NicoleHaki Member

Right and clearly nobody in need of a life-saving medication would question it because of artificial ingredients, nor would they have the luxury of making that decision even if clean eating was a priority for them. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't strive to replace artificial foods/products/choices with more natural…

Probably not the best comparison for many reasons. First of all, many of us don't consume medicine every day, whereas we consume plenty of food every day, so when we think about monitoring our consumption it's natural to think about the 1500 calories worth of food we are consuming daily before we start thinking about the…

Yeah of course- I think for the most part we all agree that lecturing a stranger in public isn't the best etiquette.

I've just seen enough scientific data to satisfy my curiosity on this topic. The same way I would view cigarettes or certain drugs - I haven't read long internet threads about those things, but I've seen enough to overcome any desire I might have ever theoretically had to mess with those things.

Who's attention-seeking? I agreed with your point that nobody should be telling strangers what to consume and what not to consume. I also kind of see why she felt compelled to say something - people do have strong feelings about artificial sweeteners. I made my personal view clear and feel that it is strongly supported by…

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…

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,…

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…

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…

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 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?

Great I'm not getting in to a debate on how much fried food we should all be consuming (if you think based on that research it's healthy I would encourage you to eat it all day). My point is that the absence of people around the world dropping dead every day from consuming things isn't scientific proof that whatever they…

People all over the world drink and smoke and eat fried foods every day without dropping dead from their consumption. Is that proof that those things don't cause problems?

Yes, my points it that the reason the studies are correlation studies is that it would be unethical to do anything more rigorous to try and show a causation. None of the research posted here contradicts this.

The Duke study only looks at headaches. I don't see your point at all.

Where has it been done? Would love to see this, by all means.

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.

So how does it work? It's a funny GIF but please feel free to vocalize any thoughts you might have!

GRAS doesn't mean it wouldn't be unethical. There a variety of ingredients that are probably harmful that are considered GRAS - it's a pretty low bar. It can also be influenced by lobbyists. Check out this article: https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/23/fda-gras-rule-harmful/ From the article: Even when the FDA has a concern…

Again, what part of what she says do you find scientifically faulty? Do you disagree that some sweeteners have lower glycemic indexes than others?

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…

I don't think they are necessarily as harmful as smoking, but I would consider artificial sweeteners and smoking to both be extremely unhealthy to the point where if someone in my own home were consuming artificial sweeteners or smoking cigarettes I would encourage them to change those behaviors.

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…

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?

Yeah, we will. But if we were just resigned to living our unhealthy lives until we "all die of something someday" then why would we all be on MyFitnessPal logging and thinking about and discussing our health?

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…

What theory?

It's probably not overestimating. Do you feel like your heart rate is up during your workout? If so, a 200-300 calorie burn over 45 minutes would seem normal. I'm an average-sized girl and I would probably burn closer to 150-200 during a 45-min strength training session, unless there were cardio intervals (in a circuit…

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…

Yeah I think that's a fair characterization. I think I'll try to do that. Thanks!