Artificial Sweeteners on a diet. Do we have to ditch those too??

[oatmeal69]

Blah Blah Blah

Just a link to the whole article, sans "bibliography" will be fine. A "conclusion" without even knowing who wrote it or where it came from means nothing - despite the giant science-ey looking bibliography.

Aspartame is a down right poison. I have banned it from my cabinets based on tons of studies I have read. Not sure where your reading from but I have many sources and studies to choose from. http://aspartame.mercola.com/

From Wikipedia: "Dr Mercola criticizes many aspects of standard medical practice, particularly vaccination and the use of prescription drugs and surgery to treat diseases."
Sorry, but some guy who wouldn't operate to remove my burst appendix, or vaccinate my kid against Polio is a quack. Thanks anyway.

I LOVE this forum because it's consensus aggressively refutes bro-science, pseudo-science, homeopathic nonsense, etc. I'm fine with never using sweetener again - IF there is a real and valid reason to believe it's use may likely cause me harm.

[mr.slippyfist69]

so I guess actually reading the studies is an exercise in futility on this part of the forum? Maybe the information contained in those studies could be something someone wants to read and learn from...this is a place of learning is it not or maybe just arrogance? Those rats with brain tumors in the studies were young rats not old ones that developed rapid growth cancerous masses. Guess i'm the new douche for being able to read and comprehend a scientific report....

[mr.slippyfist69]

Wikipedia can be changed or edited by anyone....less credibility there then anywhere mate

[Sgt. Hartman]

so I guess actually reading the studies is an exercise in futility on this part of the forum? Maybe the information contained in those studies could be something someone wants to read and learn from...this is a place of learning is it not or maybe just arrogance? Those rats with brain tumors in the studies were young rats not old ones that developed rapid growth cancerous masses. Guess i'm the new douche for being able to read and comprehend a scientific report....

Not at all.....but to not concede that there's very conflicting info on some of these artificial sweetener products or at least that their side effects are extremely individualistic would very obtuse imo.

[mr.slippyfist69]

I agree 100% sgt but we here should at least entertain a real dialogue concerning some of these independent studies before labeling them bunk science. Mercola is the tip of the iceberg in this on going debate, there are 100's of studies to examine before drawing any rash conclusions here

[oatmeal69]

so I guess actually reading the studies is an exercise in futility on this part of the forum? Maybe the information contained in those studies could be something someone wants to read and learn from...this is a place of learning is it not or maybe just arrogance? Those rats with brain tumors in the studies were young rats not old ones that developed rapid growth cancerous masses. Guess i'm the new douche for being able to read and comprehend a scientific report....

No one's calling you out man, relax.
All that bibliography shows is loads of supposed studies - most of which don't even mention aspartame. Without being able to read the article (not just the conclusion) we know nothing about it. Mickey Mouse could have written it and copy-pasted those references from anywhere. Dude should post the whole article, (just the link would be better!) and let people do their own research on the references.

Wikipedia can be changed or edited by anyone...

Google "Dr Mercola" on your own then, I just did. I stand by the quote.

[oatmeal69]

to not concede that there's very conflicting info on some of these artificial sweetener products or at least that their side effects are extremely individualistic would very obtuse imo.

Exactly.

[mockery]

i love the the word obtuse

[mr.slippyfist69]

http://m.naturalnews.com/news/008952..._seizures.html

[mockery]

why post the PDF? its clear you have already made your mind up that Artificial Sweeteners have no health related risks.

i beat enough dead horses here daily. Chalk it up to one of those life lessons that you have to learn that hard way. BUt food for thought oatmeal, maybe you carry so much fat in your midsection cause you consume these products. And you cant say "no" cause you have no data to cite otherwise.

[Sgt. Hartman]

I agree 100% sgt but we here should at least entertain a real dialogue concerning some of these independent studies before labeling them bunk science. Mercola is the tip of the iceberg in this on going debate, there are 100's of studies to examine before drawing any rash conclusions here

I'm not downplaying it - look at my post on the first page I said there's not much to worry about as far as insulin response but whether these artificial sweeteners are healthy over the long term is a different matter. It does seem individualistic to me though, I've read plenty of case studies where these sweeteners have honestly fvcked people up, but even more who have had no ill effects. No doubt most of this stuff is not ideal for our health but really what is unless you want to grow all your own organic food. I just try to be moderate and choose the lesser of all the evils.

[oatmeal69]

i love the the word obtuse

LOL!! 'member when Andy DuFresne called the warden "obtuse" in Shawshank Redemption?

[Sgt. Hartman]

i love the the word obtuse

haha that's one of my favorite words Andy said it to the warden in Shawshank Redemption and it's stuck with me ever since

"How could you be so obtuse"

[oatmeal69]

why post the PDF?

You brought it up, not me. let us READ it, or post a link.

its clear you have already made your mind up that Artificial Sweeteners have no health related risks.

I believe the running theory I stated earlier is that there is no scientifically accepted information available supporting alleged health risks. There is plenty to the contrary however.

food for thought oatmeal, maybe you carry so much fat in your midsection cause you consume these products.

Perhaps, but by that supposition, everyone else on this site using sweeteners should have excess mid-section fat they can't get rid of too.

And you cant say "no" cause you have no data to cite otherwise.

There is plenty of peer-reviewed data available.
You might consider reading up on Scientific Method, since we're passing suggestions to one another.

[mr.slippyfist69]

I really don't do it to be argumentative, just looking out for my brothers from other mothers. Good luck all

[oatmeal69]

I'm not here to argue either. Like I said, this website stands above because it has SOLID information. I think there is no better diet forum anywhere than here. If there's REAL data showing sweeteners to be the anti-christ, I'd love to know. But so far all I've ever seen is dubious at best.
I see tons of fat chicks posting DAILY on F.B. about how they only use honey and agave, and eat piles of fruit along with their weight-watchers because artificial sweeteners are Ba-aaaa-aaddd!! Meanwhile, they just can't understand why they continue to weigh 400#. When I tell them to lose the sugar and stick to sweetener if they must, they freak.

[oatmeal69]

... I said there's not much to worry about as far as insulin response but whether these artificial sweeteners are healthy over the long term is a different matter. It does seem individualistic to me though, I've read plenty of case studies where these sweeteners have honestly fvcked people up, but even more who have had no ill effects. No doubt most of this stuff is not ideal for our health but really what is unless you want to grow all your own organic food. I just try to be moderate and choose the lesser of all the evils.

The reason I started this thread was because I HAD NOT heard of the insulin response stuff from that article, and it freaked me out. Whether it will f*ck you up is another huge debate which has gone on and on since the 1960's when this stuff was invented.

[mr.slippyfist69]

That's the part that really does make me laugh though...," why am I still carting around so much weight?" look, I love fruit and always have but... Have I minimized it? You bet I did. Nanas and OJ are about it for me. Just because it's raw food, does not mean it won't pack on pounds....amen

[mockery]

Since my point wasnt clear with my witty wit,

If it came down to if the sweetener was why you were fat, would u continue consuming it?. Using the argument well it doesn't make other people fat.. is no good, everyone is different. i can eat 500ml ben and jerrys every day and stay shredded and strong, can the guy on the bench beside me, probably not. The other guy beside me eats maybe 1700 calories a day and seems to continually grow and grow , can i do that no.

have diabetics had blood sugar problems with fake sugars? yes its common, and reported often. so obvious our body and mind have the ability to trigger these same effects even with out the real sugar.

[951thompson]

Aspartame is the most studied food in the history of food. It's has been conclusively been branded safe for human consumption, Do you think if there where signs in anyway shape or form that it was poisonous, large billion dollar corporate companies like Coca-Cola or Pepsi ect would still be using it, there is many other sweetners they could use. Use your common sense, this shit has been thoroughly tested. The conclusion of the tests say its safe for human consumption.

[mr.slippyfist69]

Doctors in 50's said smoking was good for humans too....you raise a good point. If a company pushes a product for years that has made them tens of billions, and science and medicine though study find out its really bad for you, I'm sure they with the conscience of Buddhist monks would drop all those profits in an instant for the better of mankind. Wow that's some logic. Oatmeal said it best last night hike my eyes started crusting with sleep, the studies are mixed at best, time will decide this debate not opinions.

[oatmeal69]

If it came down to if the sweetener was why you were fat, would u continue consuming it?

Of course not, but only if I knew it was the problem. Like Sgt. Hartman basically said - choose a balance. If I listened to the bro-science related to sweetener, I'd have to give the same belief to pretty much everything else I eat, go vegan, and grow my own vegetables. Even then I'd get rickets and my eyes would turn orange. Have you ever seen some of those true vegans? LOL

I can eat 500ml ben and jerrys every day and stay shredded and strong

You BASTARD! That is a LOW blow!!
I understand what you are saying, and I'm the first to admit I haven't figured out MY secret to losing those last couple percents without losing all my muscle. HUGE bellies run rampant in my family, I'm definitely behind the gene curve there.

have diabetics had blood sugar problems with fake sugars? yes its common, and reported often. so obvious our body and mind have the ability to trigger these same effects even with out the real sugar.

That gets us back to the original topic. Several of the others have chimed in to say that while there's an insulin spike, it's not even in the same ballpark as what sugars will do.

Aspartame is the most studied food in the history of food. It's has been conclusively been branded safe for human consumption, Do you think if there where signs in anyway shape or form that it was poisonous, large billion dollar corporate companies like Coca-Cola or Pepsi ect would still be using it, there is many other sweetners they could use. Use your common sense, this shit has been thoroughly tested. The conclusion of the tests say its safe for human consumption.

My sentiments exactly. Our nanny-state government wants to ban 24oz. sodas! They banned Ephedra because some stupid kid ate a pound of it at a rave. It is squarely in the political agenda of progressive idiots who think they're helping to ban this stuff if they had even a smidge of credible science to back it up. They don't.

Doctors in 50's said smoking was good for humans too....you raise a good point. If a company pushes a product for years that has made them tens of billions, and science and medicine though study find out its really bad for you, I'm sure they with the conscience of Buddhist monks would drop all those profits in an instant for the better of mankind. Wow that's some logic. Oatmeal said it best last night hike my eyes started crusting with sleep, the studies are mixed at best, time will decide this debate not opinions.

More like the 1930's, but I get your point. However, our nanny state has done it's best to crush the free market in the last few years. Look at the domestic auto industry, health-care, banking. I guarantee the sweetener industry isn't big enough to stand in their way.

[951thompson]

Doctors in 50's said smoking was good for humans too....you raise a good point. If a company pushes a product for years that has made them tens of billions, and science and medicine though study find out its really bad for you, I'm sure they with the conscience of Buddhist monks would drop all those profits in an instant for the better of mankind. Wow that's some logic. Oatmeal said it best last night hike my eyes started crusting with sleep, the studies are mixed at best, time will decide this debate not opinions.

The tests are done by independent governing bodies, if they found anything fishy, it would be known.
These theories are just scaremongering.

[JJ78]

I cant post links at this time, but naturalnews.com has atimeline of how they passed it for human consumption. It took like 35 years. And it was outlawed many times. It is outlawed in many european countries.

But I say do what you want. **** man, Im injecting oil out of a vial that some dude made in his bathtub that I dont even know personally. So I dont use this phrase in my vocab but you only live once, so enjoy it.

[mockery]

look into how they do testing , its like sugar free red bull or most any sugar free drink they test 1 part per million and deem it sugar free. test 355ml nd see the real picture.

smoking kills people, they dont ban it, coke is pushing alot of money into marketing for coke zero, its their new flag ship. Its about profit , Americas over all health and body comp image is proof of what all these " diet/sugar free" products offer you.

people rather avoid fat then carbs. In Australia most of teh fat free or fat reduced products i consume have less fat but 1/3- twice the sugar content. Doesnt seem worth it.

now ice cream companies are using sorbitol for ice cream instead of sugar, but have to provide a waring it may cause extreme diahhira, enough sorbitol in sugar free gum to make you fart, think what a bowl of this stuff does?? if im gonna shit through the eye of a needle every day i may as well be enjoying the food i eat. bring on butter chicken!