Are these really bad for you? I usually have two cans a day.

You will get a lot of differing opinions on this topic, as there are studies that say ingredients in diet soda is bad for you while there are also several studies that say they are perfectly safe.

My motto is everything in moderation. I don't think 2 a day is horrible, but I try to limit myself to one a day if at all. Sometimes I go weeks without it when i don't buy it at the store, so i don't stress out if I go overboard every once in a while.

I would just advise that if you are drinking a soda with caffeine that you make sure you are also drinking a lot of water all day and getting a lot of calcium as caffeine in excess can dehydrate you and be bad for your bones.

Yes they are really bad for you. Diet contains aspertame and if you do some research on that, you will find out that it should not be consumed if you can help it. It damages your health in the long run, big time. If you're concerned about having it, but want something to drink during the day then try kefir, it's the healthiest drink you could ever have and it takes great. Look for the kefir post if your interested.

Just my opinion. Nothing artificial (especially sodas) should ever be consumed.

Yeah, I agree with the last two posters. If you're going to drink it, having a lot of pop is not healthy. "But it's diet, so its all good!" Umm, no not really. if you're going to drink it, keep it a lttle bit, a can or less.
:wave:
PeAcE uP a-ToWn DoWn

Hmmm well I cannot stand water! Is there something else that tastes better without calories? :confused:

what about iced (or hot) tea? totally calorie free and good for you and good tasting (well, I add a little Equal which a lot of people would disagree with, but i like it that way!)

I love diet sodas and hate water. For the new year i am going to cut back on diet drinks and instead drink a cold glasses of skimmed milk.

How could you not stand water? Oh well I'm confused... :dizzy: Anyways yeah tea is good, personally I love lite rasberry iced tea.

If the option is 2 diet sodas as opposed to two sugary ones, the diet sodas will save you 320 calories a day or every 11 days, 3500 calories...that's a pound of fat.
If you want to gain that pound every 11 days or 33 pounds a year go with the regular soda.

I choose the diet soda!

if you don't like water, you can get those little packets of sutff to shake up in your water bottles..umm..i forget what it's called, but they have flaors like rapberry ice or peach teach and lemonade...i think it has 0 calories, it might have 5 at most. it's pretty good, i don't usually like sweetners, but i like it and it's better than diet pop.

CHRYSTAL LIGHT! that's what it is..:)

Hmmm well I cannot stand water! Is there something else that tastes better without calories? :confused:

This is probably about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That's like saying "i cannot stand air". water is about the most essential substance required for your life. You know, health is not an easy thing to maintain especially in todays world where there are so many foods and drinks that our society has accepted as "healthy" but really are not. To set aside water because you "cannot stand it" is basically to say "I really don't want to take the most basic steps to maintain my health".

I am sorry if this post sounds a bit crusty, but I read this forum frequently and am amazed at the posts I read. So many people are hell bent on finding ways to believe that what they are doing is healthy regardless of what common sense would dictate. Of course pumping 2 cans of diet soda a day into your body is bad for you. Especially when you add on top of that the basically unhealthy diet that most people adhere to today. We have accepted as healthy, the full regimen of processed, chemically injected foods, and we wash it down with a chemical concoction that is loaded with flavor but no calories. Common sense tells me that there must be some impact to my body. Whole grains are healthy, but people don't particularly like the taste, so they eat some product made from the grain that has had all the nutritive value stripped from it (then wash it down with a chemistry set pop).

Think about it people. Life is not easy. It's a struggle. To say that you can be healthy while depriving your body of all the things that it has evolved to require over millenia, and think that you can just replace it with some trash that was invented in a laboratory is insane. Our diets should consist of 90% natural and healthy foods (fruits, vegetables, lean meats, and minimal processing) and then 10% processed junk food that makes you feel happy.

The life expectancy of our society is getting higher and higher, but at the same time the quality of life for most people in those last 10 years is getting worse and worse. Mostly this is due to the terrible way we all treat our bodies. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the cancers, and dementia diseases (alzheimers, parkinsons, and others) may be due to the fact that we pump ourselves up with chemicals on a daily basis?

Very well said Friskj, I agree completely!!

Well seeing I have just completed my 72 ounce of Diet Pepsi as we speak plus a extra large diet coke from Steak Escape today I will have one of the best buzzes tonight that there is. I have totally supported the industry and according to all the diet pop I drink I should be minus 48 pounds but I have fooled them all and kept on gaining to help the national average.

I just do not worry about things like that. Better half drinks as much as I do so we just have one great big buzz together. He drinks some stupid pop called Diet Mountain Dew which I have another name for. Terrible pop...... But I do like broccoli.

Hi :)

Yes fizzy drinks are very bad for you, you get no good out of a soda drink.
I've just rencently given up.

You say you hate water what about throwing a few fruits into a blender and making a nice smoothie?

Goodluck

Sure water is the best, but let's give scientific researchers some credit here. Some things made in laboratories help people believe it or not. I'm sure diabetics appreciate artificial sweeteners.
I worked for the FDA and had exposure to the whole aspartame debate, and I can assure you my basement is full of diet drinks. Sure phosphoric acid from colas can cause brittle bones if you're under 21, and aspartame (like alcohol) is a urinary irritant, but 2 cans of soda a day are not going to give you cancer or MS if that's the "healthy" you are asking about. I know what it's like not to enjoy the taste of pure water. I would say go ahead and make some dilute crystal lite and as long as you don't have issues peeing you're set.
Just remember if your diet soda is caffeinated it only counts as 1/2 water for hydration purposes. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but there have been millions of dollars spent researching aspartame, and the only way to reach the recommended daily limit set forth by those studies is to drink so much diet soda that you will be bordering on water toxcicity. (sorry I'm just tired of non-scientists overreacting without reading the facts directly for themselves).

Ariesgirly I am with you I gag when I drink water. Silly maybe but true. I have tried every brand of water available and all make em queasy You are not alone.
Everyones body is different I have had people tell me it has no taste so how can it make me queasy. My answer is I am not a scientist I am just stating a fact.
Brisk diet lemon tea has no after taste (I love it)
Lisa

I understand the concern with the current practices of the FDA...basically see if it causes cancer and if it doesn't you're set. I also understand how people can be skeptical given the industrial pressures, but I don't think aspartame is one of those products. The bulk of the research is not done at the FDA itself, but is outsourced to other laboratories and there was a ton of research done independently of the government as well. I would never eat olestra...at least in it's old form (it's allegidly been improved) but I will consume aspartame. I guess we all arrive at the same point in the end...in moderation it will most likely be fine. Not sure about long term studies, but I just don't see how two amino acids can cause all this controversy! :)

Thanks!
:wave:
I know very little about its molecular make up, but when you said "two amino acids can cause all this controversy..." I would say that perhaps controversy arises because (now I have no idea how to scientifically word this, bc i am a neophyte), some of the molecules that make up the amino acids are derivatives of methanol? Perhaps you would know the answer to this: if you form an amino acid does it matter where the molecules are derived? Is the end product as good as if it had been produced by nature? Do we know? Dees this at all make sense?

B.Y.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret this post. Do you take pride in your poor nutrition? Do you read and participate here to better your health, or just to find out just how poorly you are treating your body? It sounds like you are very satisfied that you drank about a gallon of diet soda in a day. I can understand why you continue to gain weight. Being healthy is an overall plan that requires good nutrition all around. You will not get to a healthy status by drinking diet soda. I guarantee that.


Mmmm...How can you gaurantee that??? I know lots of healthy people that drink diet soda.

you may believe that Diaet soda is really bad adn may not think that he can be healthy by drinking diet soda....but that is just your opinion and you can not guarantee it.

To Both above:

"Over time, trends in thinking change on what is healthy or not healthy. For example, up until the ‘90’s experts told us that any amount of alcohol is bad. Now, we all know the redeeming effects of a glass of wine a day"....(posted earlier and now directed to pro/con drinkers. This is NOT to say I believe we will think of diet drinks the same way, but to point out poss future paradigm shift. As of yet, there is not conclusive evidence either way).

Tsk, tsk, on you both. Fik for being ‘holier than thou.’ And Piper for using 'anecdotal' evidence.

Sorry, hard on you both...

[QUOTE=fiskj]This is probably about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That's like saying "i cannot stand air". water is about the most essential substance required for your life. You know, health is not an easy thing to maintain especially in todays world where there are so many foods and drinks that our society has accepted as "healthy" but really are not. To set aside water because you "cannot stand it" is basically to say "I really don't want to take the most basic steps to maintain my health".


Well, I just don't like the taste!!! Don't you think that everyone has different tatse buds GEEEEZZZZ!!!!!! :o

Aries: yes, my husband does not like H2O either. I drink water, but I don't judge him! If you don't like aspertame drinks, try watering down 100% juice concentrates. This adds alot of liquid to your diet and you still get the flavor. I am on your side Girly!!

I went from drinking a 2 liter bottle of pepsi a day, to diet pepsi (but less), to now i drink just water. Its not that bad. They even have flavored water. the strawberry is pretty good. What I don't understand is that people buy water when it comes right out of our faucets and its free! :D

To Both above:

"Over time, trends in thinking change on what is healthy or not healthy. For example, up until the ‘90’s experts told us that any amount of alcohol is bad. Now, we all know the redeeming effects of a glass of wine a day"....(posted earlier and now directed to pro/con drinkers. This is NOT to say I believe we will think of diet drinks the same way, but to point out poss future paradigm shift. As of yet, there is not conclusive evidence either way).

Tsk, tsk, on you both. Fik for being ‘holier than thou.’ And Piper for using 'anecdotal' evidence.

Sorry, hard on you both...

Actually I was more trying to make the same sort of point you are....I was just making that point that we cant really know one way or the other....its only opinion. I personally dont think diet sodas are that good for you....but it doesnt mean you cant be healthy and drink them. I still drink them on occasion..but mainly water now.

To Both above:

"Over time, trends in thinking change on what is healthy or not healthy. For example, up until the ‘90’s experts told us that any amount of alcohol is bad. Now, we all know the redeeming effects of a glass of wine a day"....(posted earlier and now directed to pro/con drinkers. This is NOT to say I believe we will think of diet drinks the same way, but to point out poss future paradigm shift. As of yet, there is not conclusive evidence either way).

Tsk, tsk, on you both. Fik for being ‘holier than thou.’ And Piper for using 'anecdotal' evidence.

Sorry, hard on you both...

Quite a few things to talk about here:
1) Holier than thou? Interesting perspective. Since when does honesty with ones self as well as others become holier than thou? I proclaim to be better than nobody, however I do call it as it is. There is NO HEALTH BENEFIT to drinking diet soda. It provides no nutrition. It is loaded with chemicals that are questionalble AT BEST for our bodies. We all know that in nature there is a law that says every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. When you drink a non diet soda the action is calories in, the reaction is either calories burned, or weight gained. When you drink a diet soda, you put substances into your body, and you see no apparent reaction. They are chemicals going in, they have an effect. In this case, it's quite probable that what you dont see WILL hurt you.

2) Regarding the "changes in thinking" in the medical community; I once again go with action/reaction. There is no "inert" food item. It's either good for us or not good for us. Diet soda is not good for us.

3) Yes I understand that people have different tastes. That's fine. You must understand that there are certain things that we must do in life. I don't like going to work every day. I know I must or I will lose my house. You don't like the taste of water. You must learn to accept it because it is THE most important component of our diet. Drinking plenty of it will improve your healt, especially as compared to drinking diet sodas.

My point here is that there seems to be a trend in our society whereby people will go out of their way to "justify" the use of "diet foods and drinks" becuase they want to feel as though they are being nutritionally responsible. If you want to use these foods and drinks, that's fine, but don't go trying to make it sound as though these are good things. I love my mother, but I simply must laugh at her when she calls me up to ask if she can count her diet pudding as a milk serving. She justifies it well. Yes it has a serving of milk in it. Is it healthy? NO! Use your common sense. If you want to eat healthy you must realze that there are no shortcuts. Nothing worth while is easy. It's like that old saying "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is". It seems too good to be true that drinking diet sodas (all that flavor for no calories) could be good for you. That's because it is NOT good for you.

I will once again state that I have no desire to be "holier than thou". I simply have every desire to be honest and hopefully open at least one set of eyes to the fact that to be healthy, you need to take some serious steps in the right direction. Sometimes the steps may be ones that require a bit of unpleasantness for a while. I also claim that when somebody posts a message boasting about drinking a gallon of diet soda in one day, and on top of that seemingly proud of the fact that they continue to gain weight, they are far from serious about being healthy. As a matter of fact, I will state that a person who acts as such has not even come close to understanding that they are in need of a dramatic change in their lifestyle. It's as if they have participated in this discussion for no other reason than to say "hey, you want to see total disregard for health; well here it is".

So, holier than thou, no. More honest than thou, probably.

I agree with you fiskj. I certainly did not think your post was hollier than thou and like you said it provides no nutrition and it seems that many forget or maybe deny that this particular board is about "Nutrition in our Diet".

Quite a few things to talk about here:
1) Holier than thou? Interesting perspective. Since when does honesty with ones self as well as others become holier than thou? I proclaim to be better than nobody, however I do call it as it is. There is NO HEALTH BENEFIT to drinking diet soda. It provides no nutrition. It is loaded with chemicals that are questionalble AT BEST for our bodies. We all know that in nature there is a law that says every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. When you drink a non diet soda the action is calories in, the reaction is either calories burned, or weight gained. When you drink a diet soda, you put substances into your body, and you see no apparent reaction. They are chemicals going in, they have an effect. In this case, it's quite probable that what you dont see WILL hurt you.

2) Regarding the "changes in thinking" in the medical community; I once again go with action/reaction. There is no "inert" food item. It's either good for us or not good for us. Diet soda is not good for us.

3) Yes I understand that people have different tastes. That's fine. You must understand that there are certain things that we must do in life. I don't like going to work every day. I know I must or I will lose my house. You don't like the taste of water. You must learn to accept it because it is THE most important component of our diet. Drinking plenty of it will improve your healt, especially as compared to drinking diet sodas.

My point here is that there seems to be a trend in our society whereby people will go out of their way to "justify" the use of "diet foods and drinks" becuase they want to feel as though they are being nutritionally responsible. If you want to use these foods and drinks, that's fine, but don't go trying to make it sound as though these are good things. I love my mother, but I simply must laugh at her when she calls me up to ask if she can count her diet pudding as a milk serving. She justifies it well. Yes it has a serving of milk in it. Is it healthy? NO! Use your common sense. If you want to eat healthy you must realze that there are no shortcuts. Nothing worth while is easy. It's like that old saying "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is". It seems too good to be true that drinking diet sodas (all that flavor for no calories) could be good for you. That's because it is NOT good for you.

I will once again state that I have no desire to be "holier than thou". I simply have every desire to be honest and hopefully open at least one set of eyes to the fact that to be healthy, you need to take some serious steps in the right direction. Sometimes the steps may be ones that require a bit of unpleasantness for a while. I also claim that when somebody posts a message boasting about drinking a gallon of diet soda in one day, and on top of that seemingly proud of the fact that they continue to gain weight, they are far from serious about being healthy. As a matter of fact, I will state that a person who acts as such has not even come close to understanding that they are in need of a dramatic change in their lifestyle. It's as if they have participated in this discussion for no other reason than to say "hey, you want to see total disregard for health; well here it is".

So, holier than thou, no. More honest than thou, probably.


Maybe not holier then now..but maybe a little conceited.

What you are Stating is your opinion...not fact....There is no "Fact" on this matter because the truth is that we just dont truly know.

I believe you are completely wrong when you say that something must be either good for you or bad for you! Why Cant it be in between? Some things can be both good for you and bad for you! This is specifically true for different people. as the same thing can affect different people differently.

Is like cigarettes....you can definately say it is bad for you but you cannot gaurantee that it will cause lung cancer to that person. There are many people that smoke and live long healthy lives...but that is the exception rather then the norm.

Is diet soda Bad for you? It very well may be, but there just is not enough evidence to say that it 100% is bad for you. One benefit it does have is that it will contribute to your daily intake of water! (not as much if it has caffeine...but it will) and it will keep you hydrated, sure there are better choices, but you cant really say that it doesnt have any benefits at all!

I agree with you fiskj. I certainly did not think your post was hollier than thou and like you said it provides no nutrition and it seems that many forget or maybe deny that this particular board is about "Nutrition in our Diet".

Hey Beach! hows it going...You know we agree a lot on many things. but as you can see from my posts is that I mainly object to it when People Say This WILL do this or WILL do that or that something is completely good or completely bad.
Opinions about what is good or bad always change and there are always conflicting views. And to tell somebody that they cannot be healthy by drinking diet soda is truly an ignorant remark, and is completely false. Can it be bad for some people? I am sure it can...but it doesnt mean it is bad for everybody.

Hey Beach! hows it going...You know we agree a lot on many things. but as you can see from my posts is that I mainly object to it when People Say This WILL do this or WILL do that or that something is completely good or completely bad.
Opinions about what is good or bad always change and there are always conflicting views. And to tell somebody that they cannot be healthy by drinking diet soda is truly an ignorant remark, and is completely false. Can it be bad for some people? I am sure it can...but it doesnt mean it is bad for everybody.

Hey Pip,
Glad you are back. I hear what you are saying. How's the wife any baby yet?

Hey, this was just on TV on "Dr. Know." It's a show that explores medical myths. He discovered that diet soda does not have acrylimide; however, our bodies convert the diet soda to acrylimide in our stomach. He said it's ok in moderation, but you should try not to drink it if you have a kidney or liver problem.

Some diet sodas also contain lots of sodium, which can cause water weight gain.

Hey Pip,
Glad you are back. I hear what you are saying. How's the wife any baby yet?

Good to be back...Got banned for a while because I posted my Home page! Whoops...Wont do that again.

Nothing yet...due date is in a week! I just want it to happen now! But my wife just started her maternity leave and wants a few days to relax before Matthew comes.

Maybe not holier then now..but maybe a little conceited.

What you are Stating is your opinion...not fact....There is no "Fact" on this matter because the truth is that we just dont truly know.

I believe you are completely wrong when you say that something must be either good for you or bad for you! Why Cant it be in between? Some things can be both good for you and bad for you! This is specifically true for different people. as the same thing can affect different people differently.

Is like cigarettes....you can definately say it is bad for you but you cannot gaurantee that it will cause lung cancer to that person. There are many people that smoke and live long healthy lives...but that is the exception rather then the norm.

Is diet soda Bad for you? It very well may be, but there just is not enough evidence to say that it 100% is bad for you. One benefit it does have is that it will contribute to your daily intake of water! (not as much if it has caffeine...but it will) and it will keep you hydrated, sure there are better choices, but you cant really say that it doesnt have any benefits at all!

Here we go again with the name calling. OK Piper, so I am holier than thou, conceited and ignorant. Sorry you feel so. I am a scientist, not an artist. i have learned through my experience that in nature there is a dividing line between beneficial and not beneficial. Everything lies on one side of the line or the other. To say something is neutral is to be artistic, and that does not serve much purpose when discussing health.

I will agree with you that all people react differently to different things. My grandfather smoked a pipe all his life. All 92 years of it. Is smoking bad for you? I will answer an emphatic yes. There is no aspect of smoking that would make reputable person say, "this is a good thing". Will some people be fine drinking diet sodas? Probably. Is it good for us? My answer is no. Will it kill us? Maybe, maybe not. If a person is looking to become healthy will it benefit them? Again my answer is no. If a person is looking to be less unhealthy will it help them? Maybe (in the short term). The chemicals in diet sodas are substances that the human body has not evolved to accept. It may appear that they do not harm us, but I think that even a mind such as yours, that tends to think we cannot make absolute statements could realize that our bodies are not prepared to accept such chemicals and that somewhere down the line the body will respond to the constant exposure to them. By the way, that was not a knock against you. You think one way, I think another.

The problem that I see with your point of view is that it leads to people thinking that these foods are not bad for you, and that we should continue to use them until there is solid proof that they are bad for you. My point of view uses common sense to say they probably are bad for you and that we should not use them until there is solid proof that they are not bad for you.

Heres a good analogy. If a new air travel vehicle were developed and the developers said "we think it's air worthy, nothing has shown that it is not", would you fly in it's m***** voyage? i would not. However if the developers said "we think it's air worthy and we have solid proof that it is", would you fly in it's m***** voyage. I would feel far better about it. If the developers said "of course it's safe" but there were controversy among many experts in the field as to whether the developers really knew what they were making, would you want to fly in it? I would demand that the developers provide concrete proof that the critics are wrong in ther assertions before flying in it.

I am not by any means conceited. I have been wrong in the past, I will be wrong in the future. What I am is willing to take a solid stand on what I believe. Call that conceit or ignorance if you please.

People who have weight problems typically have nutrition problems. Please hold back on saying that some people have hormone problems. I know that, but we all know that the majority do not. I know a lot of overweight people and I need look no further than what they eat to see why. To say to these people who already have poor nutritional plans, that it's just fine to go and drink your mega bottles of diet soda every day, is simply to avoid saying to them "you need help in your nutritional guidance". I have seen people order a Big Mac, large fries, and a diet coke. Oh how they think they are being responsible to their bodies by avoiding the 400 calorie large regular coke.

Everything in moderation is also a very good philosophy to live by. Heres another guarantee I would feel comfortable with. Smoking in moderation would be of no health concern. If I smoked one cigarette a month, I doubt that I would experience any negative health problems. If someone drank one 12 ounce diet soda every few weeks as a treat, again, no problem. Still, either of those things is not preferable, but hey, we all have to live and be happy. Smoking the pack a day, or drinking the gallon of diet soda a day is bad for you. Drinking two diet sodas a day is bad for you. Drinking a few beers every day is bad for you. Yes I know that the research is saying that a little alcohol a day is beneficial for preventing certain diseases, however other research is showing that it may be causing others. So you may not get as much heart disease, but you may get more sclerosis of the liver. Trade off. Every researcher has an agenda.

Here we go again with the name calling. OK Piper, so I am holier than thou, conceited and ignorant. Sorry you feel so. I am a scientist, not an artist. i have learned through my experience that in nature there is a dividing line between beneficial and not beneficial. Everything lies on one side of the line or the other. To say something is neutral is to be artistic, and that does not serve much purpose when discussing health.

I will agree with you that all people react differently to different things. My grandfather smoked a pipe all his life. All 92 years of it. Is smoking bad for you? I will answer an emphatic yes. There is no aspect of smoking that would make reputable person say, "this is a good thing". Will some people be fine drinking diet sodas? Probably. Is it good for us? My answer is no. Will it kill us? Maybe, maybe not. If a person is looking to become healthy will it benefit them? Again my answer is no. If a person is looking to be less unhealthy will it help them? Maybe (in the short term). The chemicals in diet sodas are substances that the human body has not evolved to accept. It may appear that they do not harm us, but I think that even a mind such as yours, that tends to think we cannot make absolute statements could realize that our bodies are not prepared to accept such chemicals and that somewhere down the line the body will respond to the constant exposure to them. By the way, that was not a knock against you. You think one way, I think another.

The problem that I see with your point of view is that it leads to people thinking that these foods are not bad for you, and that we should continue to use them until there is solid proof that they are bad for you. My point of view uses common sense to say they probably are bad for you and that we should not use them until there is solid proof that they are not bad for you.

Heres a good analogy. If a new air travel vehicle were developed and the developers said "we think it's air worthy, nothing has shown that it is not", would you fly in it's m***** voyage? i would not. However if the developers said "we think it's air worthy and we have solid proof that it is", would you fly in it's m***** voyage. I would feel far better about it. If the developers said "of course it's safe" but there were controversy among many experts in the field as to whether the developers really knew what they were making, would you want to fly in it? I would demand that the developers provide concrete proof that the critics are wrong in ther assertions before flying in it.

I am not by any means conceited. I have been wrong in the past, I will be wrong in the future. What I am is willing to take a solid stand on what I believe. Call that conceit or ignorance if you please.

People who have weight problems typically have nutrition problems. Please hold back on saying that some people have hormone problems. I know that, but we all know that the majority do not. I know a lot of overweight people and I need look no further than what they eat to see why. To say to these people who already have poor nutritional plans, that it's just fine to go and drink your mega bottles of diet soda every day, is simply to avoid saying to them "you need help in your nutritional guidance". I have seen people order a Big Mac, large fries, and a diet coke. Oh how they think they are being responsible to their bodies by avoiding the 400 calorie large regular coke.

Everything in moderation is also a very good philosophy to live by. Heres another guarantee I would feel comfortable with. Smoking in moderation would be of no health concern. If I smoked one cigarette a month, I doubt that I would experience any negative health problems. If someone drank one 12 ounce diet soda every few weeks as a treat, again, no problem. Still, either of those things is not preferable, but hey, we all have to live and be happy. Smoking the pack a day, or drinking the gallon of diet soda a day is bad for you. Drinking two diet sodas a day is bad for you. Drinking a few beers every day is bad for you. Yes I know that the research is saying that a little alcohol a day is beneficial for preventing certain diseases, however other research is showing that it may be causing others. So you may not get as much heart disease, but you may get more sclerosis of the liver. Trade off. Every researcher has an agenda.


Sorry...by no means am I calling you ignorant...I said that I believed to tell someone that you guarantee that they cannot be healthy by drinking Diet soda is an ignorant comment. Not that you are ignorant. Its true there are a Lot of Chemical is just about everything we consume and it is practically impossible to completely avoid them and with Most of them We dont have any idea what kind of effect they have on us since they have not been tested.

AgainI suggest anyone to Rwead my post called "My Advice". I think you will understand my point of view much better from it.

Sorry...by no means am I calling you ignorant...I said that I believed to tell someone that you guarantee that they cannot be healthy by drinking Diet soda is an ignorant comment. Not that you are ignorant. Its true there are a Lot of Chemical is just about everything we consume and it is practically impossible to completely avoid them and with Most of them We dont have any idea what kind of effect they have on us since they have not been tested.

AgainI suggest anyone to Rwead my post called "My Advice". I think you will understand my point of view much better from it.

Pipermac: I will read you post.

Yes there are many chemicals in many of our (processed) foods. We can do our best to avoid them by staying as close to nature as possible. I have a very satisfying diet that relies on foods that are minimally processed. I read the labels to determine what is in there. If I can't pronounce it, I try to avoid it. I am not suggesting that everyone do that. I am simply suggesting that we all attempt to not portray foods as a healthy option when clearly the chemical soup that has been added to them would suggest otherwise.

Of course nothing is ever 100% concrete fact, but when conpiling a nutritional plan we should do our best to avoid the things that our common sense would dictate is not really healthy. Sugar comes from boiling the water out of cane or beet juice. Splenda comes from bombarding sugar with chlorine atoms under a "patented, proprietary process" so as to replace the hydrogen atoms with chlorine atoms. I think that our common sense would tell us that the sugar is healthier than the splenda. I think our common sense may likely tell us that the Splenda is probably not good for us. I'm not saying that foods with chlorine atoms are bad for us. Salt has them and it is necessary for our survival. What I am saying is that when you mess with the chemical structure of a food that our body is prepared for, and change it; it will likely cause some damage down the line.

It's kind of like driving. I break the speed limit regularly. 65 in a 55 is no uncommon occurance. Do I think I will get caught? No. If I get caught will I say, "wow, how did this happen"? No. Same goes for these processed "diet foods". You may eat them every day. It may be no common occurance to drink a gallon of diet soda every day. You may go for 15 years doing so with no adverse effects. But one day, maybe 20 years from now after there has been an ample amount of empirical data gathered you may go to the doctor because you are just not feeling right. The doctor might just say, yep, you have a blood cancer. Probably due to all that Splenda you have been pumpin through your body. (realize that I don't specifically mean "you" by you. This is intended for the large audience). You should not respond with "wow, how did that happen", you should respond with "Yeah, i should have seen that coming". If we try to keep our nutrition as excellent as possible for 90% of the time, we can go ahead and have the processed decadent foods and drinks for the other 10% of the time and we will probably be OK. The problem is that most people eat the processed foods, and have poor nutrition for 90%+ of the time, and are lucky if they get a non processed food meal on occasion.

Piper: you got my point…

Fisk: Thanks for the explanation...I apologize if I offend :rolleyes: , but as you can see that by taking you and Piper on that I look at everything in a relative context and implement my assumptions in moderation :p . I reason that if there is no conclusive data to support either side, that no conclusion can definitively be reached.

(Also to Beachlvr158): I never said that this has any health benefit, I even added the caveat to my example on paradigm shifts (earlier post on FDA) that “…This is NOT to say I believe we will think of diet drinks the same way….” I am sure that, unlike the glass of wine a day, I doubt there will be any discoveries that diet drinks have ‘antioxidant’ or any other beneficial properties. I was merely pointing out a poss future paradigm shift.. IOW: just because there was is a history of change in attitude toward alch. does not mean there will be one here. The point is, what is taken for truth at one period of time, may in the future seem ridiculous. Perhaps ‘they’ will find that moderation of diet drinks will be ok, despite your current theories on the matter.

About heath/diet: I know you would agree that exercise can be good---but to a point! I was an avid mt biker who tore ligaments due to extreme workouts. So even what you may deem unequivocally important to well being can even be bad for your system. As per your driving example: driving moderate= good & likely longer life, driving fast= bad and poss. shorter life! Moderation is the gist in all of my writing....

“…there is a law that says every action must have an equal and opposite reaction...” I agree, however, my point in looking at FDA studies (earlier post) is that we still do not really know what the opposite reaction could be.

As far as man made substances are concerned, and the contention that the body cannot utilize anything but what is found in nature, Broccoli is a hybrid vegetable. Any kind of processing of food at the molecular level changes the traits/structure of the final product. As such, we would all agree that aspartame is a chemically hybridized product using Methane among other ‘borrowed’ molecules. I would guess from where you are coming from that you would say that all hybridized foods are bad for you, but you have to admit that hybridization is so new that the jury is still out. If you do not agree, take a statistics course, then look at all studies to make sure they are legitimate. If you present legitimate sources to me I am apt to change my position, I just hope that you would consider the same. (Socrates called this the “dialectic” method of debate).

“My point here is that there seems to be a trend in our society whereby people will go out of their way to "justify" the use of "diet foods and drinks" I totally agree: In an earlier post I used an example of a recent study that may abolish the myth that diet drinks help you loose weight. I totally agree that American diets are the worst in the world! There are so many idiots out there! To tell you the truth, I don’t eat at fast food, no meat except organic (rarely at that), and exercise regularly. But, I can not judge others for their choices. They have all the info at their finger tips and if they choose to be ignorant, and kill themselves, then so be it!

I really do appreciate your points and the time you took to write!! I concede I could be wrong; I would not be a relativist if I did not.

WHEW!, ;)

B.Y.
“Always question what may be your absolute assumptions... your conclusions may surprise you…”

Hey, this was just on TV on "Dr. Know." It's a show that explores medical myths. He discovered that diet soda does not have acrylimide; however, our bodies convert the diet soda to acrylimide in our stomach. He said it's ok in moderation, but you should try not to drink it if you have a kidney or liver problem.

Some diet sodas also contain lots of sodium, which can cause water weight gain.


See what I mean???? That is not to say that this could be right or wrong...but for now it is a piece of the puzzle to help us see the big picture.

b.y

Piper: you got my point…

Fisk: Thanks for the explanation...I apologize if I offend :rolleyes: , but as you can see that by taking you and Piper on that I look at everything in a relative context and implement my assumptions in moderation :p . I reason that if there is no conclusive data to support either side, that no conclusion can definitively be reached.

(Also to Beachlvr158): I never said that this has any health benefit, I even added the caveat to my example on paradigm shifts (earlier post on FDA) that “…This is NOT to say I believe we will think of diet drinks the same way….” I am sure that, unlike the glass of wine a day, I doubt there will be any discoveries that diet drinks have ‘antioxidant’ or any other beneficial properties. I was merely pointing out a poss future paradigm shift.. IOW: just because there was is a history of change in attitude toward alch. does not mean there will be one here. The point is, what is taken for truth at one period of time, may in the future seem ridiculous. Perhaps ‘they’ will find that moderation of diet drinks will be ok, despite your current theories on the matter.

About heath/diet: I know you would agree that exercise can be good---but to a point! I was an avid mt biker who tore ligaments due to extreme workouts. So even what you may deem unequivocally important to well being can even be bad for your system. As per your driving example: driving moderate= good & likely longer life, driving fast= bad and poss. shorter life! Moderation is the gist in all of my writing....

“…there is a law that says every action must have an equal and opposite reaction...” I agree, however, my point in looking at FDA studies (earlier post) is that we still do not really know what the opposite reaction could be.

As far as man made substances are concerned, and the contention that the body cannot utilize anything but what is found in nature, Broccoli is a hybrid vegetable. Any kind of processing of food at the molecular level changes the traits/structure of the final product. As such, we would all agree that aspartame is a chemically hybridized product using Methane among other ‘borrowed’ molecules. I would guess from where you are coming from that you would say that all hybridized foods are bad for you, but you have to admit that hybridization is so new that the jury is still out. If you do not agree, take a statistics course, then look at all studies to make sure they are legitimate. If you present legitimate sources to me I am apt to change my position, I just hope that you would consider the same. (Socrates called this the “dialectic” method of debate).

“My point here is that there seems to be a trend in our society whereby people will go out of their way to "justify" the use of "diet foods and drinks" I totally agree: In an earlier post I used an example of a recent study that may abolish the myth that diet drinks help you loose weight. I totally agree that American diets are the worst in the world! There are so many idiots out there! To tell you the truth, I don’t eat at fast food, no meat except organic (rarely at that), and exercise regularly. But, I can not judge others for their choices. They have all the info at their finger tips and if they choose to be ignorant, and kill themselves, then so be it!

I really do appreciate your points and the time you took to write!! I concede I could be wrong; I would not be a relativist if I did not.

WHEW!, ;)

B.Y.
“Always question what may be your absolute assumptions... your conclusions may surprise you…”

I have to take issue with the broccolli example. Hybridization of plants is typically done by selective cross breeding and careful selection of the desired resulting offspring. It is simply a controlled means of that which occurs in nature. Realistically, all plants are hybrids. I am quite comfortable eating hybrid vegatables.

Chemical hybrids are produced by forcing chemical bonds where they may not naturally occur.

Point taken ...poor example...but some would argue that it is not natural if man takes initiative over nature to 'marry' two species. If nature did not initiate the cross pollenazation, then maybe it was never meant to be…just a thought...

On the chemical front, this is very true of aspartame.

Point taken ...poor example...but some would argue that it is not natural if man takes initiative over nature to 'marry' two species. If nature did not initiate the cross pollenazation, then maybe it was never meant to be…just a thought...

On the chemical front, this is very true of aspartame.

Some good discussion here. I don't think we can realisticaly avoid selective cross pollenization. It is responsible for producing the best crop yields and quality. It may be changing the results but they are still naturally occuring results. different species are not being married when you make a hybrid. A hybrid is just crossing different samples of the same species with each other to hopefully gain the best aspects of each. for instance cross breeding a variety of broccolli that has a very sweet taste but is non resistant to cold, with a variety that tastes terrible but can grow in the winter. You hopefully get a new variety that is sweet and grows in the cold climates.

Some good discussion here. I don't think we can realisticaly avoid selective cross pollenization. It is responsible for producing the best crop yields and quality. It may be changing the results but they are still naturally occuring results. different species are not being married when you make a hybrid. A hybrid is just crossing different samples of the same species with each other to hopefully gain the best aspects of each. for instance cross breeding a variety of broccolli that has a very sweet taste but is non resistant to cold, with a variety that tastes terrible but can grow in the winter. You hopefully get a new variety that is sweet and grows in the cold climates.


Crop yield: Would you think that crossing a tomato with a fish gene (I did not make that up, it is done) so that it can grow in cold weather ok for your health? Hybrids can also be crossing two species with each other, not just different samples of the same (like flowers or apples).

So to link that to back to crossing molecules in order to form, say, a sugar substitute (our original thought)-- this could be thought of as harboring the same poss. problems as ‘new and improved’ plants, fruits, and veggies, etc…But we are not sure and this permeates almost everything we eat.

B.Y.

Crop yield: Would you think that crossing a tomato with a fish gene (I did not make that up, it is done) so that it can grow in cold weather ok for your health? Hybrids can also be crossing two species with each other, not just different samples of the same (like flowers or apples).

So to link that to back to crossing molecules in order to form, say, a sugar substitute (our original thought)-- this could be thought of as harboring the same poss. problems as ‘new and improved’ plants, fruits, and veggies, etc…But we are not sure and this permeates almost everything we eat.

B.Y.

Welll...you wouldnt think it would be good.....but that doesnt mean that it isnt...and to date there hasnt been anybody to prove that it does.

Just because it is man made doesnt make it bad...and just because it is natural it doesnt make it good. There is no Black and white...Only shades of grey.

Welll...you wouldnt think it would be good.....but that doesnt mean that it isnt...and to date there hasnt been anybody to prove that it does.

Just because it is man made doesnt make it bad...and just because it is natural it doesnt make it good. There is no Black and white...Only shades of grey.



Yup, that 'twas me point in previous posts. This post was just to imply that you can curse the obvious (diet drinks) but ignore many hidden issues. Unless you are a loin-cloth-wearin'-livin'-in-the-mountain-person you are most likely eating things that are bad. And unless you are that person, you should not lecture others on lifestyle. Getting the good word out is one thing, but do it in a manner that says "I don't know everything, but what I think is...."...

Mind blowing isn’t it? :eek:

I smoke allot of home-grown, I had always been under the impression that since it was all natural and organic that it negated any unhealthy properties. JK :jester:

I agree with Bev92. Soda, especially diet soda = poison. Very very bad for you. It is possible to stop drinking soda and not feel deprived or even miss it. See my post "Diet is a four letter word.." on the weight loss board. It's not really about dieting. It's more about wellbeing.

Yup, that 'twas me point in previous posts. This post was just to imply that you can curse the obvious (diet drinks) but ignore many hidden issues. Unless you are a loin-cloth-wearin'-livin'-in-the-mountain-person you are most likely eating things that are bad. And unless you are that person, you should not lecture others on lifestyle. Getting the good word out is one thing, but do it in a manner that says "I don't know everything, but what I think is...."...

Mind blowing isn’t it? :eek:

I smoke allot of home-grown, I had always been under the impression that since it was all natural and organic that it negated any unhealthy properties. JK :jester:

OK well this is getting a bit off the path but regardless. If at all possible I would avoid eating a tomato that was crossed with a fish gene.Like I said; as close to nature as you can. I am not trying to lecture anyone on how they should live. I really don't care if an individual wants to be unhealthy. As a matter of fact I have long supported that everyone should be allowed to do anything they desire to their own bodies, so long as it does not impact anyone else. That's all beside the point here though. This is a discussion about what is healthy or not, and if a person states or implies that drinking diet sodas is anything other than unheatlhy, I will counter it.

We have gone towards talking about all manner of hybrids and how you cant tell if something has been "engineered". Almost a "well may as well throw in the towel, because we can't beat em" approach. Yes, I may get hit by a car walking home tonight, but that does not mean I should just stand in the middle of the road. If I am unaware of the hybrid engineering in the food I am eating, I can't do much about it. If I know that there is a questionable ingredient in the liquid I am drinking than I should stop using it.

I am getting a bit frustrated with this discussion board. It seems as though whenever good discussion begins, someone needs to make a referrence along the lines that nobody should make certain statements as though they know everything. If it was just regarding things I have said I would consider that maybe I am out of line, but I see it frequently with others. It seems as though people here just want to hear affirmation that what they are doing is great, and that they should just keep going with it regardless of how questionable it is. Many do not want to be told that their poor practices are poor. They want to hear "rah rah, go go. You are doing great". I can't tell anyone what to do. I am a guy on the other side of the internet who thinks he knows what he's talking about. Nobody has any obligation to listen to me, but common sense, and empirical evidence backs up everything that I write. Do I have time to research everything? Of course not. But I read enough to make reasonable conclusions.

But with Diet Soda...one may be able to argue that it would be healthier then some other choices. This could be particularily true with a diabetic or for somebody follows a Low carb diet. Diet soda helps to keep blood sugar and insulin levels down. Many would argue that would be a health benefit of diet soda. Then there is the Mental aspect of it. The feeling of satisfaction of drinking a diet soda for one person may be enough to help their mental state. I just dont think you can say that if something is not good for you that it has to be bad for you. Why cant it be neutral?

But with Diet Soda...one may be able to argue that it would be healthier then some other choices. This could be particularily true with a diabetic or for somebody follows a Low carb diet. Diet soda helps to keep blood sugar and insulin levels down. Many would argue that would be a health benefit of diet soda. Then there is the Mental aspect of it. The feeling of satisfaction of drinking a diet soda for one person may be enough to help their mental state. I just dont think you can say that if something is not good for you that it has to be bad for you. Why cant it be neutral?

Because neutral implies no impact. If a substance goes into your body, it must have impact. It must cause some biological response. Everything does. Water does, every food does. The chemicals that comprise diet soda cause a biological response. What is it? Do you know? Are you comfortable saying "well I don't know what this is going to do to me, but here it goes?" The key is to determine if the biological response is positive or negative. If your assertion is that the chemicals go in and go out without causing the body to have a response, I think that is unreasonable.

Is it beneficial for diabetics? Maybe so. Now you are talking of the best of two evils. That's not where this discussion started out, but fine, we can entertain it. So if a person is diabetic, and they drink diet soda on a daily basis, what is the long term outcome? Well one strong possibility is that in 20 years they end up with diabetes and some form of cancer due to the daily intake of artificial sweeteners. If they simply decided that they needed to be careful with there food intake, and drank much healthier water and other diabetic safe beverages, they will be less likely to have multiple health problems in the future. Should a diebetic be subjected to such a life? Well, they have diabetes and with that comes some definite drawbacks and limitations in life.

Again, that's a decision they can make. Regardless, it will not change the probability that the beverage they are drinking is not healthy for them.

Because neutral implies no impact. If a substance goes into your body, it must have impact. It must cause some biological response. Everything does. Water does, every food does. The chemicals that comprise diet soda cause a biological response. What is it? Do you know? Are you comfortable saying "well I don't know what this is going to do to me, but here it goes?" The key is to determine if the biological response is positive or negative. If your assertion is that the chemicals go in and go out without causing the body to have a response, I think that is unreasonable.

Is it beneficial for diabetics? Maybe so. Now you are talking of the best of two evils. That's not where this discussion started out, but fine, we can entertain it. So if a person is diabetic, and they drink diet soda on a daily basis, what is the long term outcome? Well one strong possibility is that in 20 years they end up with diabetes and some form of cancer due to the daily intake of artificial sweeteners. If they simply decided that they needed to be careful with there food intake, and drank much healthier water and other diabetic safe beverages, they will be less likely to have multiple health problems in the future. Should a diebetic be subjected to such a life? Well, they have diabetes and with that comes some definite drawbacks and limitations in life.

Again, that's a decision they can make. Regardless, it will not change the probability that the beverage they are drinking is not healthy for them.


Well I am not argueing the healthy point..but I am saying that one might argue it. And I think you are wrong about something not being neutral. Neutral does not mean that it doesnt do anything....It means that the Benefits = the risk. The safety of Artificial Sweetners is a whole different ball of wax that has been debated heavily in many other posts already.

Many Things have good qualities about them and Bad qualities about them.

Since the Reletive health risks of diet soda are largely unknown and mainly speculation, One could easily argue that Diet soda is good for you (Or Them...since people react diffferently to different things) The Person Arguieing that healthy part says that it is a beverage that gives them not calories so It promotes a healthy weight (I know there are some that say that diet sodas actually make you gain weight ..but again that is completely debateable....I am not argueing one side or the other here I just showing how one side could be argued adn wouldnt be wrong). The Would also say that Diet soda keeps their Blood Sugar and Insulin levels down, thus Reducing risk of diabetes and promoting a healthy weight, Diet soda also provides some of your daily requirements for water. Then the other side says that there are chemicals in the diet soda which couldnt be good for you, but they cant say how they are bad, they are only assuming that they are bad.

There is not a clear cut arguement either way.

My Personal Thinking? I dont really know...I dont blindly take either side. I realize that It may very well be bad for you, but I also see that there can be some benefits. Do I drink Diet cola? Very little...But I used to drink a lot...at times 4-5 cans a day. Why the Change? Partially because of the potential health risks...but mainly because I am enjoying an alternative that is undoubtedly better....Water!


The whole issue can be debated back and forth and there would probably be no winner as both sides can make very compelling statements. There are very very few things that are Clear cut.

And when it comes to over all health of a person....Can a person only be healthy if the only eat Healthy items and do healthy things?
I would say that to be healthy they probably have to eat mostly healthy things and do mostly healthy things.

The Truth is that is What I do.....I eat as much organic as I can and I use as mainy Natural safe protucts that I can......Not because I am convinced that the alternatives are bad and unhealthy for me...but I recognize that they very well could be. So if there is and alternative that appears to be healthier, safer, and not too much more expensive then I will use the alternative.

I try not to go around and Tell other people to do the same because other things a definately bad for them...but I say that these other things have a much higher chance of being bad for them and that some things we just plain dont know enough about them to know or not.

OK well this is getting a bit off the path but regardless. If at all possible I would avoid eating a tomato that was crossed with a fish gene.Like I said; as close to nature as you can. I am not trying to lecture anyone on how they should live. I really don't care if an individual wants to be unhealthy. As a matter of fact I have long supported that everyone should be allowed to do anything they desire to their own bodies, so long as it does not impact anyone else. That's all beside the point here though. This is a discussion about what is healthy or not, and if a person states or implies that drinking diet sodas is anything other than unheatlhy, I will counter it.

We have gone towards talking about all manner of hybrids and how you cant tell if something has been "engineered". Almost a "well may as well throw in the towel, because we can't beat em" approach. Yes, I may get hit by a car walking home tonight, but that does not mean I should just stand in the middle of the road. If I am unaware of the hybrid engineering in the food I am eating, I can't do much about it. If I know that there is a questionable ingredient in the liquid I am drinking than I should stop using it.

I am getting a bit frustrated with this discussion board. It seems as though whenever good discussion begins, someone needs to make a referrence along the lines that nobody should make certain statements as though they know everything. If it was just regarding things I have said I would consider that maybe I am out of line, but I see it frequently with others. It seems as though people here just want to hear affirmation that what they are doing is great, and that they should just keep going with it regardless of how questionable it is. Many do not want to be told that their poor practices are poor. They want to hear "rah rah, go go. You are doing great". I can't tell anyone what to do. I am a guy on the other side of the internet who thinks he knows what he's talking about. Nobody has any obligation to listen to me, but common sense, and empirical evidence backs up everything that I write. Do I have time to research everything? Of course not. But I read enough to make reasonable conclusions.

Do I have time to research everything? Of course not. But I read enough to make reasonable conclusions…

You may be well read, I would counter that it sounds like you do selective research. If you have preconceived notions of absolute opinion, then you would like to read info that reinforces your ideas, rather than info that is contrary to your thinking.

You still sound mad despite my trying to make moderate points while not implying 'total correctness.' Sorry you feel that way. My perspective is to be devils advocate which is my way of enriching the topic. If you have not understood that I have agreed with you as far as questions regarding heath, then I give up.

As a matter of fact I have long supported that everyone should be allowed to do anything they desire to their own bodies, so long as it does not impact anyone else.

I reread your posts, and this is the first time you have stated such. Well, good for you, finally!

Relatively yours,

B.Y.

Do I have time to research everything? Of course not. But I read enough to make reasonable conclusions…

You may be well read, I would counter that it sounds like you do selective research. If you have preconceived notions of absolute opinion, then you would like to read info that reinforces your ideas, rather than info that is contrary to your thinking.

You still sound mad despite my trying to make moderate points while not implying 'total correctness.' Sorry you feel that way. My perspective is to be devils advocate which is my way of enriching the topic. If you have not understood that I have agreed with you as far as questions regarding heath, then I give up.

As a matter of fact I have long supported that everyone should be allowed to do anything they desire to their own bodies, so long as it does not impact anyone else.

I reread your posts, and this is the first time you have stated such. Well, good for you, finally!

Relatively yours,

B.Y.

Please dont misinterpret my strong opinion as being mad. I am far from it. No reason to be.

When I say I have long held the opinion that everyone should be allowed to do what they please to their bodies, I was not implying that I have stated that here. This has always been my opinion personally. I have never asserted here that people should not be allowed to consume any substance. My assertion is that people do consume many substances that are likely not beneficial to them, but speak as though they are doing right by thier nutrition.

I read constantly on points of view that contradict what I currently believe. My opinions change occasionally. If it were not for that I would not have the nutrition I do today. I would still be eating the fast food, processed food, soft drink, sugar and salt infused diet that I once used to.

We can make arguements all day as to the fact that we do not know enough about these chemicals to determine that they are good or not good for us. At some point we need to be able to make a statement and stand by it, otherwise we get nowhere. It's kind of like religion. People who have their religious faith will stand staunch that their particular god exists, even though they can provide no actual evidence that it does. They take their stance and they are not moveable from it. They have researched enough to have convinced themselves that the path they are on it the proper one. If you are honestly convinced that the chemicals we consume on a daily basis in our processed foods are not harmful to us, then state so. I have stated that it is my belief that they are harmful. No amount of speculation that they may not be will change that view.

Every peson has bias. It's nature. Of course I have bias. I am biased towards the view that processed foods and man made sweeteners and the like are harmful to our bodies. It will take concrete proof to convince me otherwise. I look at history though and I see a pretty ominous track record. I believe that every artificial sweetener that was touted as "the savior" has eventually been shown to be a health risk. We know saccharine (sweet and low) causes health problems. Nutra sweet is widely suspected of being a danger. Now we have Splenda. It is only a matter of time before the data starts coming in about it's health effects.

On the other hand, I don't recall the last time a report came out that said we should all stop eating corn because it has some adverse chemical reaction with the body that will cause cancer.

:wave:
Overall, I like where you are coming from.

I must add one thing to your statment about.."On the other hand, I don't recall the last time a report came out that said we should all stop eating corn because it has some adverse chemical reaction with the body that will cause cancer."

Not corn but definitely the following: Raw spinach was deemed very good for you, now it is known that it does not have the absorption properties needed to give your system nutrients, in fact it can strip minerals from your system. When tobacco was first discovered in America, there were all sorts of theories on how this had excellent medicinal qualities (not just smoking it). Now we know other wise. Mass quantities of grapes were consumed in the '60's for supposed health benifit, now we know they have almost no vitamins. Soy is also very contraversial contrary to the hype in the '90s. I can use many more examples of changes in health trends. NOTE: as I have said before, I believe in moderation and that sweetners MAY be found (in moderate quanities) to not be as bad for you. We can agree to disagree.
B.Y.

It will take concrete proof to convince me otherwise. I look at history though and I see a pretty ominous track record. I believe that every artificial sweetener that was touted as "the savior" has eventually been shown to be a health risk. .

The trouble with "quasi religious" beliefs in regard to food result in being able to easily swallow heresay like the emboldened print above that is completely untrue.
Every artificial sweetner...has NOT been shown to be a health risk. The silly web legends like this that get repeated ad nauseum from the well-paid Mercolas and sugar lobbyists are appropriate evidence only for those with the "quasi religious" bent to BELIEVE or with a financial interest in the success of the sugar industry.

The trouble with "quasi religious" beliefs in regard to food result in being able to easily swallow heresay like the emboldened print above that is completely untrue.
Every artificial sweetner...has NOT been shown to be a health risk. The silly web legends like this that get repeated ad nauseum from the well-paid Mercolas and sugar lobbyists are appropriate evidence only for those with the "quasi religious" bent to BELIEVE or with a financial interest in the success of the sugar industry.

Is it your assertion then that our bodies are well prepared to accept these engineered chemical concoctions, and that there is really no adverse impact over the long term? There are powerful lobbys on both sides. Yes the sugar industry has much power to push the possibility that the artificial sweeteners are bad for us, but the food industry in general and the companies that produce the artificial sweeteners also have significant power to possibly present a false certification of safety.

Eat all you want, but dont give the "look of surprise" when you have future health problems.

"There are powerful lobbys on both sides. Yes the sugar industry has much power to push the possibility that the artificial sweeteners are bad for us"...


I would have to agree here, good point.

B.Y.

Nitpe:


.....My husband knew someone who worked in the FDA when this product was approved in the '80's (I believe he was on the project), and he coined the term ‘Nuclear Sweet.' Why? His team had a lot of outside pressure to approve this product as quickly as possible. ;) wink ;) wink.

B.Y.

“Always seek to come as close to objective truth as possible…always question absolute assumptions”


This was posted earlier by me and I just wanted to reinforce the idea that there is huge money out there that pressures scientists to come out with 'empirical evidence' that supports their product. I call b.s. on that.

B.Y.

The Only thing that has been proven about aspartame is that some people have had advers effects when they consume it. but many people have advers effects when eating peanuts or milk, or just about anything else. There has been NO proof that It will cause any long term harm to the public in general.

I am not saying that it doesnt cause long term harm...That I dont know.... But there has not been any proof. If there was the FDA would have to ban it. Regardless of how corrupt the fda may be....if there was hard concrete proof they would have to do it.

Millions upon millions of people have aspartame every single day yet the The amount of people that report any adverse effects is miniscule compared to the amount of people consuming it.

Now Days I think 10-20% of children are allergice to Peanuts and would die rather fast if eaten and not treated quickly. The amoutn of people affected is gigantic when compared to the number affected by aspartame. So Why are people up in arms trying to have peanuts banned? There is Hard Concrete proof that Peanuts can kill. yet there is nothing that shows that aspartame can kill.

Remember...just because something is Natural doesnt mean it is safe or good for you. just as just because something is artificial or manmade does it automatically mean it is dangerous and bad for you.

Remember...just because something is Natural doesnt mean it is safe or good for you. just as just because something is artificial or manmade does it automatically mean it is dangerous and bad for you...

Yes! Just like my comments about raw spinach, etc... I would add that too much vit. C is really bad for you. Scientist have proven how many natural herb supplements can be really bad in several instances (there is still very little info out there, other than what the vit. companies tell us), such as interferance with absorbtion of perscip. meds!

Barbaric,

Where did you hear about tabasco being bad? All of my research shows it being good for you. I eat a ton of hot stuff.

Barbaric,

Where did you hear about tabasco being bad? All of my research shows it being good for you. I eat a ton of hot stuff.

Did I say Tabasco? Sorry, I meant tobacco. When this was first brought to Protestant England from the Americas, it became really popular as a medicinal plant. Granted that was in the dark ages compared to now, but is an example of how drastically our theories of health change.


Hot stuff IS good for your system--immune syst. esp. :)

Did I say Tabasco? Sorry, I meant tobacco. When this was first brought to Protestant England from the Americas, it became really popular as a medicinal plant. Granted that was in the dark ages compared to now, but is an example of how drastically our theories of health change.


Hot stuff IS good for your system--immune syst. esp. :)

LOL I was going to say I'm dead in the water if hot stuff is bad for you with all that I eat of it.

so do I sista/brotha....:-)

After a triliion doses of aspartame have been consumed worldwide with no evidence of people dying in the streets and after EVERY governmental health organization worldwide has given it's nod to aspartame I thhink the issue has been settled. If that's not enough evidence for some people then, Amen, there will NEVER be enough.

One must use some degree of evidence as settling an issue lest one can really know NOTHING. If one is of the opinion that one CAN know nothing, about any man made food, then why in blue blazes post about the subject.
If one is of the pseudo-religious belief that all man made things are inherently bad, at least realize the religious aspect to that belief and don't foist it on others.

It comes accross as "WE CAN'T KNOW but this is how it IS!"

For aspartame, we KNOW...it's SAFE!

Those that hate it, eat sugar!

After a triliion doses of aspartame have been consumed worldwide with no evidence of people dying in the streets and after EVERY governmental health organization worldwide has given it's nod to aspartame I thhink the issue has been settled. If that's not enough evidence for some people then, Amen, there will NEVER be enough.

It seems that you are saying here that they must know something about it. After all, like you said, Europe, with the strictest standards of all, has approved this product.

One must use some degree of evidence as settling an issue lest one can really know NOTHING. If one is of the opinion that one CAN know nothing, about any man made food, then why in blue blazes post about the subject.
If one is of the pseudo-religious belief that all man made things are inherently bad, at least realize the religious aspect to that belief and don't foist it on others.

Here you are saying we know nothing and could never poss. know anything for sure, there goes the theory of gravity--just an example of difinitive knowledge. We do know some things, about food products look at the FDA website.

I say we know some things definitively (benefits of some foods), and others relatively (questions on some foods- sweetners).

Thanks for your thoughts, I agree to disagree w/ some and not other of your quasi-religious points (JK).

B.Y.

Me: One must use some degree of evidence as settling an issue lest one can really know NOTHING. If one is of the opinion that one CAN know nothing, about any man made food, then why in blue blazes post about the subject.
If one is of the pseudo-religious belief that all man made things are inherently bad, at least realize the religious aspect to that belief and don't foist it on others.

You: Here you are saying we know nothing and could never poss. know anything for sure, there goes the theory of gravity--just an example of difinitive knowledge. We do know some things, about food products look at the FDA website.




I think you misunderstood what I said. I am firmly convinced by the weight of evidence, my own use and, yes, the FDA site among hundreds of other sources, that aspartame is completely safe.
But MANY are implying that because aspartame is a "a man-made chemical" it must be poisonous. They are ignoring the preponderance of evidence to the contrary and thus are coming from what I called the "quasi-religious" philosophical bent that "We can know nothing" otherwise there is no way to avoid the weight of this evidence.

I believe we can know many things if only we open our eyes but if we come at it from an a-priori dictum like "man-made food is evil," then we're in the same kind of situation Galileo was in when he said the Sun is the center of the universe and the Church said that was heresy contrary to the bible and thus could not be true. It's not unlike the arguments made against the incontrovertably PROVEN Laws of Evolution!

. ...They are ignoring the preponderance of evidence to the contrary and thus are coming from what I called the "quasi-religious" philosophical bent that "We can know nothing" otherwise there is no way to avoid the weight of this evidence.

I believe we can know many things if only we open our eyes but if we come at it from an a-priori dictum like "man-made food is evil," then we're in the same kind of situation Galileo was in when he said the Sun is the center of the universe and the Church said that was heresy contrary to the bible and thus could not be true. It's not unlike the arguments made against the incontrovertably PROVEN Laws of Evolution!

Thanks for the discussion, I think you are one of the more interesting thinkers on this board.

First statement: 1) there is other evidence out there that disputes this product. I am one who is an evolutionist when it comes to new empirical evidence. There are so many theories which I had discussed in earlier posts that used to be widely believed as incontrovertible, but now are look on as silly fads. Despite my stance here, I, myself, do not hold that all man-mad-substance is evil. Rather I employ my thought-based theory on historical events (i.e. proof that theories come and go).

2) …if we come at it from an a-priori dictum like "man-made food is evil…," Totally agree, although the scale could, in the future, tip in the direction that substantiates this tenant—that is that it is evil. (I love your words: a-priori and dictum-- good choices. Are you a philosophy major by chance?)

2) Here is another take on quasi-religious views: "Quasi-Religious Corporations: A New Integration of Religion and Capitalism?" (book by Richard H. Roberts), which discusses how capitalism and the entities that make up capitalism (and I am sure with a name like "Lenin" that you prob. look at this system w/a grain of salt :D ) take a 'quasi-religious' view of this system. NO other system works, they say. Now, here I would say that perhaps you are playing into their hands. Maybe I misunderstood again.

3) Read the science book "Elegant Universe" By Brian Greene. I know you think this may be off subject but I bring it up bc it has a very different view of how the big-bang started, the original theories taken as virtual fact, are now are being questioned. Any way you slice some scientific theory, you come down the fact that there are some things that, since they are not observed in person (i.e. studies not yet completed about the dangers to the thyroid by sweeteners.), cannot be verified.

I don't know if I make sense, but in a nut shell, what I am saying is that even by taking the scientific bent, you still have to admit to your self that ultimately many questions are still left unanswered. Rather than the universe metaphor, we can talk about how little we know of our own brains. Despite 100 years of study, by some of the best scientists in the world, we still know very little about the universe contained within.

So, how could they really know if there is a molecular reaction, caused by sweeteners, that has an effect on such and such enzyme, which may have an effect on such and such neurons, which may have an effect on...and so on. Dunno if this makes sense, I guess that even though I am more science-based than religion oriented, it does not stop me from having an evolutionary thought process even in this field---although I am rooting for them all the way!


B.Y. Sorry for the ramble

I recently read an article stating that heavy use of diet coke or other nutra-sweet products have been linked to symptoms of multiple sclerosis. Even though these people may not have the disease, aspartame is a harmful substance that can cause similar symptoms. But still, there's no reason to be scared, I think everything in moderation is the key, then everything will be okay.

Ease Stud,

That link to MS was a hoax pure and simple. It was refuted by no less than the MS society. It's a perfect example of how nonsense like this never dies on the internet, it just goes round and round and round and round!