Somebody lectured me about Splenda today
Replies
-
rkgray7392 wrote: »I really do hate it when people get all high and mighty about artificial sweeteners. I can understand the beef with aspartame, that stuff gives me headaches. But I've never once had a bad reaction from splenda or stevia. Both are way better for than dumping sugar into your coffee would be.
There is nothing wrong with using sugar in moderation and counting the calories
Or even not counting the calories
5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?15 -
Actually “processed meats” have been linked to cancer.Is it just me, or is everything linked to cancer nowadays?
Just saying, if people start lecturing me that bacon will give me cancer, I am gonna tell everyone I'm dying happy.
Edited to add.....
I use Splenda every day.
You’re right though. A life without bacon isn’t worth living. Lol I eat bacon like every week
When I was pregnant, I literally at 7 strips of thick cut bacon every single morning for 2-3 months. It was my snack while driving in to work. HAHAHA
And now, my toddler loves bacon.
I don't care what the science says - I ate my weight in banana cream pies through two pregnancies, and both my daughters have always loved whipped cream and bananas. There's gotta be a link, right?
There is a suggested link. The amniotic fluid tends to take the 'flavor' of whatever the mom eats. They did a study (I'd have to go dig my notes to find it again), where to fed 1 group of expecting mothers carrot juice daily during the last trimester. 1 group was told to avoid it like the pest. 1 group was given the carrot juice during the first 6 months of the kid's life, while they were breast feeding.
When the kids started eating, the gave them the option of carrots or wheat mush. Kids from groups 1 and 3 preferred the carrots. Kids from group 2 preferred the wheat mush.
So the link is not only during pregnancy but also post pregnancy while nursing.
It's your fault your daughters like bananas (comment meant in jest and not to be taken seriously )
EDIT:
Didn't get the numbers of days/weeks quite right, but the conclusion I did:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1351272/
5 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.14 -
stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?15 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Fine. Here's my substance:
1. The nutritionist failed to demonstrate any causation in the peer-reviewed literature that the body actually treats an artificial sweetener as sugar (Protip: It doesn't), or that there is a negative effect between consumption of artificial sweeteners and weight gain or other adverse outcomes.
2. The credentials into being a "nutritionist" are worth the paper or Internet pixels they're written on. I'll listen to a dietitian, but anybody can call themselves a nutritionist.15 -
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 does not equal causation. Try again13 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »To the OP's original question, I think I would look Nosy Nancy straight in the eye, with my RBF on, and say "I can deadlift you."
$20 if you actually lifted her.8 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
here you go again.NicoleHaki wrote: »That said, I also hate artificial sweeteners and sometimes catch myself making comments to people who choose Splenda or diet soda. I don't do it to be rude but to me it's like watching someone smoking a cigarette - I feel like maybe I can save them! Not saying this to justify her rudeness, but saying it because maybe her intentions weren't that bad - it genuinely pains me to see people drink soda or put Splenda in their coffee or tea.
Since you seem to keep forgetting.9 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
This:
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.
That is so blatantly false. The body does *not* treat an artificial sweetener as sugar. Period.
13 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
Let's take a look at the post in question, shall we?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.
Broken down into the individual points of contention:jadkins389 wrote: »Research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss.
Maybe. I haven't seen any research in that direction. If foods/beverages using artificial sweeteners are used to replace items with higher calorie counts, then they can help with help with weight loss. If the food/beverage in question is compensated somewhere else (more chocolate and ice cream), then the likelyhood of them helping weight loss are zilch.
Bottom line: what matters is how much overall someone is eating.jadkins389 wrote: »Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such.
Ask any diabetic how their insulin spikes after ingesting an artificially sweetened beverage. Hint: it doesn't. Meaning, your body does NOT treat your body as it would sugar. Unless I misunderstood the point of that sentence? It's not very well formulated.jadkins389 wrote: »Honey or Stevia are your best option for low-glycemic sweeteners.
3 Problems for me here:
a) Honey is contra-indicated for pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as small children (risk of contamination with spores of bacteria which naturally occur in the honey and can only be removed with high temperature sterilization found only in industrial processes. Too iffy in my opinion to blanket recommend it en lieu of sweeteners.
b) Stevia tastes bitter and nasty (to me and pretty much any one in my family). Why would anyone want to ingest that? (your milage may vary)
c) glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics. But even then it is not necessary to manage the disease. Managing intake in general and regular movement do more on that end.jadkins389 wrote: »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.
This is probably the one thing I can truly stand behind. Everyone's tastes and preferences are different. Everyone's life circumstances are different. I might nitpick with the choice of 'sacrifice' but that's just me trying to find a more positive way to word things in general.
EDIT: fixed my quotes...21 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
Let's take a look at the post in question, shall we?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.
Broken down into the individual points of contention:jadkins389 wrote: »Research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss.
Maybe. I haven't seen any research in that direction. If foods/beverages using artificial sweeteners are used to replace items with higher calorie counts, then they can help with help with weight loss. If the food/beverage in question is compensated somewhere else (more chocolate and ice cream), then the likelyhood of them helping weight loss are zilch.
Bottom line: what matters is how much overall someone is eating.jadkins389 wrote: »Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such.
Ask any diabetic how their insulin spikes after ingesting an artificially sweetened beverage. Hint: it doesn't. Meaning, your body does NOT treat your body as it would sugar. Unless I misunderstood the point of that sentence? It's not very well formulated.jadkins389 wrote: »Honey or Stevia are your best option for low-glycemic sweeteners.
3 Problems for me here:
a) Honey is contra-indicated for pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as small children (risk of contamination with spores of bacteria which naturally occur in the honey and can only be removed with high temperature sterilization found only in industrial processes. Too iffy in my opinion to blanket recommend it en lieu of sweeteners.
b) Stevia tastes bitter and nasty (to me and pretty much any one in my family). Why would anyone want to ingest that? (your milage may vary)
c) glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics. But even then it is not necessary to manage the disease. Managing intake in general and regular movement do more on that end.jadkins389 wrote: »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.
This is probably the one thing I can truly stand behind. Everyone's tastes and preferences are different. Everyone's life circumstances are different. I might nitpick with the choice of 'sacrifice' but that's just me trying to find a more positive way to word things in general.
EDIT: fixed my quotes...
And the GI of honey isn't dramatically lower than table sugar in all cases - honey varies.11 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »
Actually “processed meats” have been linked to cancer.Is it just me, or is everything linked to cancer nowadays?
Just saying, if people start lecturing me that bacon will give me cancer, I am gonna tell everyone I'm dying happy.
Edited to add.....
I use Splenda every day.
You’re right though. A life without bacon isn’t worth living. Lol I eat bacon like every week
When I was pregnant, I literally at 7 strips of thick cut bacon every single morning for 2-3 months. It was my snack while driving in to work. HAHAHA
And now, my toddler loves bacon.
I don't care what the science says - I ate my weight in banana cream pies through two pregnancies, and both my daughters have always loved whipped cream and bananas. There's gotta be a link, right?
There is a suggested link. The amniotic fluid tends to take the 'flavor' of whatever the mom eats. They did a study (I'd have to go dig my notes to find it again), where to fed 1 group of expecting mothers carrot juice daily during the last trimester. 1 group was told to avoid it like the pest. 1 group was given the carrot juice during the first 6 months of the kid's life, while they were breast feeding.
When the kids started eating, the gave them the option of carrots or wheat mush. Kids from groups 1 and 3 preferred the carrots. Kids from group 2 preferred the wheat mush.
So the link is not only during pregnancy but also post pregnancy while nursing.
It's your fault your daughters like bananas (comment meant in jest and not to be taken seriously )
EDIT:
Didn't get the numbers of days/weeks quite right, but the conclusion I did:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1351272/
This is fascinating! Now I wish I had eaten more vegetables and salads!7 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »To the OP's original question, I think I would look Nosy Nancy straight in the eye, with my RBF on, and say "I can deadlift you."
$20 if you actually lifted her.
Seconded! And $40 if I get to watch 5 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »
Actually “processed meats” have been linked to cancer.Is it just me, or is everything linked to cancer nowadays?
Just saying, if people start lecturing me that bacon will give me cancer, I am gonna tell everyone I'm dying happy.
Edited to add.....
I use Splenda every day.
You’re right though. A life without bacon isn’t worth living. Lol I eat bacon like every week
When I was pregnant, I literally at 7 strips of thick cut bacon every single morning for 2-3 months. It was my snack while driving in to work. HAHAHA
And now, my toddler loves bacon.
I don't care what the science says - I ate my weight in banana cream pies through two pregnancies, and both my daughters have always loved whipped cream and bananas. There's gotta be a link, right?
There is a suggested link. The amniotic fluid tends to take the 'flavor' of whatever the mom eats. They did a study (I'd have to go dig my notes to find it again), where to fed 1 group of expecting mothers carrot juice daily during the last trimester. 1 group was told to avoid it like the pest. 1 group was given the carrot juice during the first 6 months of the kid's life, while they were breast feeding.
When the kids started eating, the gave them the option of carrots or wheat mush. Kids from groups 1 and 3 preferred the carrots. Kids from group 2 preferred the wheat mush.
So the link is not only during pregnancy but also post pregnancy while nursing.
It's your fault your daughters like bananas (comment meant in jest and not to be taken seriously )
EDIT:
Didn't get the numbers of days/weeks quite right, but the conclusion I did:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1351272/
This is fascinating! Now I wish I had eaten more vegetables and salads!
It is indeed fascinating. It explains my probably unhealthy obsession with fruits (I was born early August... the garden was ripe with yummy fresh fruits and mom did NOT limit herself in the least) 2 -
Interesting story by the OP. I don't necessarily have a story but I have noticed after researching tirelessly on the internet about the "RIGHT" way to lose weight or "CHANGE MY LIFESTYLE", there are as many ways as there are denominations of churches within religions. The tale shared by the OP reminded me of that thought.
So is there a FOOD/LIFESTYLE afterlife and am I picking the correct path for my soul , body? Are there food aethiests? These are the daunting questions in life that I seek. Is there a Food Bhudda?
At my age, I am much more opened minded about everyone's choices and so I will say to everyone on the board, good for all of you for finding your path no matter what that path is. Good luck and Good Health to you all.4 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
Let's take a look at the post in question, shall we?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.
Broken down into the individual points of contention:jadkins389 wrote: »Research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss.
Maybe. I haven't seen any research in that direction. If foods/beverages using artificial sweeteners are used to replace items with higher calorie counts, then they can help with help with weight loss. If the food/beverage in question is compensated somewhere else (more chocolate and ice cream), then the likelyhood of them helping weight loss are zilch.
Bottom line: what matters is how much overall someone is eating.jadkins389 wrote: »Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such.
Ask any diabetic how their insulin spikes after ingesting an artificially sweetened beverage. Hint: it doesn't. Meaning, your body does NOT treat your body as it would sugar. Unless I misunderstood the point of that sentence? It's not very well formulated.jadkins389 wrote: »Honey or Stevia are your best option for low-glycemic sweeteners.
3 Problems for me here:
a) Honey is contra-indicated for pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as small children (risk of contamination with spores of bacteria which naturally occur in the honey and can only be removed with high temperature sterilization found only in industrial processes. Too iffy in my opinion to blanket recommend it en lieu of sweeteners.
b) Stevia tastes bitter and nasty (to me and pretty much any one in my family). Why would anyone want to ingest that? (your milage may vary)
c) glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics. But even then it is not necessary to manage the disease. Managing intake in general and regular movement do more on that end.jadkins389 wrote: »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.
This is probably the one thing I can truly stand behind. Everyone's tastes and preferences are different. Everyone's life circumstances are different. I might nitpick with the choice of 'sacrifice' but that's just me trying to find a more positive way to word things in general.
EDIT: fixed my quotes...
So first of all if these are the points that are important to you you could have brought them up earlier instead of discrediting Jatkins on the grounds of being a nutritionist. Second of all you should try to understand that a lot of what you're saying is subjective - I don't like Stevia either, but that's a personal preference. And the idea that glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics is also a personal view - many people (including myself and the nutritionist who wrote this) do view glycemic index as a measure that's worth taking into consideration.21 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
Let's take a look at the post in question, shall we?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.
Broken down into the individual points of contention:jadkins389 wrote: »Research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss.
Maybe. I haven't seen any research in that direction. If foods/beverages using artificial sweeteners are used to replace items with higher calorie counts, then they can help with help with weight loss. If the food/beverage in question is compensated somewhere else (more chocolate and ice cream), then the likelyhood of them helping weight loss are zilch.
Bottom line: what matters is how much overall someone is eating.jadkins389 wrote: »Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such.
Ask any diabetic how their insulin spikes after ingesting an artificially sweetened beverage. Hint: it doesn't. Meaning, your body does NOT treat your body as it would sugar. Unless I misunderstood the point of that sentence? It's not very well formulated.jadkins389 wrote: »Honey or Stevia are your best option for low-glycemic sweeteners.
3 Problems for me here:
a) Honey is contra-indicated for pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as small children (risk of contamination with spores of bacteria which naturally occur in the honey and can only be removed with high temperature sterilization found only in industrial processes. Too iffy in my opinion to blanket recommend it en lieu of sweeteners.
b) Stevia tastes bitter and nasty (to me and pretty much any one in my family). Why would anyone want to ingest that? (your milage may vary)
c) glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics. But even then it is not necessary to manage the disease. Managing intake in general and regular movement do more on that end.jadkins389 wrote: »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.
This is probably the one thing I can truly stand behind. Everyone's tastes and preferences are different. Everyone's life circumstances are different. I might nitpick with the choice of 'sacrifice' but that's just me trying to find a more positive way to word things in general.
EDIT: fixed my quotes...
So first of all if these are the points that are important to you you could have brought them up earlier instead of discrediting Jatkins on the grounds of being a nutritionist. Second of all you should try to understand that a lot of what you're saying is subjective - I don't like Stevia either, but that's a personal preference. And the idea that glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics is also a personal view - many people (including myself and the nutritionist who wrote this) do view glycemic index as a measure that's worth taking into consideration.
First of all, this was the first time I entered into this discussion on the subject. Perhaps you should check who you are arguing with?
The only truly subjective topic I brought up, was the Stevia.
Movement is far more important to controlling insulin sensitivity than glycemic index. If you want to take it into consideration, you're free to do so. It doesn't change the fact that in the context of an overall more or less balanced diet, it just plain doesn't have the impact that most people seem to think it has.15 -
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.
There are numerous excellent, ethically conducted metadata studies performed using a population that used artificial sweeteners for more than 50 years, showing absolutely no correlation between the sweeteners and any disease. People simply used the sweeteners and after years of use, studies performed on them showed no negative effects. There's a boatload of these studies cited in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread.
eta: oops, sorry, I see this has been soundly quashed already. I probably should finish catching up before jumping in with profound insights. It's going to take a second cup of coffee.
What metastudies are those? The only metastudy I saw posted here was one that cited Duke research on headaches - I hardly see how that study "quashes" anything. CCRDragon said the only studies he/she has seen about artificial sweeteners have been correlation studies. I agree that they are correlation studies, and again, this is for ethical reasons - if some scientist has found a way to look for the type of causal factors CCRDragon is asking for re: cancer and diabetes, I would love to see it. Otherwise, I maintain my point that there probably isn't (and can't be) research like this for ethical reasons - the Duke study on aspartame and headaches not only doesn't "quash" anything, but it has very little to do with anything we are talking about.14 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
Let's take a look at the post in question, shall we?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.
Broken down into the individual points of contention:jadkins389 wrote: »Research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss.
Maybe. I haven't seen any research in that direction. If foods/beverages using artificial sweeteners are used to replace items with higher calorie counts, then they can help with help with weight loss. If the food/beverage in question is compensated somewhere else (more chocolate and ice cream), then the likelyhood of them helping weight loss are zilch.
Bottom line: what matters is how much overall someone is eating.jadkins389 wrote: »Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such.
Ask any diabetic how their insulin spikes after ingesting an artificially sweetened beverage. Hint: it doesn't. Meaning, your body does NOT treat your body as it would sugar. Unless I misunderstood the point of that sentence? It's not very well formulated.jadkins389 wrote: »Honey or Stevia are your best option for low-glycemic sweeteners.
3 Problems for me here:
a) Honey is contra-indicated for pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as small children (risk of contamination with spores of bacteria which naturally occur in the honey and can only be removed with high temperature sterilization found only in industrial processes. Too iffy in my opinion to blanket recommend it en lieu of sweeteners.
b) Stevia tastes bitter and nasty (to me and pretty much any one in my family). Why would anyone want to ingest that? (your milage may vary)
c) glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics. But even then it is not necessary to manage the disease. Managing intake in general and regular movement do more on that end.jadkins389 wrote: »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.
This is probably the one thing I can truly stand behind. Everyone's tastes and preferences are different. Everyone's life circumstances are different. I might nitpick with the choice of 'sacrifice' but that's just me trying to find a more positive way to word things in general.
EDIT: fixed my quotes...
So first of all if these are the points that are important to you you could have brought them up earlier instead of discrediting Jatkins on the grounds of being a nutritionist. Second of all you should try to understand that a lot of what you're saying is subjective - I don't like Stevia either, but that's a personal preference. And the idea that glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics is also a personal view - many people (including myself and the nutritionist who wrote this) do view glycemic index as a measure that's worth taking into consideration.NicoleHaki wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
Let's take a look at the post in question, shall we?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.
Broken down into the individual points of contention:jadkins389 wrote: »Research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss.
Maybe. I haven't seen any research in that direction. If foods/beverages using artificial sweeteners are used to replace items with higher calorie counts, then they can help with help with weight loss. If the food/beverage in question is compensated somewhere else (more chocolate and ice cream), then the likelyhood of them helping weight loss are zilch.
Bottom line: what matters is how much overall someone is eating.jadkins389 wrote: »Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such.
Ask any diabetic how their insulin spikes after ingesting an artificially sweetened beverage. Hint: it doesn't. Meaning, your body does NOT treat your body as it would sugar. Unless I misunderstood the point of that sentence? It's not very well formulated.jadkins389 wrote: »Honey or Stevia are your best option for low-glycemic sweeteners.
3 Problems for me here:
a) Honey is contra-indicated for pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as small children (risk of contamination with spores of bacteria which naturally occur in the honey and can only be removed with high temperature sterilization found only in industrial processes. Too iffy in my opinion to blanket recommend it en lieu of sweeteners.
b) Stevia tastes bitter and nasty (to me and pretty much any one in my family). Why would anyone want to ingest that? (your milage may vary)
c) glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics. But even then it is not necessary to manage the disease. Managing intake in general and regular movement do more on that end.jadkins389 wrote: »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.
This is probably the one thing I can truly stand behind. Everyone's tastes and preferences are different. Everyone's life circumstances are different. I might nitpick with the choice of 'sacrifice' but that's just me trying to find a more positive way to word things in general.
EDIT: fixed my quotes...
So first of all if these are the points that are important to you you could have brought them up earlier instead of discrediting Jatkins on the grounds of being a nutritionist. Second of all you should try to understand that a lot of what you're saying is subjective - I don't like Stevia either, but that's a personal preference. And the idea that glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics is also a personal view - many people (including myself and the nutritionist who wrote this) do view glycemic index as a measure that's worth taking into consideration.
Whether or not GI is physiologically relevant is not subjective-- it's an objective claim. One that neither you nor the nutritionist are qualified to make11 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
Let's take a look at the post in question, shall we?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.
Broken down into the individual points of contention:jadkins389 wrote: »Research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss.
Maybe. I haven't seen any research in that direction. If foods/beverages using artificial sweeteners are used to replace items with higher calorie counts, then they can help with help with weight loss. If the food/beverage in question is compensated somewhere else (more chocolate and ice cream), then the likelyhood of them helping weight loss are zilch.
Bottom line: what matters is how much overall someone is eating.jadkins389 wrote: »Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such.
Ask any diabetic how their insulin spikes after ingesting an artificially sweetened beverage. Hint: it doesn't. Meaning, your body does NOT treat your body as it would sugar. Unless I misunderstood the point of that sentence? It's not very well formulated.jadkins389 wrote: »Honey or Stevia are your best option for low-glycemic sweeteners.
3 Problems for me here:
a) Honey is contra-indicated for pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as small children (risk of contamination with spores of bacteria which naturally occur in the honey and can only be removed with high temperature sterilization found only in industrial processes. Too iffy in my opinion to blanket recommend it en lieu of sweeteners.
b) Stevia tastes bitter and nasty (to me and pretty much any one in my family). Why would anyone want to ingest that? (your milage may vary)
c) glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics. But even then it is not necessary to manage the disease. Managing intake in general and regular movement do more on that end.jadkins389 wrote: »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.
This is probably the one thing I can truly stand behind. Everyone's tastes and preferences are different. Everyone's life circumstances are different. I might nitpick with the choice of 'sacrifice' but that's just me trying to find a more positive way to word things in general.
EDIT: fixed my quotes...
So first of all if these are the points that are important to you you could have brought them up earlier instead of discrediting Jatkins on the grounds of being a nutritionist. Second of all you should try to understand that a lot of what you're saying is subjective - I don't like Stevia either, but that's a personal preference. And the idea that glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics is also a personal view - many people (including myself and the nutritionist who wrote this) do view glycemic index as a measure that's worth taking into consideration.
They aren't subjective, they're facts. The fact that you want to argue feelings and opinion in opposition to facts and studies, doesn't alter reality.
Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion. They aren't entitled to personal facts. The fact that you can't distinguish between objective and subjective and needs vs tastes doesn't strengthen your position.
All of these points have been belabored time and again in actual discussion of the reality. And many here have been trying to keep the discussion on point and discussing public rudeness vs the utterly defective nature of the rude person.11 -
stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
here you go again.NicoleHaki wrote: »That said, I also hate artificial sweeteners and sometimes catch myself making comments to people who choose Splenda or diet soda. I don't do it to be rude but to me it's like watching someone smoking a cigarette - I feel like maybe I can save them! Not saying this to justify her rudeness, but saying it because maybe her intentions weren't that bad - it genuinely pains me to see people drink soda or put Splenda in their coffee or tea.
Since you seem to keep forgetting.
Where is the advice? If my family members smoked or consumed artificial sweeteners (which they don't - we're a pretty healthy family), I would encourage them to make choices I considered to be better based on the correlational studies I've seen and the fact that I don't see a compelling benefit to consuming artificial sweeteners - that's a hypothetical, and I haven't given advice to anyone on this forum at all.14 -
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!
You have no clue about the scientific process and seeing how far behind I am on this thread and the other responses given to you, I'm not about to fill in the gaps in your education.
Suffice to say that science does not use "a combination of common sense and anecdotal evidence" to weigh in on any matter, even when combining it with correlational studies because of those nasty little details called confounding factors. You should read up on those. You should also really read up on how science decides on something, and what exactly scientific "proof" means.11 -
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.
Do you understand what a literature review is?12 -
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?
Oh, you beat me to this question. GMTA!8 -
Actually “processed meats” have been linked to cancer.Is it just me, or is everything linked to cancer nowadays?
Just saying, if people start lecturing me that bacon will give me cancer, I am gonna tell everyone I'm dying happy.
Edited to add.....
I use Splenda every day.
You’re right though. A life without bacon isn’t worth living. Lol I eat bacon like every week
When I was pregnant, I literally at 7 strips of thick cut bacon every single morning for 2-3 months. It was my snack while driving in to work. HAHAHA
And now, my toddler loves bacon.
I don't care what the science says - I ate my weight in banana cream pies through two pregnancies, and both my daughters have always loved whipped cream and bananas. There's gotta be a link, right?
My kids hate the foods I craved when I was pregnant with them.
With my daughter, it was mashed potatoes. Now, she loves a potato in any form but mashed.
My son, it was Swiss cheese. He like almost every cheese except that one.1 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
Let's take a look at the post in question, shall we?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.
Broken down into the individual points of contention:jadkins389 wrote: »Research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss.
Maybe. I haven't seen any research in that direction. If foods/beverages using artificial sweeteners are used to replace items with higher calorie counts, then they can help with help with weight loss. If the food/beverage in question is compensated somewhere else (more chocolate and ice cream), then the likelyhood of them helping weight loss are zilch.
Bottom line: what matters is how much overall someone is eating.jadkins389 wrote: »Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such.
Ask any diabetic how their insulin spikes after ingesting an artificially sweetened beverage. Hint: it doesn't. Meaning, your body does NOT treat your body as it would sugar. Unless I misunderstood the point of that sentence? It's not very well formulated.jadkins389 wrote: »Honey or Stevia are your best option for low-glycemic sweeteners.
3 Problems for me here:
a) Honey is contra-indicated for pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as small children (risk of contamination with spores of bacteria which naturally occur in the honey and can only be removed with high temperature sterilization found only in industrial processes. Too iffy in my opinion to blanket recommend it en lieu of sweeteners.
b) Stevia tastes bitter and nasty (to me and pretty much any one in my family). Why would anyone want to ingest that? (your milage may vary)
c) glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics. But even then it is not necessary to manage the disease. Managing intake in general and regular movement do more on that end.jadkins389 wrote: »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.
This is probably the one thing I can truly stand behind. Everyone's tastes and preferences are different. Everyone's life circumstances are different. I might nitpick with the choice of 'sacrifice' but that's just me trying to find a more positive way to word things in general.
EDIT: fixed my quotes...
And the GI of honey isn't dramatically lower than table sugar in all cases - honey varies.
And stevia is just as processed as any other artificial sweetener. The case made for this is also in the Aspartame thread.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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.
Do you understand what a literature review is?
Hint: It's not a high school book report9 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
here you go again.NicoleHaki wrote: »That said, I also hate artificial sweeteners and sometimes catch myself making comments to people who choose Splenda or diet soda. I don't do it to be rude but to me it's like watching someone smoking a cigarette - I feel like maybe I can save them! Not saying this to justify her rudeness, but saying it because maybe her intentions weren't that bad - it genuinely pains me to see people drink soda or put Splenda in their coffee or tea.
Since you seem to keep forgetting.
Where is the advice? If my family members smoked or consumed artificial sweeteners (which they don't - we're a pretty healthy family), I would encourage them to make choices I considered to be better based on the correlational studies I've seen and the fact that I don't see a compelling benefit to consuming artificial sweeteners - that's a hypothetical, and I haven't given advice to anyone on this forum at all.
On a public forum, where a few people are posting but many people reading, I tend to consider it tantamount to advice when I post anything as if it were an established truth. Therefore, I try to make sure I keep it clearly-stated, well-reasoned and at least somewhat scientifically supported. (I don't always succeed.)
I also routinely post about my personal choices and opinions, but try to be clear that that's what they are, and some of my thinking behind them.
Back a few pages, I posted that I thought sugar was my best choice, and I said why, said it was unscientific, didn't say I'd be advising my extended family to follow that choice or be pained when I couldn't tell strangers not to eat sweeteners other than sugar. I got zip-zero-nada pushback on the sugar preference, and no "woos" (I'll get some woos on it now, because that's how MFP behaves. Love ya, MFP!).
People who post controversial opinions as if they were established truth tend to get quite a lot of push-back around here. I think that's helpful to the reader; it's certainly been helpful to me as a reader.
Back in the OP, the story was about someone who expressed an opinion to a stranger as if it were fact. Most people considered that inappropriate.
22 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »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?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
here you go again.NicoleHaki wrote: »That said, I also hate artificial sweeteners and sometimes catch myself making comments to people who choose Splenda or diet soda. I don't do it to be rude but to me it's like watching someone smoking a cigarette - I feel like maybe I can save them! Not saying this to justify her rudeness, but saying it because maybe her intentions weren't that bad - it genuinely pains me to see people drink soda or put Splenda in their coffee or tea.
Since you seem to keep forgetting.
Where is the advice? If my family members smoked or consumed artificial sweeteners (which they don't - we're a pretty healthy family), I would encourage them to make choices I considered to be better based on the correlational studies I've seen and the fact that I don't see a compelling benefit to consuming artificial sweeteners - that's a hypothetical, and I haven't given advice to anyone on this forum at all.
On a public forum, where a few people are posting but many people reading, I tend to consider it tantamount to advice when I post anything as if it were an established truth. Therefore, I try to make sure I keep it clearly-stated, well-reasoned and at least somewhat scientifically supported. (I don't always succeed.)
I also routinely post about my personal choices and opinions, but try to be clear that that's what they are, and some of my thinking behind them.
Back a few pages, I posted that I thought sugar was my best choice, and I said why, said it was unscientific, didn't say I'd be advising my extended family to follow that choice or be pained when I couldn't tell strangers not to eat sweeteners other than sugar. I got zip-zero-nada pushback on the sugar preference, and no "woos" (I'll get some woos on it now, because that's how MFP behaves. Love ya, MFP!).
People who post controversial opinions as if they were established truth tend to get quite a lot of push-back around here. I think that's helpful to the reader; it's certainly been helpful to me as a reader.
Back in the OP, the story was about someone who expressed an opinion to a stranger as if it were fact. Most people considered that inappropriate.
In retrospect, I probably should have taken creative liberties with that incident and said she'd lectured me about nuts in my salad or something.
I absolutely agree that it's necessary to refute false information when it pops up - this is one of the few forums where people are willing to put the time and effort into not only countering alarmist claims (which can add tremendous stress into the lives of people who are already anxious about their health), but going a step further and laying out the process of vetting sources so people can use the tools for themselves.
I often wonder about the motivation of people who derail threads to grandstand their own personal agenda, when there are current threads already going that discuss the topic in great detail. I've mostly come to the conclusion that it's attention-seeking - suddenly the thread is all about YOU, regardless of the original topic.13
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions