3 ms·

> There is no free lunch This is just a heuristic, and honestly barely that. It's a belief. Often there really is free lunch, and that's just progress. Someti

> There is no free lunch This is just a heuristic, and honestly barely that. It's a belief. Often there really is free lunch, and that's just progress. Sometimes I think people like to pretend otherwise because it's comforting to deny yourself of convenience. Aspartame really is zero calories. And it really is safe. Yes, much safer than sugar. No, it doesn't magically make you gain weight. No, it doesn't cause cancer (feeding rats 500 coke bottles worth of aspartame doesn't count!). Yes, it's less carcinogenic than red meat. From a health standpoint it's better in every single way. Of course taste is another thing all together, and subjective. Point being, yes things CAN just be better.

harimau777 2y ago
Heuristics exist because they are useful. It's not possible for an individual to research every new chemical that comes along. Even if they do, they don't have a good way of knowing if the research they are reading is reliable. So they need some rule for dealing with new chemicals.
- consteval 2y ago
  1. Aspartame is not new 2. Aspartame is safe and there's not a scientist on Earth who claims otherwise. 3. While we may not know NEW stuff, we do know old stuff. Sugar quite literally kills people. An alternative could, AND DOES, save lives.
klyrs 2y ago
But low-calorie sugars provide a rationalization for overconsumption instead of changing behaviors. To me, every single one tastes terrible. But worst, they send a confusing signal to your gut because the taste of sweetness naturally corresponds to easy calories, but when they don't arrive, you don't get satiated. This dovetails with the rationalization, significantly contributing to the obesity epidemic. Free lunch what?
- consteval 2y ago
  Claiming zero-calorie sweeteners, which by definition cannot contribute to weight gain as it's impossible, are "contributing to obesity" is a BOLD claim. I'm talking science-shattering hundreds of studies disproving bold. Listen, you can't just make things up. Just because you feel as though something is too good to be true doesn't mean it actually is. This is like those people who think Ozempic makes your eyes melt and stuff. The problem is in capitalistic society "pain is gain" is ingrained since you left the womb. People often have trouble conceptualizing that you can get good results without suffering. People actually ENJOY the suffering because they think it directly translates into good stuff for them and their life. It's not a healthy, or rationale, way to operate. Ensuring your own misery out of a desperate need to prove yourself and your work ethic is just self-destructive behavior. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Are you sure your claim is true? I drink a 12oz low calorie sweetener soda maybe once a week, and use low calorie sweetened chocolate chips (Bake Believe, uses erythritol) for things like cookies or pancakes (also eaten only once in a while). I eat no more than I otherwise would, and I avoid the spike in blood glucose. I see a lot of negative claims around low calorie sweeteners, but no proof. However, I see irrefutable proof of negative effects of sucrose and glucose and fructose most times I am in public, and in the diabetes and obesity statistics. And I also have read credibly reports about the sugar industry corrupted research to avoid being in the crosshairs. As a result, I would not put it past them to try to vilify low calorie sweeteners either. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2548255 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... Obviously, excess low calorie sweeteners is bad, just like everything else in excess. But the question is, is a low calorie sweetener soda nutritionally better than a sugar soda, or low calorie sweetener candy/popsicle/etc better than the sugar alternative. So far, I would say the answer is an obvious yes, given what we know about the effects of excess simple carbohydrate consumption.

harimau777 2y ago

Heuristics exist because they are useful. It's not possible for an individual to research every new chemical that comes along. Even if they do, they don't have a good way of knowing if the research they are reading is reliable. So they need some rule for dealing with new chemicals.

consteval 2y ago
1. Aspartame is not new 2. Aspartame is safe and there's not a scientist on Earth who claims otherwise. 3. While we may not know NEW stuff, we do know old stuff. Sugar quite literally kills people. An alternative could, AND DOES, save lives.

klyrs 2y ago

But low-calorie sugars provide a rationalization for overconsumption instead of changing behaviors. To me, every single one tastes terrible. But worst, they send a confusing signal to your gut because the taste of sweetness naturally corresponds to easy calories, but when they don't arrive, you don't get satiated. This dovetails with the rationalization, significantly contributing to the obesity epidemic. Free lunch what?

consteval 2y ago
Claiming zero-calorie sweeteners, which by definition cannot contribute to weight gain as it's impossible, are "contributing to obesity" is a BOLD claim. I'm talking science-shattering hundreds of studies disproving bold. Listen, you can't just make things up. Just because you feel as though something is too good to be true doesn't mean it actually is. This is like those people who think Ozempic makes your eyes melt and stuff. The problem is in capitalistic society "pain is gain" is ingrained since you left the womb. People often have trouble conceptualizing that you can get good results without suffering. People actually ENJOY the suffering because they think it directly translates into good stuff for them and their life. It's not a healthy, or rationale, way to operate. Ensuring your own misery out of a desperate need to prove yourself and your work ethic is just self-destructive behavior. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
lotsofpulp 2y ago
Are you sure your claim is true? I drink a 12oz low calorie sweetener soda maybe once a week, and use low calorie sweetened chocolate chips (Bake Believe, uses erythritol) for things like cookies or pancakes (also eaten only once in a while). I eat no more than I otherwise would, and I avoid the spike in blood glucose. I see a lot of negative claims around low calorie sweeteners, but no proof. However, I see irrefutable proof of negative effects of sucrose and glucose and fructose most times I am in public, and in the diabetes and obesity statistics. And I also have read credibly reports about the sugar industry corrupted research to avoid being in the crosshairs. As a result, I would not put it past them to try to vilify low calorie sweeteners either. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2548255 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... Obviously, excess low calorie sweeteners is bad, just like everything else in excess. But the question is, is a low calorie sweetener soda nutritionally better than a sugar soda, or low calorie sweetener candy/popsicle/etc better than the sugar alternative. So far, I would say the answer is an obvious yes, given what we know about the effects of excess simple carbohydrate consumption.