machorox123
Well-known member
JudoJosh said:
Yumm! Welches?
COMPANIES LEAVE OUT THE!!!! & INNOVATE
- Thread starter thills
- Start date
Yumm! Welches?
thills
Banned
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Are any of the posters that are against artificial sweeteners, etc. in products willing to post what supplements they do use? I always find it amusing that some are willing to mess around with their body chemistry, but step up on the soap box over what others put in their coffee.
mr.cooper69
Legend
And as for the "natural" sweeteners...sugar alcohols can cause or exacerbate inflammatory GI syndromes. What do artificial sweeteners do in this regard? Nothing.
thills
Banned
Lol Aleksandar, you are not going to rope me in that easy, but yeah I see your point. It is like the lady that feeds her cat nothing but organic food but smokes 4 packs a day.
thills
Banned
Maybe not in THIS regard, but in other regards much. No offense to you personally mr. cooper, you are one of those rare individuals that one can not help but like.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Here is a fun fact: there is not a single piece of placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized trial which demonstrates that 'artificial' sweeteners do, or are even capable of, leading to tangible adverse health effects in humans. Yet, a certain segment of the population is insistent on propagating this half-witted nonsense about the 'dangers' of artificial sweeteners, all the while touting the health benefits of processed sugar - the irony in principle and application is thick enough to cut with a knife.
I wrote this little ditty some time ago, and I like to use it sparingly - like fine china - only to admonish the most insistent, yet ill-informed hippies.
Now, on to questions about harmful side effects for long-term use. To put a very complex issue simply, there is no reliable and competent scientific data to suggest that sucralose has significant toxic potential. With regard to acute toxicity, doses of 50,000 times the RDI have not produced any detectable effects whatever [1]. These doses were 10,000 and 16,000 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. The long term assays speak to the same safety.
To wit, 104 week (two year) oncogenicity and chronic toxicity studies in both rat and mice concluded that sucralose possessed no direct effects on the generation of oncoblasts or proliferation of cancer, nor possessed any direct toxicity in all tissue types studied. Minor decreases in organ and body weight, like the majority of other sucralose studies, were concluded to be peripheral to sucralose's direct physiological effects, and were consequences of the inpalatability of the compound [2, 3].
The doses used in the rat and mice studies were exbortinant, far exceeding what is either mechanically or physiologically possible in humans. The NOEL (no observed effect levels) was 1500mg/kg bw/day, with the LOEL (lowest observed effect level) being 4500mg/kg bw/day. To put this into more relevant terms, I would personally need to consume 1/2 lb of sucralose a day, everyday, for two consecutive years in order to broach the level at which no evidence for direct toxic effects were demonstrated.
These results are not alone. In a 12 month dietary study in Beagle dogs fed 875mg/kg bw/day of sucralose by galvage, no immunotoxic or carcinogenic effects were seen at statistically significant levels, and as in the prior rodent studies, any alterations in body weight or organ weight were concluded to be secondary [4]. Studies on pregnant rabbits and rats using doses of up to 1000mg/kg bw/day and 2000mg/kg bw/day for the duration of the 28 week pregnancies did not evince any in utero developmental damage, while the mothers were subject, again, to secondary effects resulting from inpalatability to sucralose [5,6,7].
Finally, while they were not traditional toxicity assays, clinical trials in humans with durations up to and including 6 months, of doses up to and including 1000mg/day, found no significant alterations to major haemotological parameters, nor significant adverse effects.
Put quite simply, there is a complete dearth of evidence to suggest that sucralose is in any way harmful to human health. Unfortunately, the strictures of the scientific community do not apply to the distressing new trend of "new age health" gurus who promulgate this or that in an attempt, in the majority of cases, to push a, "natural sweetener."
Ironically enough, what the new age health community pejoratively deems "the chemical sweeteners" haveexponentially more scientific data on their various metabolic, physiologic, and pharmacological effects than do newer, "organic" sweeteners such as Stevia. Again, this seems lost amongst the uninformed fervor!
I hope that adequately answers your questions with regard to sucralose safety.
1. Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners (1989). Sucralose monographs. Unpublishedsubmission by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK, to the EC Scientific Committee
for Food, August 1989.
2. Rhenius ST, Ryder JR and Aymes SJ (1986).1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-Dfructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): 104 week combined toxicity and oncogenicity study in CD rats with ‘in utero’ exposure. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 86/MSPO33/638. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
3. Aymes SJ, Ashby R and Aughton P (1986). 1,6-dichloro 1,6-dideoxy-ß-Dfructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): 104 week oncogenicity study in mice. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 86/MSPO35/179. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
4. Goldsmith LA (1985). Twelve-month oral toxicity study in dogs: 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS). Unpublished report from Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
5. Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (1998). Evaluation of sucralose by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). Conclusions of the UK Committee on Toxicity on teratology studies. Letter dated April 17, 1998. MAFF/DH Joint Food Safety and Standards Group, London, UK.
6. Tesh JM, Willoughby CR, Hough AJ, Tesh SA and Wilby OK (1983). 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): Effects of
oral administration upon pregnancy in the rat. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 82/MSPO22/311. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality
Sweeteners, UK.
7. Tesh JM, Ross FW, Bailey GP, Wilby OK and Tesh SA (1987). 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): Teratology study in the rabbit. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 82/TYLO95/046. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
8. A six-month study of the effect of sucralose versus placebo on glucose homeostasis in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-157)
9. An evaluation of specific clinical chemistry parameters and methods in study E-157: A six-month study of the effect of sucralose versus placebo on glucose homeostasis in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-168)
10. A 12-week study of the effect of sucralose on glucose homeostasis and HbA1c in normal healthy volunteers. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-169)
I wrote this little ditty some time ago, and I like to use it sparingly - like fine china - only to admonish the most insistent, yet ill-informed hippies.
Now, on to questions about harmful side effects for long-term use. To put a very complex issue simply, there is no reliable and competent scientific data to suggest that sucralose has significant toxic potential. With regard to acute toxicity, doses of 50,000 times the RDI have not produced any detectable effects whatever [1]. These doses were 10,000 and 16,000 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. The long term assays speak to the same safety.
To wit, 104 week (two year) oncogenicity and chronic toxicity studies in both rat and mice concluded that sucralose possessed no direct effects on the generation of oncoblasts or proliferation of cancer, nor possessed any direct toxicity in all tissue types studied. Minor decreases in organ and body weight, like the majority of other sucralose studies, were concluded to be peripheral to sucralose's direct physiological effects, and were consequences of the inpalatability of the compound [2, 3].
The doses used in the rat and mice studies were exbortinant, far exceeding what is either mechanically or physiologically possible in humans. The NOEL (no observed effect levels) was 1500mg/kg bw/day, with the LOEL (lowest observed effect level) being 4500mg/kg bw/day. To put this into more relevant terms, I would personally need to consume 1/2 lb of sucralose a day, everyday, for two consecutive years in order to broach the level at which no evidence for direct toxic effects were demonstrated.
These results are not alone. In a 12 month dietary study in Beagle dogs fed 875mg/kg bw/day of sucralose by galvage, no immunotoxic or carcinogenic effects were seen at statistically significant levels, and as in the prior rodent studies, any alterations in body weight or organ weight were concluded to be secondary [4]. Studies on pregnant rabbits and rats using doses of up to 1000mg/kg bw/day and 2000mg/kg bw/day for the duration of the 28 week pregnancies did not evince any in utero developmental damage, while the mothers were subject, again, to secondary effects resulting from inpalatability to sucralose [5,6,7].
Finally, while they were not traditional toxicity assays, clinical trials in humans with durations up to and including 6 months, of doses up to and including 1000mg/day, found no significant alterations to major haemotological parameters, nor significant adverse effects.
Put quite simply, there is a complete dearth of evidence to suggest that sucralose is in any way harmful to human health. Unfortunately, the strictures of the scientific community do not apply to the distressing new trend of "new age health" gurus who promulgate this or that in an attempt, in the majority of cases, to push a, "natural sweetener."
Ironically enough, what the new age health community pejoratively deems "the chemical sweeteners" haveexponentially more scientific data on their various metabolic, physiologic, and pharmacological effects than do newer, "organic" sweeteners such as Stevia. Again, this seems lost amongst the uninformed fervor!
I hope that adequately answers your questions with regard to sucralose safety.
1. Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners (1989). Sucralose monographs. Unpublishedsubmission by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK, to the EC Scientific Committee
for Food, August 1989.
2. Rhenius ST, Ryder JR and Aymes SJ (1986).1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-Dfructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): 104 week combined toxicity and oncogenicity study in CD rats with ‘in utero’ exposure. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 86/MSPO33/638. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
3. Aymes SJ, Ashby R and Aughton P (1986). 1,6-dichloro 1,6-dideoxy-ß-Dfructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): 104 week oncogenicity study in mice. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 86/MSPO35/179. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
4. Goldsmith LA (1985). Twelve-month oral toxicity study in dogs: 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS). Unpublished report from Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
5. Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (1998). Evaluation of sucralose by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). Conclusions of the UK Committee on Toxicity on teratology studies. Letter dated April 17, 1998. MAFF/DH Joint Food Safety and Standards Group, London, UK.
6. Tesh JM, Willoughby CR, Hough AJ, Tesh SA and Wilby OK (1983). 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): Effects of
oral administration upon pregnancy in the rat. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 82/MSPO22/311. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality
Sweeteners, UK.
7. Tesh JM, Ross FW, Bailey GP, Wilby OK and Tesh SA (1987). 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-ß-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): Teratology study in the rabbit. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 82/TYLO95/046. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
8. A six-month study of the effect of sucralose versus placebo on glucose homeostasis in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-157)
9. An evaluation of specific clinical chemistry parameters and methods in study E-157: A six-month study of the effect of sucralose versus placebo on glucose homeostasis in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-168)
10. A 12-week study of the effect of sucralose on glucose homeostasis and HbA1c in normal healthy volunteers. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-169)
FL3X MAGNUM
Legend
Subbed
FL3X MAGNUM
Legend
Unsubbed
machorox123
Well-known member
thills said:
You lose
machorox123
Well-known member
thills said:
Get off your knees
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
On a more personal, and less scientific level, I find this thread and threads similarly distinguished to be alternatingly frustrating and fascinating. They are frustrating, inasmuch as they are perfect exemplars for one of the internet's worst characteristics: the mass proliferation of health-related charlatans who incessantly churn out invalidated or outright nonsensical information, all under the guise of, "sticking it to the man." They are fascinating, inasmuch as they demonstrate how perfectly willing otherwise intelligent individuals are to suspend their critical-analytical faculties just so long as the information they are digesting fits neatly into their worldview.
For any who are even peripherally interested in this thread, or this topic, let me make something abundantly clear: there is no clandestine, mass-conspiracy being played out before your eyes, with its perpetrators insidiously seeking to expose you and your children to harmful pollutants via the available food supply. As inept as governmental agencies can be, they approve food ingredients such as sucralose precisely because the available scientific literature supports their safety - and even if it did not, I find it painfully ironic that a certain segment of individuals mindlessly cites 'research' showing these compounds to be toxic, yet willingly ingests 'healthy' alternatives such as Stevia without a shred of legitimate evidence demonstrative of its safety.
And something else: the false equivalency being struck here between 'artificial' and 'bad' is not only scientifically incorrect, it is also philosophically absurd and lazy. Some of the earth's most toxic, most dangerous compounds are found in nature; and the notion that every- and all things man creates are inherently bad, as a function of not being 'natural,' is ridiculous. While I sympathize with the rational kernel of that thought - wishing, in some respects, to do away with the complexity of modern life - this particular instantiation is a symptom of gross romanticism that has become increasingly annoying.
For any who are even peripherally interested in this thread, or this topic, let me make something abundantly clear: there is no clandestine, mass-conspiracy being played out before your eyes, with its perpetrators insidiously seeking to expose you and your children to harmful pollutants via the available food supply. As inept as governmental agencies can be, they approve food ingredients such as sucralose precisely because the available scientific literature supports their safety - and even if it did not, I find it painfully ironic that a certain segment of individuals mindlessly cites 'research' showing these compounds to be toxic, yet willingly ingests 'healthy' alternatives such as Stevia without a shred of legitimate evidence demonstrative of its safety.
And something else: the false equivalency being struck here between 'artificial' and 'bad' is not only scientifically incorrect, it is also philosophically absurd and lazy. Some of the earth's most toxic, most dangerous compounds are found in nature; and the notion that every- and all things man creates are inherently bad, as a function of not being 'natural,' is ridiculous. While I sympathize with the rational kernel of that thought - wishing, in some respects, to do away with the complexity of modern life - this particular instantiation is a symptom of gross romanticism that has become increasingly annoying.
thills
Banned
The application for approval as a food additive was actually turned down by an FDA expert panel-"The information submitted for our review is inadepquate to permit a scientific evaluation of clinical safety (Freeman, FDA Division of Metabolic and Enocrine Drug Products, September 1973).
However, these objections, demanding more carful research were overturned by a new FDA commissioner on the basis of studies, 80% of which were sponsored by the manufacturer, Searle.
The FDA approved aspartame for limited use on July 26, 1974. This approval came despite the fact that FDA scientists found serious deficiencies in all of the 13 test related to genetic damage which were submitted by G.D. Searle.
Later it turned out that important findings in one study, indicating harmful effects (liver cancer) of aspartame had not been reported to FDA until August 18, 1975, 27 months after it had been given to G.D. Searle and over one year after it had been approved. In another study seven infant monkeys were given aspartame with milk. One died after 300 days. Five others (out of seven total) had grand mal (epileptic) seizures. The actual results were hidden from the FDA when G.D. Searle supmitted its initial applications.
thills
Banned
Very clever Sir. And original too. Lets see is it the name calling game we are to engage in. Now I am a little out of practice so forgive me if I misquote this one that my son taught me which he learned in the playground. I think it goes, "I am rubber you are glue, what you say bounces of me and sticks on you."
FL3X MAGNUM
Legend
You're not very funny or creative....lol
PreciseNstuff
Banned
Don't let these shills get you down Sir. You obviously are trying to help those who are uneducated on a subject which directly concerns their health and are having to deal with immature adolescent idiots in the process.
machorox123
Well-known member
PreciseNstuff said:
Are you really this delusional?
PreciseNstuff
Banned
machorox123
Well-known member
PreciseNstuff said:
Ok if your not delusional your just a complete ****ing retard.. Dude idk how many ways to explain it. That might have sounded smart to yu but nothing in there supports your argument.. As i and a few other memebers have stated the studies that have been done reported side effects with megaaaaa huge doses
bioman
Well-known member
The irony of all this bitterness over sweeteners is not lost on me. lol
I like regular sugar because of the taste...and we also know exactly what it does in the body in modest amounts. Great info being posted here and I've learned a lot about sucralose and aspartame..which I do consume in certain supplements. I grew up with the taste of aspartame and back in the day..it was pretty gross. Allow me to explain...
My mother actually worked for GD Searle back in the early 80's when they were still seeking FDA approval. She was a receptionist..so not privy to any super secret details but her bosses seemed to feel that it was safe, would help diabetics, and thought that the majority of negative PR being thrown at them was coming from...the sugar industry. In a sort of OG, reverse conspiracy theory from what we hear today..that DOES make sense. Big sugar saw the writing on the wall, especially since the release of Sweet and Low in the 70's which was a minor threat given that it tastes like arse. "Nutrasweet" tasted a lot better(at least to people who are not me), so they probably feared it would cost them even more money. Plausible theory and supposedly the Searle people knew that the loudest opponents were bought off by Big Sugar.
So mom would bring home products that were being test marketed with Nutrasweet and I got to taste them long before the public ever did. Some of them were OK..like chewing gum. Many had to go back to R and D because they were god awful and I can still taste that shyiat. lol Hence, I prefer plain, old, natural sugar that will kill me in a natural way but tastes way good and even stimulates a serotonin response via insulin induction..blah blah blah.
I like regular sugar because of the taste...and we also know exactly what it does in the body in modest amounts. Great info being posted here and I've learned a lot about sucralose and aspartame..which I do consume in certain supplements. I grew up with the taste of aspartame and back in the day..it was pretty gross. Allow me to explain...
My mother actually worked for GD Searle back in the early 80's when they were still seeking FDA approval. She was a receptionist..so not privy to any super secret details but her bosses seemed to feel that it was safe, would help diabetics, and thought that the majority of negative PR being thrown at them was coming from...the sugar industry. In a sort of OG, reverse conspiracy theory from what we hear today..that DOES make sense. Big sugar saw the writing on the wall, especially since the release of Sweet and Low in the 70's which was a minor threat given that it tastes like arse. "Nutrasweet" tasted a lot better(at least to people who are not me), so they probably feared it would cost them even more money. Plausible theory and supposedly the Searle people knew that the loudest opponents were bought off by Big Sugar.
So mom would bring home products that were being test marketed with Nutrasweet and I got to taste them long before the public ever did. Some of them were OK..like chewing gum. Many had to go back to R and D because they were god awful and I can still taste that shyiat. lol Hence, I prefer plain, old, natural sugar that will kill me in a natural way but tastes way good and even stimulates a serotonin response via insulin induction..blah blah blah.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
thills said:
For the purpose of discussion, I am going to square away the non-trivial matters of you using data prior to 1981 (when the studies you listed were found to have serious methodological deficiencies, including, though not limited to, conclusions which human morphology rendered moot), you deliberately obfuscating the timeline of approval, and you responding to a post I made about sucralose with a post on aspartame, and address your comments at face value.
Even doing so, you will once again find that the credible scientific evidence lands on the opposite side of the fence.
To wit:
"Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals. However, results from subsequent carcinogenicity studies (studies that examine whether a substance can cause cancer) of these sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans. Similarly, studies of other FDA-approved sweeteners have not demonstrated clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans."
And:
"Subsequently, NCI examined human data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study of over half a million retirees. Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not iassociated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (2)."
Invalid Link Removed
"FDA Statement on European Aspartame Study
CFSAN/Office of Food Additive Safety
April 20, 2007
FDA has completed its review concerning the long-term carcinogenicity study of aspartame entitled, "Long-Term Carcinogenicity Bioassays to Evaluate the Potential Biological Effects, in Particular Carcinogenic, of Aspartame Administered in Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats," conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF), located in Bologna, Italy. FDA reviewed the study data made available to them by ERF and finds that it does not support ERF's conclusion that aspartame is a carcinogen. Additionally, these data do not provide evidence to alter FDA's conclusion that the use of aspartame is safe."
Invalid Link Removed
Unless you assume that the National Cancer Institute is deliberately presenting falsified information, I hesitate to see how your position gains purchase: all the information demonstrative of adverse effects are either dubious or outright invalidated; while the methodology of studies showing no association have had their methodologies similarly vetted, and not found to be lacking.
Your intractable position lacks any credible evidence to justify it.
machorox123
Well-known member
Double post
machorox123
Well-known member
Mulletsoldier said:
Yu a lawyer? Lol
chris223
Active member
PreciseNstuff said:
How does that dumb-down the forum? Because it's counter to your point? Are you suggesting that people do not report adverse reactions to vitamin C? You're basing your entire argument around anecdotal reports and a small segment of the population who is known to be unable to safely consume aspartame, against guys citing clinical research showing that things like aspartame and sucralose are safe to consume for most human beings in reasonable human dosages.
So far you've twice lauded the intelligence of posters for no other reason than they agreed with you, and dismissed another as "dumb" because it disagreed with you. Is that what you consider to be constructive debate?
thills
Banned
The Ramazzini study was reported in the November 2005 issue of "Environmental Health Perspectives," the peer-reviewed journal of th United States' National institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
"Our study has shown that aspartame is a mulipotential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are also evident at a daily dose of 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg), notably less than the current acceptable daily intake for humans."
Aspartame has been banned in the Philippines due to its awful effects and banned in chidren's foods in others.
Government members from countries have called for it's ban. One being Member of Parliament Roger Williams cited, "compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance to to be banned from the UK food and drinks market altogether."
As for the FDA Hull was installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor.
Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for Searle and for Monsanto, which purchased Searle in 1985.
Based on all this it is little wonder that many avoid artificial sweeteners. For those that like aspartame it is available. Companies make products in a variety of flavors so why not have an option for products sweetened with natural things so the consumer has an option.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
thills said:
Again: the study you are quoting was fully-reviewed, and found not to demonstrate, with sufficient veracity, that aspartame possesses carcinogenicity.
thills
Banned
Well heck I will just hang my hat on that there
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your position, I would suggest it.
If your entire approach to a topic hinges on an agency not finding a study to be complete nonsense, then a reorientation might be in order.
PreciseNstuff
Banned
I happen to care a little more about my hats Sir.
You have to be kidding me
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Hey hey hey... let's keep this ad hominem... none of this science stuff you are providing.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
PreciseNstuff said:
No. If you take issue with the data I have presented, I would be interesting to know how and why it is deficient.
T-Bone
Banned
mattikus
Well-known member
I find this thread highly entertaining. Didn't Sweet n low have a disclaimer on its packaging once? (maybe it still does, Idk).
But hey, I've used sweet n low. I've used splenda, and sugar, stevia, agave, sweet serum. I have no doubt every single one of 'em is bad for some be it allergies, insulin response, reactions, interactions or whatever the hell. Does that mean we should ban it altogether? If consumers wish to educate themselves, then they can. I remember first hearing of the "dangers" of sweeteners a while back and researched all of them. Saw no reason to call any of them the devil. If ya just don't like one, pick another. This is 'Merica! F yeah! Ya got a choice.
Sorry, my 2 cents. Please continue the entertainment.
Also have to agree with bioman, aspartame tastes like ish.
But hey, I've used sweet n low. I've used splenda, and sugar, stevia, agave, sweet serum. I have no doubt every single one of 'em is bad for some be it allergies, insulin response, reactions, interactions or whatever the hell. Does that mean we should ban it altogether? If consumers wish to educate themselves, then they can. I remember first hearing of the "dangers" of sweeteners a while back and researched all of them. Saw no reason to call any of them the devil. If ya just don't like one, pick another. This is 'Merica! F yeah! Ya got a choice.
Sorry, my 2 cents. Please continue the entertainment.
Also have to agree with bioman, aspartame tastes like ish.
thills
Banned
Thanks for your post. My point in creating the thread was to point out that 90% of the companies selling "sports nutrition" supplements are not making options for those who wish to go with natural sweeteners, they will be the way of the future.
For those that keep on about the FDA this and the fda that, well yeah it was a deadlock that was broken by just one vote, and some of those on this site claim this makes it correct. Obamacare was decided by just one vote so this makes it correct, and all Americans should agree?
What has happened to Merica.
scherbs
Member
thills said:
So, just to be clear: what are you objecting to-democracy, majoritarianism, or just any decision that does not agree with your personal tastes?
If "90%" of supplement companies are making products with sweeteners you find (unscientifically) scary, maybe that is because you are in the minority & most consumers prefer lower calorie sweetened foods.
machorox123
Well-known member
i give up..i thought i was thickheaded
thills
Banned
I did not say "supplement companies"...go in any real health food store "not G..N..C or the like" and 99% of the powdered formulas, from sports nutrition to antioxidant formulations are made with natural sweeteners. I said 90% of "sports nutrition" companies, as in those that sell on a site such as NutraPlanet, which by the way I happen to like and do buy from albeit produts with no additives.
As for low calorie sweeteners there are many natural to choose from so, "that dog don't hunt". If it would be cheaper for the companies to ad no sweetener at all that would be fine, but then again I am one of those that can drink straight Cissus powder and not bat an eye.
scherbs
Member
thills said:
Oh "sports nutrition", not supplement companies-your argument is no longer dripping with illogic!
You do realize that "real health food stores" are able to sell highly specialized products at a marked up price b/c they have a very narrowly defined market- unlike the broader one served by NP
---oh: and cissus can cause headaches & diarrhea. Wasn't that your major complaint vs artificial sweeteners?
thills
Banned
No.
Lutztenways
Member
Second this... artificial sweetener is fine, but stop with the heavy coloring. I don't care if my drink without artificial coloring will be the light brown color of dirty river water or the faint green-grey of stagnant pond water; I'm a big boy, I'm aware of the ingredient profile and fully aware that I'm not drinking contaminated sewage. Do you think the adults drinking your various preworkouts and nootropic blends are children who need to be further coaxed by the comforting sight of atomic blue, neon green or bright crimson?
Please cut the coloring, I don't like pooping red or blue or green and seeing this stuff seep out of my excrement, I don't really care if it's healthy or how many studies you can link proving the safety of artificial colors, I don't like the user experience. Kudos to the many vendors that have already taken steps to meet my needs and the needs of individuals that feel similarly.
Jiigzz
Legend
You eat/drink with your eyes as well. If the food/drink is not visually appealing, many people will not eat it/drink it. In all actuality, eating/drinking is usualy done with all the senses so the ability to cater for all senses will make the product overall more enjoyable.
Lutztenways
Member
Companies aren't giving consumers enough credit in this regard. For example, I opened my new tub of Raspberry Lemonade Alphamine today and it just adds a hazy off-white touch to the 16 oz of water I have it in here on my desk. I eat with my eyes, and my informed brain that is receiving signals from my eyes is really liking this....I think my ears are even getting in on the action, they love the stark silence of Alphamine suspended in the watery mixture. The touch of the drink when it hits my lips, the feel of the tub, the tiny little scooper. Ahhhhh, feels good man.
Anyway, the last Alphamine I had was fruit punch and it was a light pink color where most companies would have opted for a deep nasty red that leaves you looking like a little kid that just polished off a couple popsicles. I've got meetings to go to and presentations to give, so thanks PES for keeping it real. I think my Watermelon Hemavol is a similar acceptable color. I love both of these products, and there are whole heaps of people echoing that affection right here on this very discussion forum.
These are products for adults, dipping into the Fruit by the Foot color stock isn't a value added experience for the target audience. With a little tweak, Raspberry Lemonade Alphamine could resemble a sauvignon blanc, push a little further and you've got what could appear to be a quality scotch. Honey, which you'll find in a whole spectrum of colors, seems to illicit a natural hunger response. Apple juice, pineapple juice, pink grapefruit juice, white zinfandel, you get the idea. For the toys-r-us kids that don't want to grow up, how about something inspired by White Mystery Airheads? You might be right that stagnant pond water coloring may not have a natural appeal, but we could learn to enjoy it just like we most certainly did with "toxic waste" bright green.
Hokutoshura
New member
If I can shoot a mix of Cissus and Berberine, I obviously do not care what my product looks or tastes like. I just like that it works.
GuyverX
Well-known member
I've read studies for and against quite a few compounds.
However unlike many guys on this board I am not educated nor do I work in the chemical field so I am not witness to any firsthand knowledge as to how most of them work in certain ways in tests.
Short of actually doing the experiments myself all I can do is research as much as possible, see what has the most positive reports and reviews, and hope I have no allergies or adverse effects. (The former docs can test for).
Comes down to what works for the person.
Some people have smoked for years and have little or no lung issues.
And people who have lived with them have lung cancer from the second hand smoke.
Different body chemistry and genetic markers.
Which also may play a part in the effects of reasonably safe compounds on individuals.
However unlike many guys on this board I am not educated nor do I work in the chemical field so I am not witness to any firsthand knowledge as to how most of them work in certain ways in tests.
Short of actually doing the experiments myself all I can do is research as much as possible, see what has the most positive reports and reviews, and hope I have no allergies or adverse effects. (The former docs can test for).
Comes down to what works for the person.
Some people have smoked for years and have little or no lung issues.
And people who have lived with them have lung cancer from the second hand smoke.
Different body chemistry and genetic markers.
Which also may play a part in the effects of reasonably safe compounds on individuals.