3 ms·

You don't know this! I don't take issue with you consuming it but you absolutely shouldn't have confidence that there aren't negative effects from consuming som

You don't know this! I don't take issue with you consuming it but you absolutely shouldn't have confidence that there aren't negative effects from consuming something humans never had to adapt to. Just say "we don't know of anything wrong with consuming it"

extasia 3y ago
"snapcaster, flashback counterspell" "gg"
Blackthorn 3y ago
These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  If artificial sweeteners are so well studied as you claim then why sucralose was found to damage DNA while erythritol was linked to heart attacks in studies just this year? Sugar or nothing for me personally.
- detrites 3y ago
  Studied by whom for what goal? They're also some of the most astutely-avoided substances, with various products proudly proclaiming they don't contain them. Such markets could well potentially exist due to user experience trumping studies.
  - Blackthorn 3y ago
    So I take it you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide? I mean, how many more decades does one need to really make a decision on these?
    - xcv123 3y ago
      There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-substitute-may-damage-your-dna-and-increase-your-cancer-risk https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-sub...
      - Blackthorn 3y ago
        I think you'll find nothing I said contradicts that statement.
        xcv123 3y ago
        You have a short memory. Not long ago you wrote the following > I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. Then I posted a link to a study showing Sucralose is toxic.
        Blackthorn 3y ago
        Yes and I'll stand by that statement. I think you'll find, once again, that nothing I said contradicts the statement you made, which is: > There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. I get that you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide that we all find themselves on. That's fine, and you are welcome to come to that conclusion. It's not one I've come to, but that's why the world is made up of different people. Remember, what I actually said was: > These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not. as well as the post you quoted. So I'm really not sure what you're arguing about here. Nothing I said contradicts your statement of "There are studies for and against...". Indeed, there are. Decades of them.

extasia 3y ago

"snapcaster, flashback counterspell" "gg"

Blackthorn 3y ago

These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not.

throwaway290 3y ago
If artificial sweeteners are so well studied as you claim then why sucralose was found to damage DNA while erythritol was linked to heart attacks in studies just this year? Sugar or nothing for me personally.
detrites 3y ago
Studied by whom for what goal? They're also some of the most astutely-avoided substances, with various products proudly proclaiming they don't contain them. Such markets could well potentially exist due to user experience trumping studies.
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  So I take it you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide? I mean, how many more decades does one need to really make a decision on these?
  - xcv123 3y ago
    There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-substitute-may-damage-your-dna-and-increase-your-cancer-risk https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-sub...
    - Blackthorn 3y ago
      I think you'll find nothing I said contradicts that statement.
      - xcv123 3y ago
        You have a short memory. Not long ago you wrote the following > I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. Then I posted a link to a study showing Sucralose is toxic.
        Blackthorn 3y ago
        Yes and I'll stand by that statement. I think you'll find, once again, that nothing I said contradicts the statement you made, which is: > There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. I get that you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide that we all find themselves on. That's fine, and you are welcome to come to that conclusion. It's not one I've come to, but that's why the world is made up of different people. Remember, what I actually said was: > These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not. as well as the post you quoted. So I'm really not sure what you're arguing about here. Nothing I said contradicts your statement of "There are studies for and against...". Indeed, there are. Decades of them.