Somebody lectured me about Splenda today
Replies
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »I've had people telling me how awful artificial sweeteners are for decades. I used to listen quietly, nod, and say nothing.
Then I spent a lot of time countering with my own story of diabetes and how high blood sugar will destroy all my organs and will put me into a coma.
Now I'm too old to be told how to live my life and listen to discussion of my choices, or hear one more time about how someone ordered a triple bacon cheeseburger with a diet coke (Me. It was me. I ordered it.) So now the only response you'd get from me is a death stare while I drink my coffee with 3 Splendas.
I've always preferred the taste of diet soda over regular. It surprised me when studies came out that correlated diet drinks with obesity, until I realized I was probably a contributing data point every time I ordered a big mac, fries and a diet coke.
That's actually what I suspect is causing that correlation...the "I'm having a diet coke, so I can afford to splurge a little and super-size my meal"/"I ordered the wooly-mammoth sized meal, so I'll have a diet coke to drink" phenomenon.
I think in a lot of cases it may be even more simple than that. When I was overweight and wasn't interested in losing I didn't think of calories at all. I just preferred the taste of diet coke 2 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
My n=1 proves that to be false. I drink water and have never died. As we discovered earlier in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove that I will ever die.
Sure there is. You are human and no human has lived longer than 122 years 164 days. Sure you might push that number a bit higher but every human dies on or before that relative time frame.
And of course its waters fault!
Ah, but how do you know that's an absoliute? Have you scientifically measured the age of everyone currently alive to verify there isn't that one person living deep in the unexplored jungle who has never died? (j/k - reference to a weird anti-science argument in the debate section a while ago.)
Umm if i told you yes but its in my private black book would you believe me?0 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
My n=1 proves that to be false. I drink water and have never died. As we discovered earlier in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove that I will ever die.
Sure there is. You are human and no human has lived longer than 122 years 164 days. Sure you might push that number a bit higher but every human dies on or before that relative time frame.
And of course its waters fault!
Ah, but how do you know that's an absoliute? Have you scientifically measured the age of everyone currently alive to verify there isn't that one person living deep in the unexplored jungle who has never died? (j/k - reference to a weird anti-science argument in the debate section a while ago.)
Umm if i told you yes but its in my private black book would you believe me?
I would have to, since I can't prove it's not in your book.5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
My n=1 proves that to be false. I drink water and have never died. As we discovered earlier in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove that I will ever die.
There can be only one?14 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »I've had people telling me how awful artificial sweeteners are for decades. I used to listen quietly, nod, and say nothing.
Then I spent a lot of time countering with my own story of diabetes and how high blood sugar will destroy all my organs and will put me into a coma.
Now I'm too old to be told how to live my life and listen to discussion of my choices, or hear one more time about how someone ordered a triple bacon cheeseburger with a diet coke (Me. It was me. I ordered it.) So now the only response you'd get from me is a death stare while I drink my coffee with 3 Splendas.
I've always preferred the taste of diet soda over regular. It surprised me when studies came out that correlated diet drinks with obesity, until I realized I was probably a contributing data point every time I ordered a big mac, fries and a diet coke.
That's actually what I suspect is causing that correlation...the "I'm having a diet coke, so I can afford to splurge a little and super-size my meal"/"I ordered the wooly-mammoth sized meal, so I'll have a diet coke to drink" phenomenon.
(Okay, now to stop replying and catch up on the...TWENTY-THREE PAGES?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?.
**sigh**
More reading, less typing.)
LOL
Now I have to decide if those woo's were for my personal theory or because I tried so hard to catch up before posting.jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sometimes unsolicited advice is legitimate. Just sayin'.I understand how y'all feel about someone encroaching on your privacy, but at least they care enough to say something. It really doesn't sound like anyone is being judgy, they're just trying to let you know that that stuff is bad for you.
Finally. Page 7. What took you two so long to get here???
(And now I understand the 23 pages.)
And these too! Woo'ed because I was shocked it took the "artificial sweeteners are obviously bad for everyone" people seven pages to get here? Or for my understanding of why this was 23 pages (which was totally confirmed, to be clear).
Oh, MFP, don't ever change.
Don't. Ever. Change.10 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »I've had people telling me how awful artificial sweeteners are for decades. I used to listen quietly, nod, and say nothing.
Then I spent a lot of time countering with my own story of diabetes and how high blood sugar will destroy all my organs and will put me into a coma.
Now I'm too old to be told how to live my life and listen to discussion of my choices, or hear one more time about how someone ordered a triple bacon cheeseburger with a diet coke (Me. It was me. I ordered it.) So now the only response you'd get from me is a death stare while I drink my coffee with 3 Splendas.
I've always preferred the taste of diet soda over regular. It surprised me when studies came out that correlated diet drinks with obesity, until I realized I was probably a contributing data point every time I ordered a big mac, fries and a diet coke.
That's actually what I suspect is causing that correlation...the "I'm having a diet coke, so I can afford to splurge a little and super-size my meal"/"I ordered the wooly-mammoth sized meal, so I'll have a diet coke to drink" phenomenon.
(Okay, now to stop replying and catch up on the...TWENTY-THREE PAGES?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?.
**sigh**
More reading, less typing.)
LOL
Now I have to decide if those woo's were for my personal theory or because I tried so hard to catch up before posting.jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sometimes unsolicited advice is legitimate. Just sayin'.I understand how y'all feel about someone encroaching on your privacy, but at least they care enough to say something. It really doesn't sound like anyone is being judgy, they're just trying to let you know that that stuff is bad for you.
Finally. Page 7. What took you two so long to get here???
(And now I understand the 23 pages.)
And these too! Woo'ed because I was shocked it took the "artificial sweeteners are obviously bad for everyone" people seven pages to get here? Or for my understanding of why this was 23 pages (which was totally confirmed, to be clear).
Oh, MFP, don't ever change.
Don't. Ever. Change.
There seems to be an angry woo'er running around wooing everything in sight, and seems to have recruited some friends. I would love to see the update where we can see who hit the buttons. I can well imagine all the angry PMs flying around after that. :laugh:12 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
My n=1 proves that to be false. I drink water and have never died. As we discovered earlier in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove that I will ever die.
There can be only one?
In my own personal example, it is just 1. My guess is that there are many others who also drink water and have never died.2 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »I've had people telling me how awful artificial sweeteners are for decades. I used to listen quietly, nod, and say nothing.
Then I spent a lot of time countering with my own story of diabetes and how high blood sugar will destroy all my organs and will put me into a coma.
Now I'm too old to be told how to live my life and listen to discussion of my choices, or hear one more time about how someone ordered a triple bacon cheeseburger with a diet coke (Me. It was me. I ordered it.) So now the only response you'd get from me is a death stare while I drink my coffee with 3 Splendas.
I've always preferred the taste of diet soda over regular. It surprised me when studies came out that correlated diet drinks with obesity, until I realized I was probably a contributing data point every time I ordered a big mac, fries and a diet coke.
That's actually what I suspect is causing that correlation...the "I'm having a diet coke, so I can afford to splurge a little and super-size my meal"/"I ordered the wooly-mammoth sized meal, so I'll have a diet coke to drink" phenomenon.
(Okay, now to stop replying and catch up on the...TWENTY-THREE PAGES?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?.
**sigh**
More reading, less typing.)
LOL
Now I have to decide if those woo's were for my personal theory or because I tried so hard to catch up before posting.jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sometimes unsolicited advice is legitimate. Just sayin'.I understand how y'all feel about someone encroaching on your privacy, but at least they care enough to say something. It really doesn't sound like anyone is being judgy, they're just trying to let you know that that stuff is bad for you.
Finally. Page 7. What took you two so long to get here???
(And now I understand the 23 pages.)
And these too! Woo'ed because I was shocked it took the "artificial sweeteners are obviously bad for everyone" people seven pages to get here? Or for my understanding of why this was 23 pages (which was totally confirmed, to be clear).
Oh, MFP, don't ever change.
Don't. Ever. Change.
TBH, I'm kind of stunned over what happened here. I thought I was posting one of those jokey threads where OP vents and some people post funny things about what they would have said and then the whole thing sinks into oblivion. It never occurred to me the word "Splenda" would set off such a chain reaction when it was completely incidental to the topic
8 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »I've had people telling me how awful artificial sweeteners are for decades. I used to listen quietly, nod, and say nothing.
Then I spent a lot of time countering with my own story of diabetes and how high blood sugar will destroy all my organs and will put me into a coma.
Now I'm too old to be told how to live my life and listen to discussion of my choices, or hear one more time about how someone ordered a triple bacon cheeseburger with a diet coke (Me. It was me. I ordered it.) So now the only response you'd get from me is a death stare while I drink my coffee with 3 Splendas.
I've always preferred the taste of diet soda over regular. It surprised me when studies came out that correlated diet drinks with obesity, until I realized I was probably a contributing data point every time I ordered a big mac, fries and a diet coke.
That's actually what I suspect is causing that correlation...the "I'm having a diet coke, so I can afford to splurge a little and super-size my meal"/"I ordered the wooly-mammoth sized meal, so I'll have a diet coke to drink" phenomenon.
(Okay, now to stop replying and catch up on the...TWENTY-THREE PAGES?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?.
**sigh**
More reading, less typing.)
LOL
Now I have to decide if those woo's were for my personal theory or because I tried so hard to catch up before posting.jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sometimes unsolicited advice is legitimate. Just sayin'.I understand how y'all feel about someone encroaching on your privacy, but at least they care enough to say something. It really doesn't sound like anyone is being judgy, they're just trying to let you know that that stuff is bad for you.
Finally. Page 7. What took you two so long to get here???
(And now I understand the 23 pages.)
And these too! Woo'ed because I was shocked it took the "artificial sweeteners are obviously bad for everyone" people seven pages to get here? Or for my understanding of why this was 23 pages (which was totally confirmed, to be clear).
Oh, MFP, don't ever change.
Don't. Ever. Change.
TBH, I'm kind of stunned over what happened here. I thought I was posting one of those jokey threads where OP vents and some people post funny things about what they would have said and then the whole thing sinks into oblivion. It never occurred to me the word "Splenda" would set off such a chain reaction when it was completely incidental to the topic
The warning signs were there. An entirely inevitable result.
Years ago, it would have escalated into mod intervention and likely thread-lock or thread-nuke even.
#goodtimes9 -
I think your original topic and stated desire would have been much more interesting - we got some good examples through the pages at least.1
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »I've had people telling me how awful artificial sweeteners are for decades. I used to listen quietly, nod, and say nothing.
Then I spent a lot of time countering with my own story of diabetes and how high blood sugar will destroy all my organs and will put me into a coma.
Now I'm too old to be told how to live my life and listen to discussion of my choices, or hear one more time about how someone ordered a triple bacon cheeseburger with a diet coke (Me. It was me. I ordered it.) So now the only response you'd get from me is a death stare while I drink my coffee with 3 Splendas.
I've always preferred the taste of diet soda over regular. It surprised me when studies came out that correlated diet drinks with obesity, until I realized I was probably a contributing data point every time I ordered a big mac, fries and a diet coke.
That's actually what I suspect is causing that correlation...the "I'm having a diet coke, so I can afford to splurge a little and super-size my meal"/"I ordered the wooly-mammoth sized meal, so I'll have a diet coke to drink" phenomenon.
(Okay, now to stop replying and catch up on the...TWENTY-THREE PAGES?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?.
**sigh**
More reading, less typing.)
LOL
Now I have to decide if those woo's were for my personal theory or because I tried so hard to catch up before posting.jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sometimes unsolicited advice is legitimate. Just sayin'.I understand how y'all feel about someone encroaching on your privacy, but at least they care enough to say something. It really doesn't sound like anyone is being judgy, they're just trying to let you know that that stuff is bad for you.
Finally. Page 7. What took you two so long to get here???
(And now I understand the 23 pages.)
And these too! Woo'ed because I was shocked it took the "artificial sweeteners are obviously bad for everyone" people seven pages to get here? Or for my understanding of why this was 23 pages (which was totally confirmed, to be clear).
Oh, MFP, don't ever change.
Don't. Ever. Change.
TBH, I'm kind of stunned over what happened here. I thought I was posting one of those jokey threads where OP vents and some people post funny things about what they would have said and then the whole thing sinks into oblivion. It never occurred to me the word "Splenda" would set off such a chain reaction when it was completely incidental to the topic
The warning signs were there. An entirely inevitable result.
Years ago, it would have escalated into mod intervention and likely thread-lock or thread-nuke even.
#goodtimes
But only after 10 pages of cat gifs...6 -
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
My n=1 proves that to be false. I drink water and have never died. As we discovered earlier in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove that I will ever die.
There can be only one?
In my own personal example, it is just 1. My guess is that there are many others who also drink water and have never died.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqcLjcSloXs 8 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
My n=1 proves that to be false. I drink water and have never died. As we discovered earlier in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove that I will ever die.
There can be only one?
In my own personal example, it is just 1. My guess is that there are many others who also drink water and have never died.
At least you're predictable. At least there's that.7 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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.
My n=1 proves that to be false. I drink water and have never died. As we discovered earlier in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove that I will ever die.
There can be only one?
In my own personal example, it is just 1. My guess is that there are many others who also drink water and have never died.
At least you're predictable. At least there's that.
I'm predictable because I'm consistent.
2 -
Let's agree to disagree..7
-
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »I've had people telling me how awful artificial sweeteners are for decades. I used to listen quietly, nod, and say nothing.
Then I spent a lot of time countering with my own story of diabetes and how high blood sugar will destroy all my organs and will put me into a coma.
Now I'm too old to be told how to live my life and listen to discussion of my choices, or hear one more time about how someone ordered a triple bacon cheeseburger with a diet coke (Me. It was me. I ordered it.) So now the only response you'd get from me is a death stare while I drink my coffee with 3 Splendas.
I've always preferred the taste of diet soda over regular. It surprised me when studies came out that correlated diet drinks with obesity, until I realized I was probably a contributing data point every time I ordered a big mac, fries and a diet coke.
That's actually what I suspect is causing that correlation...the "I'm having a diet coke, so I can afford to splurge a little and super-size my meal"/"I ordered the wooly-mammoth sized meal, so I'll have a diet coke to drink" phenomenon.
(Okay, now to stop replying and catch up on the...TWENTY-THREE PAGES?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?.
**sigh**
More reading, less typing.)
LOL
Now I have to decide if those woo's were for my personal theory or because I tried so hard to catch up before posting.jofjltncb6 wrote: »Sometimes unsolicited advice is legitimate. Just sayin'.I understand how y'all feel about someone encroaching on your privacy, but at least they care enough to say something. It really doesn't sound like anyone is being judgy, they're just trying to let you know that that stuff is bad for you.
Finally. Page 7. What took you two so long to get here???
(And now I understand the 23 pages.)
And these too! Woo'ed because I was shocked it took the "artificial sweeteners are obviously bad for everyone" people seven pages to get here? Or for my understanding of why this was 23 pages (which was totally confirmed, to be clear).
Oh, MFP, don't ever change.
Don't. Ever. Change.
There seems to be an angry woo'er running around wooing everything in sight, and seems to have recruited some friends. I would love to see the update where we can see who hit the buttons. I can well imagine all the angry PMs flying around after that. :laugh:
The moderators can see who's doing it.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions