Somebody lectured me about Splenda today
Replies
-
nickssweetheart wrote: »
I thought both were fine as long as it fit my calories?
It depends on the person. As a type 1 diabetic, the BG spike from sugar is more difficult to manage than no effect from sucralose. Whether or not it fits within calorie goals is secondary to BG management. I want to keep diabetic complications at bay for as long as possible, and not eating foods that raise BG is a great way to accomplish that goal.
While it is commonly known that we are all mortal, I would challenge anyone to show me a peer reviewed scientific study that shows everyone who eats sucralose will one day die. Similarly, it is commonly known that diabetics who keep BG's at non-diabetic levels for more time have lower risks of complications. But I am unaware of a specific study to show type 1's who choose sucralose over sugar are less likely to encounter complications. The "commonly known" information is not from any specific study, but takes a body of knowledge (such as the knowledge that we are all mortal) and draws a conclusion from applying that knowledge to a specific situation (all sucralose consuming humans are mortal because we are human; sucralose makes BG management more predictable vs. sugar and that means lower complication risk).5 -
tagging so i can find this when i'm bored af later since mfp "fixed" their front page after having the same forum recommended threads for 2 weeks.5
-
This content has been removed.
-
doittoitgirl wrote: »Ugh. I was in the ice cream aisle the other day making my selection. I was reaching for my go to which happens to be a light style ice cream. Some old lady walls up to me to tell me to read the labels cause sometimes the light ones have more sugar than regular. Ummmm. 1. Did I ask for a second opinion? 2. I've read the label on every freaking kroger brand ice cream and picked the one I did because I know it had the least sugar/fat. 3. What does a perfect stranger care what I buy?
Your post reminds me of an incident a few years ago when I was buying a pint of Ben & Jerry's at a gas station convenience store. The cashier was a teenage girl, and while she was ringing me up she kept talking about how expensive it was for such a small amount of ice cream, and how I could buy a bucket for half the price, and on and on. And I stood there defending my choice to this kid instead of telling her to mind her own and just ring me up. (It wasn't just me - I think she was on a mission to save all her customers money, because she started in on the guy behind me buying beer. I was out of there before I heard what he said.)
I think there are a lot of people who live in some kind of a bubble where their priorities and goals must be everyone's priorities and goals. If you're not following the program you must simply be uninformed, and if someone takes the time to educate you, you'll make better choices in the future. I mean it has to be some internal motivation, right? I can't believe that anyone ever said "Oh, thank you so much, what do you recommend instead?" so it can't be the satisfaction of increasing the ranks of the converts one by one. The only times I've said anything to anyone about anything have involved "Hey, do you know your carton of milk is dripping?" I figure that's a priority in anybody's world.15 -
I think that's accurate assessment of why - wanting to be helpful, with the assumption the other person is clueless (like perhaps they were/are).
I've pointed out some expired product on a shelf I just got done dealing with and next person was grabbing for it - but I've not observed most looking at such a thing (it was non-bread) so thought it would be useful.
ETA: reminds me of my 9 yr old, who sometimes thinks he's sharing some piece of info I must not know about. From his point of view he didn't know, I must not either.3 -
I think the only time I have ever approached someone in the grocery store is because they parked next to me and I was sitting in my car for a few minutes and noticed they left their lights on. They seemed appreciative, but if I had made comments on their food choices I doubt they would have had the same reaction.4
-
nickssweetheart wrote: »
I thought both were fine as long as it fit my calories?
They are, unless you have a medical condition that requires you to limit them.5 -
I dunno....I'm big on scientific evidence, but on this one I can somehow unquestioningly accept the anecdotal/empirical evidence that everybody who is born will eventually die. I mean, the hypothesis has held up throughout the entire existence of mankind.midwesterner85 wrote: »While it is commonly known that we are all mortal, I would challenge anyone to show me a peer reviewed scientific study that shows everyone who eats sucralose will one day die...14 -
I don't use really use low-calorie sweeteners because I don't have much of a sweet tooth, but I've never understood the appeal of stevia as a 'natural' alternative to splenda and friends. It's still very processed.0
-
I dunno....I'm big on scientific evidence, but on this one I can somehow unquestioningly accept the anecdotal/empirical evidence that everybody who is born will eventually die. I mean, the hypothesis has held up throughout the entire existence of mankind.midwesterner85 wrote: »While it is commonly known that we are all mortal, I would challenge anyone to show me a peer reviewed scientific study that shows everyone who eats sucralose will one day die...
EXACTLY!!! My entire point is that there are some things we know without a scientific study to prove it. This is because we can take other (more proven) things that we know and apply those things to similar circumstances.5 -
happytree923 wrote: »I don't use really use low-calorie sweeteners because I don't have much of a sweet tooth, but I've never understood the appeal of stevia as a 'natural' alternative to splenda and friends. It's still very processed.
It's the extremely convincing advertising. When "natural" vs "artificial" became a big thing, companies learned to target the natural or nothing crowd by hammering on the fact that stevia (as an example) is initially extracted from the leaves of an actual plant, where other sweeteners are entirely created in a lab. There's no legal definition of the term "natural" so it can be used pretty much any way anyone wants - stick a big picture of a thriving green plant on a package and plaster the word "natural alternative" across the front and you've got a winner. Most people won't look at the processing involved to get to the end product because they want to believe there's a natural low calorie alternative to sugar that doesn't have a chemically sounding name. This is my take on it, at least.5 -
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.
Encouraging a family member is worlds different from lecturing a complete stranger in public about their choices. Even if it's the worst sh#t in the world, that doesn't give you the right.
Yeah of course- I think for the most part we all agree that lecturing a stranger in public isn't the best etiquette.3 -
It's the extremely convincing advertising. When "natural" vs "artificial" became a big thing, companies learned to target the natural or nothing crowd by hammering on the fact that stevia (as an example) is initially extracted from the leaves of an actual plant, where other sweeteners are entirely created in a lab. There's no legal definition of the term "natural" so it can be used pretty much any way anyone wants - stick a big picture of a thriving green plant on a package and plaster the word "natural alternative" across the front and you've got a winner. Most people won't look at the processing involved to get to the end product because they want to believe there's a natural low calorie alternative to sugar that doesn't have a chemically sounding name. This is my take on it, at least.
I'm sure you're right, it just drives me crazy. Especially since one of the main arguments against low-calorie sweeteners is that they mess with your hormones by making your body expect sugar, then why would it matter what the source of the sweetener is!1 -
happytree923 wrote: »
It's the extremely convincing advertising. When "natural" vs "artificial" became a big thing, companies learned to target the natural or nothing crowd by hammering on the fact that stevia (as an example) is initially extracted from the leaves of an actual plant, where other sweeteners are entirely created in a lab. There's no legal definition of the term "natural" so it can be used pretty much any way anyone wants - stick a big picture of a thriving green plant on a package and plaster the word "natural alternative" across the front and you've got a winner. Most people won't look at the processing involved to get to the end product because they want to believe there's a natural low calorie alternative to sugar that doesn't have a chemically sounding name. This is my take on it, at least.
I'm sure you're right, it just drives me crazy. Especially since one of the main arguments against low-calorie sweeteners is that they mess with your hormones by making your body expect sugar, then why would it matter what the source of the sweetener is!
Well, if it really did that then it would matter, because it would cause insulin to increase, fat release for burning would be turned off, and blood sugar would drop until body figured out it was getting low because no extra was really coming in, then insulin would drop again.
But as several links in this discussion have shown, body doesn't do that. Sure some extra preparedness in stomach may be going, but the increased insulin just because of something sweet has not been shown in those studies.6 -
I just realized I do have a recent invasion of my business story... the last time I got my hair cut I was paying and I left my customary tip. A gentleman listening in was not appreciative of my perceived excess generosity ($5) and decided he needed to tell me I was making everyone else look bad. This, of course, made me mad because these poor people stand on their feet all day, my tip might have been $1.50 over the normal percentage, and moreover, was certainly none of his business. I have personal philosophies that I have crafted over the years that I hope help me be a decent person and one that applied here prompted my reply "I always try to take care of people who take care of me."14
-
People try that from time to time. I use the Cartman approach. "I do what I want!"5
-
I just realized I do have a recent invasion of my business story... the last time I got my hair cut I was paying and I left my customary tip. A gentleman listening in was not appreciative of my perceived excess generosity ($5) and decided he needed to tell me I was making everyone else look bad. This, of course, made me mad because these poor people stand on their feet all day, my tip might have been $1.50 over the normal percentage, and moreover, was certainly none of his business. I have personal philosophies that I have crafted over the years that I hope help me be a decent person and one that applied here prompted my reply "I always try to take care of people who take care of me."
I really like that reply. I have the same philosophy and do the same with tips. I have to think that someone who would feel that what you choose to tip makes him look bad may have some internal ambiguity over his own choices.4 -
There are times where I feel like I really want to read scientific studies so I can retort back to people with smart responses when they tell me not to drink “that stuff” but then I’m like meh. Im bad with all that sciencey stuff2
-
I would say-"shhh, the cops are after me!" It just doesn't have to make sense.3
-
NicoleHaki wrote: »
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.
Encouraging a family member is worlds different from lecturing a complete stranger in public about their choices. Even if it's the worst sh#t in the world, that doesn't give you the right.
Yeah of course- I think for the most part we all agree that lecturing a stranger in public isn't the best etiquette.
If a family member tried to lecture me on what I should eat based on a belief that science has proved wrong I would be putting them in thier place too10 -
Well, if it really did that then it would matter, because it would cause insulin to increase, fat release for burning would be turned off, and blood sugar would drop until body figured out it was getting low because no extra was really coming in, then insulin would drop again.
But as several links in this discussion have shown, body doesn't do that. Sure some extra preparedness in stomach may be going, but the increased insulin just because of something sweet has not been shown in those studies.
I never said I thought it does that. But, if I understand correctly, the reasoning behind this argument is that sweet taste=that response, then ANY sweet taste should trigger that and stevia should also be avoided. I'm referring to the lecturing woman in the original post avoiding splenda but not avoiding stevia, presumably because stevia comes from a plant.2 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »
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.
Encouraging a family member is worlds different from lecturing a complete stranger in public about their choices. Even if it's the worst sh#t in the world, that doesn't give you the right.
Yeah of course- I think for the most part we all agree that lecturing a stranger in public isn't the best etiquette.
Yeah but people are defending their actions based on some biased emotional state.
5 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »
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.
Encouraging a family member is worlds different from lecturing a complete stranger in public about their choices. Even if it's the worst sh#t in the world, that doesn't give you the right.
Yeah of course- I think for the most part we all agree that lecturing a stranger in public isn't the best etiquette.
Same person.NicoleHaki wrote: »At Starbucks (!) I was standing at the bar with her - she reached across me for truvia, I reached across her for splenda. We smiled at each other. And she says out of the blue "You shouldn't use that stuff, you know. It's worse than sugar." I did my tight, inappropriate stranger smile and finished stirring my coffee - and she keeps on lecturing! "You really need to stop using that, it's nothing but chemicals. It's really a terrible thing to do to your body..." and on and on as she's walking out the door. I half-expected her to hand me a pamphlet directing me to some kind of artificial sweetener support group. It was kind of surreal - and I wish I hadn't been so stunned that I had absolutely nothing to say
I've read here about strangers making inappropriate comments in general about people's food choices, but usually not direct evangalizing to their faces - it's certainly a first for me! Does this sort of thing happen often, and am I just oblivious? Does anyone want to share a story?
And of course, now I'm thinking of all the things I could have said if I was just a little bit quicker on my feet - did anyone actually think fast enough to make a good comeback?
Is Truvia much better than Splenda? Definitely rude of her!
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.
But we can all agree. Sort of. Except for when those of us who agree clearly do not. Man, the English language is hard to grasp.15 -
doittoitgirl wrote: »Also, people need to mind their own beeswax about artificial sweeteners. I did my a very long paper in college about them. I was expecting to find a slew of studies that showed they were carcinogenic. I found a total of 3 in a sea of a hundred scholarly peer reviewed studies that said it may be bad for you. They tested it on rats and all three studies were written by the same group. I legitimately had to change my thesis because i couldn't find enough (legitimate scientific) evidence that artificial sweeteners were bad for you in normal amounts.
Wait, you changed your mind/story when you found out your expectations were incorrect?
You're doing it...........right.
That's how science is supposed to work! Report the facts not find facts to support your opinion!9 -
doittoitgirl wrote: »doittoitgirl wrote: »Also, people need to mind their own beeswax about artificial sweeteners. I did my a very long paper in college about them. I was expecting to find a slew of studies that showed they were carcinogenic. I found a total of 3 in a sea of a hundred scholarly peer reviewed studies that said it may be bad for you. They tested it on rats and all three studies were written by the same group. I legitimately had to change my thesis because i couldn't find enough (legitimate scientific) evidence that artificial sweeteners were bad for you in normal amounts.
Wait, you changed your mind/story when you found out your expectations were incorrect?
You're doing it...........right.
That's how science is supposed to work! Report the facts not find facts to support your opinion!
Unicorn sighting! Just kidding, it's really refreshing to welcome rational people to the forums 6 -
doittoitgirl wrote: »Also, people need to mind their own beeswax about artificial sweeteners. I did my a very long paper in college about them. I was expecting to find a slew of studies that showed they were carcinogenic. I found a total of 3 in a sea of a hundred scholarly peer reviewed studies that said it may be bad for you. They tested it on rats and all three studies were written by the same group. I legitimately had to change my thesis because i couldn't find enough (legitimate scientific) evidence that artificial sweeteners were bad for you in normal amounts.
@doittoitgirl Did you happen to notice what rats they used in those Soffritti studies that claimed a link between cancer and aspartame?4 -
collectingblues wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?
I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.
There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.
I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.
edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:
But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.
Please link the studies - the only studies that I have seen that show any evidence of these issues have been weak correlation studies that cannot show actual causal factors between the artificial sweeteners and the cancer/disease.
I am referring to the correlation studies. Last year, one found that new moms who reported consuming artificial sweeteners like Equal and Splenda during their pregnancies were twice as likely to have children who were overweight or obese within a year. Yes, this is a correlation study but that's probably a necessity for ethical reasons. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2521471
Again the type of research you're looking for would take years to conduct and it would also be pretty unethical. I hope no researchers out there are asking people to consume artificial sweeteners consistently for years and years to prove that it causes cancer and diabetes - that would be extraordinarily morally wrong.
Knowing what we do know (there are links between artificial sweeteners and a variety of serious health problems),we can all make decisions about what's important to us and where we want to compromise. I know people who smoke and drink knowing that these aren't good health choices, and that's their decision to make. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to consume artificial sweeteners knowing that at best, they aren't good for me, and at worst, they can cause serious health problems.
Correlation is not causation.
People who drink water die.
Does that mean that drinking water will lead to death?
Don't sugar-coat it. It is far, far, far worse than you state. Every single person who ever drinks water dies.21
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
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions