Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Asparstame not dangerous after all!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    If you can't hunt it, fish it, gather it in the wild, grow it on a farm (of some style), or draw it from a clean well, it ain't food, no matter how many studies it undergoes.
    I have a mantra that I have spouted for years... "If I eat right, I feel right. If I feel right, I exercise right. If I exercise right, I think right. If I think right, I eat right..." Phil-SC

    Comment


    • #77
      If you can't hunt it, fish it, gather it in the wild, grow it on a farm (of some style), or draw it from a clean well, it ain't food, no matter how many studies it undergoes.
      True, and I agree with you on every point. But a plausible counter-argument would be that plenty of toxic things exist in nature, too! Some fish eggs will kill you, you've got deadly plants all over the place, etc. And those substances that kill you are just chemicals, too. No, they aren't artificial, petroleum-based, garbage chemicals - but it IS possible that some of our synthetic vitamins are actually useful, and in the same boat, some sweeteners might (I doubt it) be safe as well. I'm not going to eat them. But you see that perspective, right?
      Crohn's, doing SCD

      Comment


      • #78
        There are some people who believe that small doses of poison won't hurt you and might even strengthen you. Over 20 years ago, a toxicologist friend told me that studies that show that people who smoke 3-4 cigarettes a day live longer than non-smokers were squashed by every agency pretty much immediately.

        Perhaps apartame, like snake venom is okay in small doses. I believe, if simply by observing my life and others', that over consumption of anything, even foods that are considered healthy isn't great for anyone.

        I use a half packet in my coffee in the morning, and drink maybe three or four glasses of Crystal Lite in a week. If that kills me, c'est la vie.
        "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

        B*tch-lite

        Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
          Um, no. That was my point exactly. Thank you for re-stating it. The studies came from the creator of aspartame and are therefor less than independent scientific analyses. And, as DinoHunter pointed out, it would be interesting to know what was in the other 88 studies.
          Go ahead and read them yourself: EFSA Call: Call for scientific data on Aspartame (E 951)

          Here's a random one.

          ...in addition to the one or two published studies by independent researchers that were also included in the review. And I'd like to point out to the people throwing out irrelevant anecdotes that the review isn't about whether or not aspartame gives people headaches or is a good thing to consume all the time, but to re-evaluate the recommended ADI of 40 mg/kg/day, which they concluded was still appropriate.

          This thread exists because Gorbag felt it was necessary to defend his consumption of Coke Zero, and I will defend it as well. Why not? All I'm seeing from the opposition is an appeal to nature and "cancer!!"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
            True, and I agree with you on every point. But a plausible counter-argument would be that plenty of toxic things exist in nature, too! Some fish eggs will kill you, you've got deadly plants all over the place, etc. And those substances that kill you are just chemicals, too. No, they aren't artificial, petroleum-based, garbage chemicals - but it IS possible that some of our synthetic vitamins are actually useful, and in the same boat, some sweeteners might (I doubt it) be safe as well. I'm not going to eat them. But you see that perspective, right?

            Hi Knifegill! Congratulations on the baby!!

            This is for you:

            "If you can't hunt it, fish it, gather it in the wild, grow it on a farm (of some style), or draw it from a clean well, it ain't food no matter how many studies it undergoes.
            Disclaimer: The natural world is full of stuff that will either make humans very sick or kill them outright, in addition to nutritious edibles, so proceed with care while wildcrafting or consuming non-domesticated animal life forms."

            Yeah, I know we could reduce everything down to bare chemistry, but you also know what a slippery slope THAT is.
            I have a mantra that I have spouted for years... "If I eat right, I feel right. If I feel right, I exercise right. If I exercise right, I think right. If I think right, I eat right..." Phil-SC

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
              Zach does know everything.

              Apartame Causes Cancer - More Proof
              This Italian study has been called into question and appears to be a flier:

              Aspartame

              Comment


              • #82
                My headaches stopped when I didn't drink it anymore so no thanks.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Karyn View Post
                  My headaches stopped when I didn't drink it anymore so no thanks.
                  I don't consume it or any other artificial sweeteners. I think it is interesting though, that some people quickly cite animal studies when they support their views but even more quickly discredit other animal studies which do not because everyone knows animal studies do not translate to humans and/or they have confounding variables. When in doubt we say "correlation does not equal causation". Just seems like animal studies are judged with a double-standard driven by our own conformational bias.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
                    animal studies are judged with a double-standard driven by our own conformational bias.
                    Yip. Double standards ahoy... everywhere!
                    "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

                    In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

                    - Ray Peat

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      It's not a double standard, it's a half-standard.
                      Crohn's, doing SCD

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
                        I think it is interesting though, that some people quickly cite animal studies when they support their views but even more quickly discredit other animal studies which do not because everyone knows animal studies do not translate to humans and/or they have confounding variables. When in doubt we say "correlation does not equal causation". Just seems like animal studies are judged with a double-standard driven by our own conformational bias.
                        It's not just animal studies. The paleo crowd will use epidemiology in its favor when it confirms our beliefs. When the Cochrane Collaboration found no good evidence against eating saturated fat, it was a triumph for all humanity. When they found no good evidence in favor of taking fish oil fish oil, it was horrible science! Who paid for that study!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
                          It's not just animal studies. The paleo crowd will use epidemiology in its favor when it confirms our beliefs. When the Cochrane Collaboration found no good evidence against eating saturated fat, it was a triumph for all humanity. When they found no good evidence in favor of taking fish oil fish oil, it was horrible science! Who paid for that study!
                          I actually think paleo has recently (past couple years) in many senses spearheaded pointing out the possible downsides of fish oil.

                          Either way....aspartame. IMO look at it like any other cheat/ 20%. No it's not ideal. Don't use it if you have headaches, migraines, any other neurological disorder:

                          Formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines: a... [Dermatitis. 2008 May-Jun] - PubMed - NCBI

                          Also might not wanna use it if your not fond of introducing substances that did not contribute to your current biological state seeing as its one of those less than 50 year old type things.

                          And no, I don't think our current scientific model can extrapolate everything and be totally depended on.....even the cochrane reviews........"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts"
                          Last edited by Neckhammer; 01-30-2013, 08:39 AM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X