4 ms·

The reason you can't point to any large scale studies is because all of them found aspartame to be harmless, not induce an insulin response, etc (i.e the comple

by 1stop 12y ago

The reason you can't point to any large scale studies is because all of them found aspartame to be harmless, not induce an insulin response, etc (i.e the complete opposite of your theory). Diet coke hates are in the same category as anti-vacs campaigners... They don't believe in science.

josai 12y ago
That was a needlessly hostile and insulting response. I'm merely pointing out some personal experiences, and made appropriate qualifications to that effect. And your blanket dismissal is doubtful anyway. Here's a study clearly indicating correlation between aspartame and insulin response: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/7/e59.full http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/7/e59.full Cephalic-phase insulin release is a known phenomenon and could obviously be triggered by expectation of a diet drink. Being skeptical of mainstream nutritional "science" (barely worthy of the name, IMO, and which has led to an unprecedented obesity epidemic) is in no way comparable to "anti-vaxxers". And frankly, if I noticed a very strong correlation between people I knew who'd been vaccinated and then all suddenly became autistic, I'd be asking questions too, and would be right to do so, and that spirit of skeptical enquiry is the very essence of science.
- 1stop 12y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mean to be that hostile, and I seem to have continued that in my other responses. Apoligises to all. There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners, I think it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet" nerve or something. I agree, be skeptical, question, don't take things at face value. But, I'd add: be informed, look up where we are at in current day research. Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of, there are people who's lives are saved, preserved, made better because of that research. But again, sorry for being a dick. :)
  - josai 12y ago
    Well, apology accepted I suppose. However.. > There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners Sure is. And perhaps you're contributing to it. You sure haven't produced any evidence that you're right and everyone else is wrong. > it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet" Well, your belligerent responses to people's polite, reasonable comments kind of trigger that in me. Let's not be part of the problem... > look up where we are at in current day research There have been two studies linked to supporting the claims made by myself and others. You haven't posted anything. Take your own advice! > Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of And yet we're living in an unprecedented, worldwide obesity epidemic. Someone is obviously very wrong about something. It's my personal belief that in 50 years we'll be looking back on current nutritional "science" the same way we look back on "healthy cigarettes" in the 60s. We'll get it right eventually, but we sure haven't yet. (edited for politeness)
    - 1stop 12y ago
      Hmm, two studies. Try this: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=diabetes+and+diet&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=diabetes+and+diet&btn... The rest of your post seems to be just rhetoric vaguely around your injured pride and the subsequent posturing. Again I am sorry I upset you.
fiblye 12y ago
I came across something contrary to that. "Data from large, epidemiologic studies support the existence of an association between artificially-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951976/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951976/ One thing to keep in mind is that studies of diet and nutrition are always very hazy and go back and forth constantly. Human lifespans are long and diets are complex, so it's difficult to say whether or not any one thing is "harmless." Saturated fats were thought to be a major cause of heart disease for a long time, but now that's apparently no longer true. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230367840... I don't think comparing anti-diet soda drinkers and antivaxers is really a fair comparison. Soda and artificial sweeteners aren't in any way beneficial for anybody; vaccines save countless lives.
- 1stop 12y ago
  Well, if artificial sweeteners caused a reduced (or zero) insulin response (which science says they do), and thus lowered the risk of obesity, then a (tenuous, though real) causal link can be made between saving lives, and artificial sweeteners, no?
  - josai 12y ago
    The parent linked to a study demonstrating a link between aspartame and obesity. Did you even look at it before you wrote your facetious little reply? If you do, you'll notice it says the opposite of what you seem to think it does. And stop invoking the word "science" like it's an infallible deity whispering in your (and only your) ear. Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet.
    - 1stop 12y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy Okay, I get it, you are upset that I implied you were an anti-vaccer. I'm sorry for being facetious too: No smiling, serious business here. > Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet. On aspartame it's well and truly in. That's my point. If I haven't provided enough references, just google[0] it and read ALL the science. It's been studied to death and back again. I hate to say it, but now you're the one being a dick. :( [0] scholar.google.com
hollerith 12y ago
If a person is able to make good decisions even when as is the case here the peer-reviewed science points strongly in neither direction, he will be able to win more often at life than someone that must rely on peer-reviewed science. I avoid all artificial sweeteners (and Stevia) for essentially the same reasons as grandparent BTW. But even if one pays attention only to peer-reviewed studies, one will make bad decisions if one misinterprets them. Your dismissal of the author of grandparent as someone who doesn't "believe in science" suggests to me that you do not know how correctly to interpret the peer-reviewed studies here (which again I believe do not point strongly in either direction). (For most questions people have about diet and health, the peer-reviewed studies, when interpreted correctly, do not point strongly in any one direction.) In particular, studies showing that aspartame does not induce an insulin response are not particularly strong evidence against grandparent's assertion that with all of the artificial sweeteners, <<there's some kind of message at play - "lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready!">> For something as central to the metabolism of living things as the common dietary sugars, there will be hundreds of molecules besides insulin involved. It would take many many paragraphs to explain the case against artificial sweeteners in enough detail for there to be any hope of your following the explanation. I do not want to write those paragraphs. I'm just briefly adding my support to what I consider an illuminating and well-written comment (grandparent).
- 1stop 12y ago
  > For something as central to the metabolism of living things as the common dietary sugars, there will be hundreds of molecules besides insulin involved. See, you sound exactly like an anti-vacser... Insulin is the "Lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready" response. There isn't hundreds of other molecules involved... there is insulin. Do you see type I diabetics injecting anything else into themselves? Please, take many paragraphs and explain, because your vague bullshit ridden comment, is far from convincing.

by 1stop 12y ago

josai 12y ago

That was a needlessly hostile and insulting response. I'm merely pointing out some personal experiences, and made appropriate qualifications to that effect. And your blanket dismissal is doubtful anyway. Here's a study clearly indicating correlation between aspartame and insulin response: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/7/e59.full http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/7/e59.full Cephalic-phase insulin release is a known phenomenon and could obviously be triggered by expectation of a diet drink. Being skeptical of mainstream nutritional "science" (barely worthy of the name, IMO, and which has led to an unprecedented obesity epidemic) is in no way comparable to "anti-vaxxers". And frankly, if I noticed a very strong correlation between people I knew who'd been vaccinated and then all suddenly became autistic, I'd be asking questions too, and would be right to do so, and that spirit of skeptical enquiry is the very essence of science.

1stop 12y ago
Sorry, I didn't mean to be that hostile, and I seem to have continued that in my other responses. Apoligises to all. There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners, I think it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet" nerve or something. I agree, be skeptical, question, don't take things at face value. But, I'd add: be informed, look up where we are at in current day research. Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of, there are people who's lives are saved, preserved, made better because of that research. But again, sorry for being a dick. :)
- josai 12y ago
  Well, apology accepted I suppose. However.. > There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners Sure is. And perhaps you're contributing to it. You sure haven't produced any evidence that you're right and everyone else is wrong. > it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet" Well, your belligerent responses to people's polite, reasonable comments kind of trigger that in me. Let's not be part of the problem... > look up where we are at in current day research There have been two studies linked to supporting the claims made by myself and others. You haven't posted anything. Take your own advice! > Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of And yet we're living in an unprecedented, worldwide obesity epidemic. Someone is obviously very wrong about something. It's my personal belief that in 50 years we'll be looking back on current nutritional "science" the same way we look back on "healthy cigarettes" in the 60s. We'll get it right eventually, but we sure haven't yet. (edited for politeness)
  - 1stop 12y ago
    Hmm, two studies. Try this: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=diabetes+and+diet&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=diabetes+and+diet&btn... The rest of your post seems to be just rhetoric vaguely around your injured pride and the subsequent posturing. Again I am sorry I upset you.

fiblye 12y ago

I came across something contrary to that. "Data from large, epidemiologic studies support the existence of an association between artificially-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951976/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951976/ One thing to keep in mind is that studies of diet and nutrition are always very hazy and go back and forth constantly. Human lifespans are long and diets are complex, so it's difficult to say whether or not any one thing is "harmless." Saturated fats were thought to be a major cause of heart disease for a long time, but now that's apparently no longer true. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230367840... I don't think comparing anti-diet soda drinkers and antivaxers is really a fair comparison. Soda and artificial sweeteners aren't in any way beneficial for anybody; vaccines save countless lives.

1stop 12y ago
Well, if artificial sweeteners caused a reduced (or zero) insulin response (which science says they do), and thus lowered the risk of obesity, then a (tenuous, though real) causal link can be made between saving lives, and artificial sweeteners, no?
- josai 12y ago
  The parent linked to a study demonstrating a link between aspartame and obesity. Did you even look at it before you wrote your facetious little reply? If you do, you'll notice it says the opposite of what you seem to think it does. And stop invoking the word "science" like it's an infallible deity whispering in your (and only your) ear. Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet.
  - 1stop 12y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy Okay, I get it, you are upset that I implied you were an anti-vaccer. I'm sorry for being facetious too: No smiling, serious business here. > Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet. On aspartame it's well and truly in. That's my point. If I haven't provided enough references, just google[0] it and read ALL the science. It's been studied to death and back again. I hate to say it, but now you're the one being a dick. :( [0] scholar.google.com

hollerith 12y ago

If a person is able to make good decisions even when as is the case here the peer-reviewed science points strongly in neither direction, he will be able to win more often at life than someone that must rely on peer-reviewed science. I avoid all artificial sweeteners (and Stevia) for essentially the same reasons as grandparent BTW. But even if one pays attention only to peer-reviewed studies, one will make bad decisions if one misinterprets them. Your dismissal of the author of grandparent as someone who doesn't "believe in science" suggests to me that you do not know how correctly to interpret the peer-reviewed studies here (which again I believe do not point strongly in either direction). (For most questions people have about diet and health, the peer-reviewed studies, when interpreted correctly, do not point strongly in any one direction.) In particular, studies showing that aspartame does not induce an insulin response are not particularly strong evidence against grandparent's assertion that with all of the artificial sweeteners, <<there's some kind of message at play - "lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready!">> For something as central to the metabolism of living things as the common dietary sugars, there will be hundreds of molecules besides insulin involved. It would take many many paragraphs to explain the case against artificial sweeteners in enough detail for there to be any hope of your following the explanation. I do not want to write those paragraphs. I'm just briefly adding my support to what I consider an illuminating and well-written comment (grandparent).

1stop 12y ago
> For something as central to the metabolism of living things as the common dietary sugars, there will be hundreds of molecules besides insulin involved. See, you sound exactly like an anti-vacser... Insulin is the "Lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready" response. There isn't hundreds of other molecules involved... there is insulin. Do you see type I diabetics injecting anything else into themselves? Please, take many paragraphs and explain, because your vague bullshit ridden comment, is far from convincing.