years and outside of an occasional allergic reaction, the is not a single solitary piece of evidence that DIRECTLY shows any harm coming from their use.
Where has it been done? Would love to see this, by all means.7 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
It's actually really easy to show that something causes harm.
What is hard is to prove that something doesn't cause harm.
It only takes about 5 or 6 samples to prove that getting punched in the face is bad for you.
Right I'm referring to the moral and ethical reasons why this type of research is not generally done. Using your example about getting punched in the face - is that a study you would want to conduct? Probably not, because it would be pretty unethical. We can instead use a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence to see that punching people in the face is generally something that should be avoided when possible. In the case of artificial sweeteners, we have something more than common sense, which is a robust body of correlational studies linking artificial sweeteners to health issues. That's good enough for me - again, I don't want to be the guinea pig who says I'll give artificial sweeteners a try until someone physically proves that it will definitely cause cancer or diabetes.
So how does it work? It's a funny GIF but please feel free to vocalize any thoughts you might have!
There are large scale meta studies showing that there is NO harmful effects whatsoever. Again, your claim that there is a "robust body of studies" showing the opposite is plain false in the face of the actual facts.15 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »jadkins389 wrote: »As a nutritionist I have to put my two cents in and say that research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss. Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such. Honey or Stevia are your best options for low-glycemic sweeteners. That being said, even as a nutritionist, we meet people where they are. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, and everyone is willing to sacrifice different things to achieve their goals.
Now as a human being, I must say it is completely inappropriate to confront a stranger in public telling them what they are doing "wrong". Even if you think you are "right", it is still just wrong.
Let me guess. You're a nutritionist, but not a dietitian, right?
I'm glad that the dietitian I see actually uses science, and not woo.
How is this not actual science? She's talking about glycemic indexes. Do you want her to pull some obscure study that took place over a course of months and use that as evidence for or against artificial sweeteners? What's wrong with using common sense?
Using science-y words is not what makes a conclusion "science".
Personally, I prefer sugar, because humans have been eating it and thriving (long enough to breed, at least), for hundreds to thousands of years. But not in coffee, because I think sweet coffee is yucky. Neither of those beliefs are science, either.
Again, what part of what she says do you find scientifically faulty? Do you disagree that some sweeteners have lower glycemic indexes than others?
Pretty much all of it - especially the part where your body treats artificial sweeteners like sugar. As has been shown over and over and over, that's completely incorrect. As such, honey (aka sugar) would not be a lower-glycemic sweetener than an artificial sweetener. When the person gets basics wrong, you can't really take much of anything they say seriously.10 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
Please link the studies - the only studies that I have seen that show any evidence of these issues have been weak correlation studies that cannot show actual causal factors between the artificial sweeteners and the cancer/disease.
I am referring to the correlation studies. Last year, one found that new moms who reported consuming artificial sweeteners like Equal and Splenda during their pregnancies were twice as likely to have children who were overweight or obese within a year. Yes, this is a correlation study but that's probably a necessity for ethical reasons. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2521471
Again the type of research you're looking for would take years to conduct and it would also be pretty unethical. I hope no researchers out there are asking people to consume artificial sweeteners consistently for years and years to prove that it causes cancer and diabetes - that would be extraordinarily morally wrong.
Knowing what we do know (there are links between artificial sweeteners and a variety of serious health problems),we can all make decisions about what's important to us and where we want to compromise. I know people who smoke and drink knowing that these aren't good health choices, and that's their decision to make. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to consume artificial sweeteners knowing that at best, they aren't good for me, and at worst, they can cause serious health problems.
This has been done and is occurring on a daily basis in the REAL world - artificial sweeteners have been around for 50-60 years and outside of an occasional allergic reaction, the is not a single solitary piece of evidence that DIRECTLY shows any harm coming from their use.
Where has it been done? Would love to see this, by all means.
Since you missed the point, people all over the world are consuming artificial sweeteners every day and they are not dropping dead from their consumption. There is your test/proof/study that the artificial sweeteners do not cause problems!14 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
It's actually really easy to show that something causes harm.
What is hard is to prove that something doesn't cause harm.
It only takes about 5 or 6 samples to prove that getting punched in the face is bad for you.
Right I'm referring to the moral and ethical reasons why this type of research is not generally done. Using your example about getting punched in the face - is that a study you would want to conduct? Probably not, because it would be pretty unethical. We can instead use a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence to see that punching people in the face is generally something that should be avoided when possible. In the case of artificial sweeteners, we have something more than common sense, which is a robust body of correlational studies linking artificial sweeteners to health issues. That's good enough for me - again, I don't want to be the guinea pig who says I'll give artificial sweeteners a try until someone physically proves that it will definitely cause cancer or diabetes.
Except that EVERY SINGLE time. A blind study is done. the anecdotally reported claim that artificial sweeteners cause negative reactions. No reactions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/Double-blind trials have been carried out with aspartame at Duke University and in one of the best-designed of these studies, the effects of a single large dose of aspartame in people who had claimed to be sensitive to the substance was investigated. The results showed no difference in headache frequency, blood pressure, or blood histamine concentrations (a measure of the allergenic potential) between the experimental and control groupsIt is a fact that in large doses, methanol can lead to blindness and even to death. Methanol occurs naturally in foods. In fact, the “natural” methanol content of fruit juice is about 2.5 times higher than from aspartame-sweetened drinks. Even at the 99th percentile level of 34 mg per kg of body weight consumed per day, blood levels of methanol are undetectable.
So First, your claim that it's unethical. Tossed. Your claim that it can't or hasn't been. Tossed.
This is a literature review, not the type of study that would or has the potential to show a causal relationship between artificial sweeteners or illness.
Yes, and the literature review referencesDouble-blind trials have been carried out with aspartame at Duke University and in one of the best-designed of these studies, the effects of a single large dose of aspartame in people who had claimed to be sensitive to the substance was investigated. The results showed no difference in headache frequency, blood pressure, or blood histamine concentrations (a measure of the allergenic potential) between the experimental and control groups
So, the studies HAVE been done.
Try to keep up.
Since you were too lazy to click through
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/365788918 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
It's actually really easy to show that something causes harm.
What is hard is to prove that something doesn't cause harm.
It only takes about 5 or 6 samples to prove that getting punched in the face is bad for you.
Right I'm referring to the moral and ethical reasons why this type of research is not generally done. Using your example about getting punched in the face - is that a study you would want to conduct? Probably not, because it would be pretty unethical. We can instead use a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence to see that punching people in the face is generally something that should be avoided when possible. In the case of artificial sweeteners, we have something more than common sense, which is a robust body of correlational studies linking artificial sweeteners to health issues. That's good enough for me - again, I don't want to be the guinea pig who says I'll give artificial sweeteners a try until someone physically proves that it will definitely cause cancer or diabetes.
Except that EVERY SINGLE time. A blind study is done. the anecdotally reported claim that artificial sweeteners cause negative reactions. No reactions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/Double-blind trials have been carried out with aspartame at Duke University and in one of the best-designed of these studies, the effects of a single large dose of aspartame in people who had claimed to be sensitive to the substance was investigated. The results showed no difference in headache frequency, blood pressure, or blood histamine concentrations (a measure of the allergenic potential) between the experimental and control groupsIt is a fact that in large doses, methanol can lead to blindness and even to death. Methanol occurs naturally in foods. In fact, the “natural” methanol content of fruit juice is about 2.5 times higher than from aspartame-sweetened drinks. Even at the 99th percentile level of 34 mg per kg of body weight consumed per day, blood levels of methanol are undetectable.
So First, your claim that it's unethical. Tossed. Your claim that it can't or hasn't been. Tossed.
This is a literature review, not the type of study that would or has the potential to show a causal relationship between artificial sweeteners or illness.
Before we go any further, do you know what a literature review and/or meta-study is?13 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
It's actually really easy to show that something causes harm.
What is hard is to prove that something doesn't cause harm.
It only takes about 5 or 6 samples to prove that getting punched in the face is bad for you.
Right I'm referring to the moral and ethical reasons why this type of research is not generally done. Using your example about getting punched in the face - is that a study you would want to conduct? Probably not, because it would be pretty unethical. We can instead use a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence to see that punching people in the face is generally something that should be avoided when possible. In the case of artificial sweeteners, we have something more than common sense, which is a robust body of correlational studies linking artificial sweeteners to health issues. That's good enough for me - again, I don't want to be the guinea pig who says I'll give artificial sweeteners a try until someone physically proves that it will definitely cause cancer or diabetes.
Except that EVERY SINGLE time. A blind study is done. the anecdotally reported claim that artificial sweeteners cause negative reactions. No reactions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/Double-blind trials have been carried out with aspartame at Duke University and in one of the best-designed of these studies, the effects of a single large dose of aspartame in people who had claimed to be sensitive to the substance was investigated. The results showed no difference in headache frequency, blood pressure, or blood histamine concentrations (a measure of the allergenic potential) between the experimental and control groupsIt is a fact that in large doses, methanol can lead to blindness and even to death. Methanol occurs naturally in foods. In fact, the “natural” methanol content of fruit juice is about 2.5 times higher than from aspartame-sweetened drinks. Even at the 99th percentile level of 34 mg per kg of body weight consumed per day, blood levels of methanol are undetectable.
So First, your claim that it's unethical. Tossed. Your claim that it can't or hasn't been. Tossed.
This is a literature review, not the type of study that would or has the potential to show a causal relationship between artificial sweeteners or illness.
Before we go any further, do you know what a literature review and/or meta-study is?
Isn't that, like, googling the topic and seeing what the first page of results looks like?13 -
stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
It's actually really easy to show that something causes harm.
What is hard is to prove that something doesn't cause harm.
It only takes about 5 or 6 samples to prove that getting punched in the face is bad for you.
Right I'm referring to the moral and ethical reasons why this type of research is not generally done. Using your example about getting punched in the face - is that a study you would want to conduct? Probably not, because it would be pretty unethical. We can instead use a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence to see that punching people in the face is generally something that should be avoided when possible. In the case of artificial sweeteners, we have something more than common sense, which is a robust body of correlational studies linking artificial sweeteners to health issues. That's good enough for me - again, I don't want to be the guinea pig who says I'll give artificial sweeteners a try until someone physically proves that it will definitely cause cancer or diabetes.
Except that EVERY SINGLE time. A blind study is done. the anecdotally reported claim that artificial sweeteners cause negative reactions. No reactions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/Double-blind trials have been carried out with aspartame at Duke University and in one of the best-designed of these studies, the effects of a single large dose of aspartame in people who had claimed to be sensitive to the substance was investigated. The results showed no difference in headache frequency, blood pressure, or blood histamine concentrations (a measure of the allergenic potential) between the experimental and control groupsIt is a fact that in large doses, methanol can lead to blindness and even to death. Methanol occurs naturally in foods. In fact, the “natural” methanol content of fruit juice is about 2.5 times higher than from aspartame-sweetened drinks. Even at the 99th percentile level of 34 mg per kg of body weight consumed per day, blood levels of methanol are undetectable.
So First, your claim that it's unethical. Tossed. Your claim that it can't or hasn't been. Tossed.
This is a literature review, not the type of study that would or has the potential to show a causal relationship between artificial sweeteners or illness.
Yes, and the literature review referencesDouble-blind trials have been carried out with aspartame at Duke University and in one of the best-designed of these studies, the effects of a single large dose of aspartame in people who had claimed to be sensitive to the substance was investigated. The results showed no difference in headache frequency, blood pressure, or blood histamine concentrations (a measure of the allergenic potential) between the experimental and control groups
So, the studies HAVE been done.
Try to keep up.
Since you were too lazy to click through
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3657889
The Duke study only looks at headaches. I don't see your point at all.8 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
It's actually really easy to show that something causes harm.
What is hard is to prove that something doesn't cause harm.
It only takes about 5 or 6 samples to prove that getting punched in the face is bad for you.
Right I'm referring to the moral and ethical reasons why this type of research is not generally done. Using your example about getting punched in the face - is that a study you would want to conduct? Probably not, because it would be pretty unethical. We can instead use a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence to see that punching people in the face is generally something that should be avoided when possible. In the case of artificial sweeteners, we have something more than common sense, which is a robust body of correlational studies linking artificial sweeteners to health issues. That's good enough for me - again, I don't want to be the guinea pig who says I'll give artificial sweeteners a try until someone physically proves that it will definitely cause cancer or diabetes.
Except that EVERY SINGLE time. A blind study is done. the anecdotally reported claim that artificial sweeteners cause negative reactions. No reactions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/Double-blind trials have been carried out with aspartame at Duke University and in one of the best-designed of these studies, the effects of a single large dose of aspartame in people who had claimed to be sensitive to the substance was investigated. The results showed no difference in headache frequency, blood pressure, or blood histamine concentrations (a measure of the allergenic potential) between the experimental and control groupsIt is a fact that in large doses, methanol can lead to blindness and even to death. Methanol occurs naturally in foods. In fact, the “natural” methanol content of fruit juice is about 2.5 times higher than from aspartame-sweetened drinks. Even at the 99th percentile level of 34 mg per kg of body weight consumed per day, blood levels of methanol are undetectable.
So First, your claim that it's unethical. Tossed. Your claim that it can't or hasn't been. Tossed.
This is a literature review, not the type of study that would or has the potential to show a causal relationship between artificial sweeteners or illness.
Before we go any further, do you know what a literature review and/or meta-study is?
Yes, my points it that the reason the studies are correlation studies is that it would be unethical to do anything more rigorous to try and show a causation. None of the research posted here contradicts this.14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions