ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:37 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 2:46 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Posts: 928
Location: Ohio, USA
frogbyte wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "determine", but how much you eat is certainly a factor in your body weight. You seem to be willing to dismiss any studies that point out health downsides to artificial chemical sweeteners because of a believed bias due to the power of the food industry lobby. I don't disagree that the food industry has a vested interest in addiction to poor diet, similar, as you say, to tobacco in the 50s. But that's not a reason to dismiss these studies that find issues with artificial chemical sweeteners.


If anything, I'm not just trying to play bad guy, but I would say the food industry is more on the side of sugared items over artifically sweetened items. That's why they outnumber artifically sweetened items by a factor of 109532495829057239875293757824395278435892 (yes exaggeration), but they have PROVEN, not debateable, health issues. And most of the medical community I read about is against aspartame, for the reason Ironman pointed out, a study involving rats...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 4:50 pm 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:30 am
Posts: 450
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
"Study authors Susan Swithers and Terry Davidson speculate the reason is that the faux sweetener messes with the brain, fooling it into revving up the body's metabolism in anticipation of a never-to-come calorie load."

First they speculate that some rats that have just been given someting for the first time get fooled, poor silly rats! But then they say it revvs up the body's metabolism, hello what do I want to do by building extra muscle? I tend to eat somehing that has a few calories from protein and fat in it not just carbs, BAM that means no "never-to-come calorie load"!

"Typically, they say, the taste buds, sensing something sweet, signal the brain to prep the digestive system to gear up for a caloric onslaught; when the expected sugar jolt (extra calories) fails to materialize, the body gets rattled and has trouble bouncing back and regulating appetite when other food is available. As a result, rats eat more or expend less energy than they would have had they had the real thing."

I don't tend to spend less energy cause I don't get some sugar so that goes out the window, and the word "typically" doesn't belong in science in my opinion, a word like "regularly" or a setence lik "on X% of occasions" belongs but not "typically"! We're still talking about rats who have little conscious though over what they eat and don't have a choice of what they eat as they are bound by what the scientist gives them! Not to mention the brain and body are complex and this reaction "for a caloric onslaught" would quickly cease in humans as they adapted to their food supply!

"They acknowledge, however, that more research is needed. After all, just because this counterintuitive effect may occur in rats does not necessarily mean it also happens in humans."

Here we the old "however, ... more research is needed." and rat's aren't humans! With a sample size total of 17 rats, 9 on artificial sweeteners and 8 on sugar no wonder this makes for suck compelling argument, not! As Ironman said, who's to say the rats didn't just like the taste better, there's no mention of how they actually read the minds of the rats to find out what they were thinking whilst eating!

Anyway, I'm sure this debate will continue for years to come, I myself am happy to keep the calories low when I'm not eating real foods, if it kills me so be it but I think it will be at the back of a list including childhood obesity, family history of diabetes, family history of heart disease, family history of stroke and the fact that I am of Australian (more so Tasmanian, they're slightly different genetically) Aborignal decent, so if some sweetener kills me I'm sure none of my other risk factors will show up in any studies!!!

John


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 7:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
frogbyte wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "determine", but how much you eat is certainly a factor in your body weight. You seem to be willing to dismiss any studies that point out health downsides to artificial chemical sweeteners because of a believed bias due to the power of the food industry lobby. I don't disagree that the food industry has a vested interest in addiction to poor diet, similar, as you say, to tobacco in the 50s. But that's not a reason to dismiss these studies that find issues with artificial chemical sweeteners.


You are missing the point. The point is these experiments do not have proper control and variable groups isolating just one variable and proving causation. This is not proper science. It is also full of speculation, this is also bad science. Speculation and assumptions are not acceptable.

We also don't know why the rats ate more of it, because they are rats, they don't talk. What part of this junk science do you not understand?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 7:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
The 2nd point is that intake is not the cause of obesity, it is just another side effect of the same metabolic disturbances. Read a book called "Good Calorie Bad Calorie". It provides pages and pages full of references to REAL experiments done by actual scientists with proper control and variable groups that actually show conclusive results.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 1:07 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:27 am
Posts: 1115
Location: Kabutzkatura
There has easily been over 200 studies done on sweeteners including aspartame and sucralose and have been proven to be safe, end of story. Alone there has been over 200 studies done on aspartame. I'll go with the strong scientific backing vs. bullsh!t speculation with no solid backing. Just because it's a "chemical" doesn't mean it bad for you. Then theres this whole load of sh!t with sucralose being molecularly similar to a chloride molecule and suggesting that they act the same way becasue they are similar....junk.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 12:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
There are actually many psychological mechanisms that explain the obsession people have with artificial sweeteners. The juxtaposition of hard set beliefs from puritanical culture with sweeteners which allow gluttons to escape their sins can create a severe psychological disturbance. This cognitive dissonance as it is called is more severe the more hard wired the beliefs are. It creates an overwhelming need in some people's cerebral cortex to rationalize the input coming from the limbic system rather than take the uncomfortable step of overruling it at the expense of the beliefs. Which is a process that can be quite uncomfortable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2009 12:29 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
I'm not sure if Ironman was arguing for less sugar, less artificial sweetener, or both.

Anyway, I can accept the "warrants more studies" response. That's reasonable. The earlier responses seemed more like a denial backlash against anything that might be even remotely seen as pro-sugar.

In the mean time I will avoid consuming newly created artificial chemicals whenever I can... like I said before, yogurt is sweet enough already - no need to pour aspartame on it.

Also, it seems like a good thing to break this idea that "sweet tastes good", and "not-sweet tastes bad". Using aspartame as a transitional crutch might be helpful, but ultimately, why continue to buy in to the fallacy that's been forced on us by years of growing up on Fruit Loops and Kool-Aid?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2009 10:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
frogbyte wrote:
I'm not sure if Ironman was arguing for less sugar, less artificial sweetener, or both.

Anyway, I can accept the "warrants more studies" response. That's reasonable. The earlier responses seemed more like a denial backlash against anything that might be even remotely seen as pro-sugar.

In the mean time I will avoid consuming newly created artificial chemicals whenever I can... like I said before, yogurt is sweet enough already - no need to pour aspartame on it.

Also, it seems like a good thing to break this idea that "sweet tastes good", and "not-sweet tastes bad". Using aspartame as a transitional crutch might be helpful, but ultimately, why continue to buy in to the fallacy that's been forced on us by years of growing up on Fruit Loops and Kool-Aid?


I was arguing for less sugar and that artificial sweeteners are safe. Study after study after study shows this. I have said this over and over again in this thread. So have other people. Open your eyes and read.

This is a great example of cognitive dissonance. Notice that despite evidence and rational arguments, the irrational beliefs are maintained.

There is no backlash against sugar. There is backlash against junk science. How many ways do I have to say your sited study is bulol$h1t, bollocks, poppycock, bologna, hogwash, flimflam, flapdoodle, claptrap, bunk and humbug.

Aspartame is not new at all. Also I said before THERE IS NO ASPARTAME IN YOGURT, for the 10th fv(k1ng time! It is splenda. aspartame=not in sugar-free yogurt, splenda=in sugar-free yogurt.

sweet taste is not good or bad, it's a matter of opinion. The reason we like it is because is because fruit is sweet. Some things are good sweet and some are not, and which things are which depends on the person.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:03 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Well in the original post he specifically mentioned aspartame, so the discussion of aspartame would be relevant. Anyway...

You emotionally and strongly assert that the cited studies are are "junk", but what evidence is there that aspartame does NOT disrupt your body's natural eating responses? Is there a similar study you're aware of which studied the long term impact to hunger/eating patterns of artificial sweeteners and showed no impact?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 3:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
Like was already posted, the studies done by the FDA for it to be allowed in food found no difference between control and variable groups. Plus all the studies done by people trying to show it to be harmful. They have all come up with nothing. Not to mention lots of people have been consuming it heavily for 30 years now. Plus all the silly chain e-mail that fueled the urban legends.

Also things don't need negative proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. All the gullible idiots out there are tripping over themselves to prove this. That lack of anything solid is proof enough that it is nonsense.

I will believe in harmful effects of these sweeteners, when there has been a proper study done. When they can submit a real experiment to a scientific journal for peer review.

Furthermore the only thing emotional about it, was my expression of frustration at you blathering on without reading what other people wrote, and then trying to misrepresent my position. Strawman arguments and junk science just don't cut it.

But instead of assuming you're just really thick, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Here is a little something about requirements of proof and that sort of thing. It has nothing to do with our topic, but it is good background information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqa ... annel_page

Here is good information about aspartame.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127

Here are the basics of junk science.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037#

This addresses the main problem with the evidence you presented.
http://www.stats.org/in_depth/faq/causa ... lation.htm

Once you have looked at all that you should understand what the problem is and gain a lot of skill and knowledge of critical thinking and debating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:09 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Disregarding the ad hominem stuff, http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 only deals with the urban legends where people say it'll kill you etc. It doesn't address the Scientific American question of whether these artificial sweeteners can alter your body's natural regulation of appetite.

Also, I disagree in this case that the burden of proof is entirely on those who say it may cause dietary issues. Because it's a new (in terms of evolutionary time) chemical to be introducing in the quantities we are, unless there's a compelling reason to consume it, the safer choice is to avoid it. This is the basis behind the FDA approval process. The burden of proof is on those introducing a new chemical. But again the FDA (as far as I know) only ever addressed the issue of safety, not of impact to appetite after exposure.

If the choice is whether to eat a cup of plain yogurt, or a cup of plain yogurt with a few packets of NutraSweet poured on top, I'd still advise the former, and no one has posted anything so far that is a strong argument to the contrary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:22 pm 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:30 am
Posts: 450
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Frogbyte do you use paracetamol or aspirin? Do you consume Caffiene? Do you consume seedless grapes or seedless watermelon? How about Taurine, do you drink Red Bull?

All of the above are new to the human body in "evolutionary terms" but I bet you still consume them! In fact Red Bull, in large doses, has cause people to die! In most cases they had some underlying condition that contributed to the death, but the over stimulation was the major cause! Yet a sweetener that may possibly have long term side effects, not instant death, is something you draw the line at? Sounds like an overreaction to bad info to me!

John


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 3:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
frogbyte wrote:
Disregarding the ad hominem stuff, http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 only deals with the urban legends where people say it'll kill you etc. It doesn't address the Scientific American question of whether these artificial sweeteners can alter your body's natural regulation of appetite.

Also, I disagree in this case that the burden of proof is entirely on those who say it may cause dietary issues. Because it's a new (in terms of evolutionary time) chemical to be introducing in the quantities we are, unless there's a compelling reason to consume it, the safer choice is to avoid it. This is the basis behind the FDA approval process. The burden of proof is on those introducing a new chemical. But again the FDA (as far as I know) only ever addressed the issue of safety, not of impact to appetite after exposure.

If the choice is whether to eat a cup of plain yogurt, or a cup of plain yogurt with a few packets of NutraSweet poured on top, I'd still advise the former, and no one has posted anything so far that is a strong argument to the contrary.


Well I guess I should have just assumed. You actually are just really really thick.


Whenever someone does not understand cognitive dissonance or other similar psychological phenomena, or is skeptical of them, I will direct them to this thread. I'm absolutely stunned. It's like a religion. It's been like debating a creationist.

As the English would say, I'm utterly gobsmacked. No wonder people believe in gods and alternative medicine. Any meme that takes root, is dug in like a virus. Even trying to administer the memetic version of antibodies does no good. These memes are resistant and have adapted to survive. Even the seemingly easy to kill. wow.

From a sociological and psychological perspective this has actually been quite fascinating. It took me a few minutes to realize the implications of this. It was just so unexpected.

Then with Jeffrerr's reply, that brings up a whole other thing. The compartmentalization! This is really fascinating stuff. It's given me a great perspective on beliefs that I hadn't really realized before and now the seemingly unexplainable is crystal clear. Well worth the frustration. Good stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 6:00 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:30 am
Posts: 450
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Ironman wrote:
Then with Jeffrerr's reply, that brings up a whole other thing.


About me or about him Ironman? I've felt thy wrath before and need not fell it again! lol

John


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 12:24 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
It cracks me up that Ironman continues with the ad hominem attacks, accusations of cognitive dissonance, and emotional rhetoric, but still hasn't actually pointed to any documentation whatsoever to debunk the concerns raised by the Scientific American article.

jeffrerr wrote:
Frogbyte do you use paracetamol or aspirin? Do you consume Caffiene? Do you consume seedless grapes or seedless watermelon? How about Taurine, do you drink Red Bull?


No actually I don't consume any of those regularly unless taurine is in one of my protein supplements. I'd point out that caffeine and is not all that new, however, as people have been consuming that for 1000s of years. Also, there are in some cases strong benefits to aspirin, which is why it's different from these artificial sweeteners.

Back to the original question of whether to dump artificial sweetener into yogurt, I think the consensus is that the existing studies are not sufficient and more research would be needed for a definitive answer.

The disagreement seems to be on whether the prudent thing would be to not add the artificial sweeteners to the yogurt when there's no benefit to them. I would advise against dumping artificial sweeteners on everything, since there's no upside, and potentially a slight downside. (Unless you really strongly value the upside of "sugary taste", in which case, shrug, you have different priorities than me, and more power to you.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group