Advertisement
by Thepeopl » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:07 am
by Hammer Britannia » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:10 am
Takso wrote:SD_Film Artists wrote:
As long as an equal tax is put on artificial sweeteners like aspartame. I'd much rather be fat than have cancer.
That is categorically false. Aspartame is not considered a threat to human health and actually could be used to fight the obesity epidemic.Wikipedia article on Aspartame wrote:The safety of aspartame has been studied since its discovery and is one of the most rigorously tested food ingredients. Aspartame has been deemed safe for human consumption by over 100 regulatory agencies in their respective countries, including the United States Food and Drug Administration, UK Food Standards Agency, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Health Canada, and Australia-New Zealand.
As of 2017, reviews of clinical trials showed that using aspartame (or other non-nutritive sweeteners) in place of sugar reduces calorie intake and body weight in adults and children.
A 2017 review of metabolic effects by consuming aspartame found that it did not affect blood glucose, insulin, total cholesterol, triglycerides, calorie intake, or body weight, while high-density lipoprotein levels were higher.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame ... th_effects
by Antityranicals » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:13 am
by SD_Film Artists » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:22 am
Takso wrote:SD_Film Artists wrote:
As long as an equal tax is put on artificial sweeteners like aspartame. I'd much rather be fat than have cancer.
That is categorically false. Aspartame is not considered a threat to human health and actually could be used to fight the obesity epidemic.Wikipedia article on Aspartame wrote:The safety of aspartame has been studied since its discovery and is one of the most rigorously tested food ingredients. Aspartame has been deemed safe for human consumption by over 100 regulatory agencies in their respective countries, including the United States Food and Drug Administration, UK Food Standards Agency, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Health Canada, and Australia-New Zealand.
As of 2017, reviews of clinical trials showed that using aspartame (or other non-nutritive sweeteners) in place of sugar reduces calorie intake and body weight in adults and children.
A 2017 review of metabolic effects by consuming aspartame found that it did not affect blood glucose, insulin, total cholesterol, triglycerides, calorie intake, or body weight, while high-density lipoprotein levels were higher.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame ... th_effects
Hammer Britannia wrote:As for the cancer, 'Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer.[7][8][10][28][29] This position is supported by multiple regulatory agencies like the FDA[30] and EFSA as well as scientific bodies such as the National Cancer Institute.[31] The EFSA and FDA state that aspartame is safe for human consumption.[6][32]'
The idea it causes cancer seems to stem from an article from the Environmental Health Perspective, some kind of medical peer-reviewed journal. Although I couldn't find anything on their legitimacy, one of their most recent articles appears to be some kind of fear-mongering in which a mixture of unnamed 'environmental chemicals' and socioeconomics can lead to autism. Which is bullshit, as Autism develops in the womb.
by Takso » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:40 am
SD_Film Artists wrote:Takso wrote:
That is categorically false. Aspartame is not considered a threat to human health and actually could be used to fight the obesity epidemic.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame ... th_effectsHammer Britannia wrote:As for the cancer, 'Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer.[7][8][10][28][29] This position is supported by multiple regulatory agencies like the FDA[30] and EFSA as well as scientific bodies such as the National Cancer Institute.[31] The EFSA and FDA state that aspartame is safe for human consumption.[6][32]'
The idea it causes cancer seems to stem from an article from the Environmental Health Perspective, some kind of medical peer-reviewed journal. Although I couldn't find anything on their legitimacy, one of their most recent articles appears to be some kind of fear-mongering in which a mixture of unnamed 'environmental chemicals' and socioeconomics can lead to autism. Which is bullshit, as Autism develops in the womb.
Very interesting! I may still avoid it more out of habit, but that's good to know anyway.
by Ethel mermania » Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:43 am
by Thepeopl » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:00 pm
by Risastorstein » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:08 pm
by Takso » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:18 pm
Thepeopl wrote:Takso wrote:
It's refreshing to see someone change their perspective based on discovering new evidence. Thank you for keeping an open mind. Nothing wrong with avoiding aspartame.
I don't eat/ drink sweeteners like aspartame, stevia or sucralose, I really don't like the taste.
And it doesn't work for weight loss in the long term
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929
Tl;dr the body expects calories when there is a sweet taste, so overtime sweet foods are no longer associated with calories, and the body will not signal it is satiated, so you eat more.
by Thepeopl » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:35 pm
Takso wrote:Thepeopl wrote:I don't eat/ drink sweeteners like aspartame, stevia or sucralose, I really don't like the taste.
And it doesn't work for weight loss in the long term
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929
Tl;dr the body expects calories when there is a sweet taste, so overtime sweet foods are no longer associated with calories, and the body will not signal it is satiated, so you eat more.
From that analysis:
"Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI and cardiometabolic risk. Further research is needed to fully characterize the long-term risks and benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners."
Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.
"The take-home message is artificially sweetened drinks aren’t a silver bullet for weight loss. But if you drink a lot of sugary drinks and think a diet version might help you cut down on sugar, that’s a good step and is very unlikely to do you any harm."
"Despite the theories, the European Food Safety Authority have ruled that artificial sweeteners in food and drink pose no threat to our health if consumed within daily allowances. For aspartame, this is equivalent to 15 cans of diet coke. That’s a stark contrast to what we know about the harms of having too much sugar."
Source: Cancer Research UK
https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.or ... ight-loss/
EDIT: That's 15 cans daily. Way higher than what would be okay for alternatives. Meaning, the diet coke option is not harmful and in fact the use of aspartame is safe.
by Takso » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:56 pm
Thepeopl wrote:Takso wrote:
From that analysis:
"Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI and cardiometabolic risk. Further research is needed to fully characterize the long-term risks and benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners."
Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.
"The take-home message is artificially sweetened drinks aren’t a silver bullet for weight loss. But if you drink a lot of sugary drinks and think a diet version might help you cut down on sugar, that’s a good step and is very unlikely to do you any harm."
"Despite the theories, the European Food Safety Authority have ruled that artificial sweeteners in food and drink pose no threat to our health if consumed within daily allowances. For aspartame, this is equivalent to 15 cans of diet coke. That’s a stark contrast to what we know about the harms of having too much sugar."
Source: Cancer Research UK
https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.or ... ight-loss/
EDIT: That's 15 cans daily. Way higher than what would be okay for alternatives. Meaning, the diet coke option is not harmful and in fact the use of aspartame is safe.
The point of the article is: by eating/drinking light products, people are going to eat/ drink more. Because the body isn't getting as much calories as it is expecting.
And because people think, see this isn't fattening so I can eat/ drink more.
Same as roads which are perceived as dangerous, are actually safer, because people will drive more carefully there.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm
Hammer Britannia wrote:SD_Film Artists wrote:
Is this an American joke that I'm too European to understand? The NHS could do with getting some cheaper medication but other than that I don't understand why "bIG pHaRma" is such a boogyman.
Scapegoatism
tl;dr: "Healthcare is expensive in the states for reasons beyond my comprehention, therefore it's evil and cannot be trusted."
It's essentially anti-science. It's the reason why we have anti-vaxxers, homoeopathy nuts, and people who believe smoking is A-OK
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Deltia- » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:18 pm
(29/03/2022)Der Weld: Far-right terrorist in Kyoto stabs 8 |Now Playing:easy life - nightmaresStocks: ADV 35 - +0.2%|CAC- +0.6%|FTSE- +0.4%|DAX- +0.3%
by Takso » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:21 pm
Deltia- wrote:Yes. This "body positive" nonsense is just causing early death. Don't get me wrong, being underweight is also unhealthy. If you're overweight, drop the McDonalds' and hit the gym. If you're underweight, pick up the McDonalds.
by The Republic of Fore » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:49 pm
SD_Film Artists wrote:Hammer Britannia wrote:Scapegoatism
tl;dr: "Healthcare is expensive in the states for reasons beyond my comprehention, therefore it's evil and cannot be trusted."
It's essentially anti-science. It's the reason why we have anti-vaxxers, homoeopathy nuts, and people who believe smoking is A-OK
Makes sense :/
by Imperium of Dragonia » Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:52 pm
Scomagia wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Do not call for the killing of people here. I'm sure you meant it as a joke. It wasn't funny.
It was funny, actually.
NSG: Where you can joke as an actual communist about "liquidating" the bourgeoisie but a joke about assassinating a strongman tyrant is somehow a bridge too far. :roll:
by Risottia » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:55 am
Takso wrote:Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.
by Risottia » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:59 am
Deltia- wrote:If you're underweight, pick up the McDonalds.
by Ethel mermania » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:28 am
by SD_Film Artists » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:30 am
Takso wrote:Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.
by New haven america » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:36 am
by Hammer Britannia » Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:50 am
by Thepeopl » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:12 am
Takso wrote:Certainly not a "silver bullet" for weight loss, but not necessarily contributing to the obesity epidemic. Overall, you can safely consume 15 cans of diet coke with aspartame with no threat to health.
by Cekoviu » Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:45 am
Imperium of Dragonia wrote:We've reached the equivalent of peak anti-vaxx levels now, if people are unironically asking if being a fatass is unhealthy.
Yeah yeah, keep being body-positive, those Whoppers and 15 pounds of Hershey bars in your purse will put you in the ground in about five years, but we need to promote boy positivity!.
by Diopolis » Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:06 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Hammer Britannia wrote:Scapegoatism
tl;dr: "Healthcare is expensive in the states for reasons beyond my comprehention, therefore it's evil and cannot be trusted."
It's essentially anti-science. It's the reason why we have anti-vaxxers, homoeopathy nuts, and people who believe smoking is A-OK
Funny you should mention that. The Chinese are such a high-IQ nationality that they dominate over the west in education. They still smoke like crazy. Almost as if it's the medical profession's own fault that no one believes them anymore.
Science is not just science. Science that's been hijacked by special interests deserves much; if not most; of the skepticism it gets.
Ideally we should return to science, but first step first is to purge it of all special-interest influence. If they can't do it, and people continue not to believe them, it's their own damn fault.
That said, I already addressed in the OP why special interests are no excuse for anti-vax beliefs in particular.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Barinive, Deblar, Floofybit, ImSaLiA, Kostane, New Temecula, Palmtree, Plan Neonie, Senkaku, Shrillland, Spirit of Hope, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan
Advertisement