diet coke/ aspartame

[madds87]

Interesting and i agree whether it be logic or ignorance.

 

[Tone]

You also have to take things into consideration... who is doing these studies, what question are they asking when they do the tests.. If nobody did a study on "are artificial sweetners unhealthy" then we will never know. They ahve done a lot of studies, on if artificial sweetners cause cancer, but they have never done a study that said do artificial sweetners cause stress on the body... you have to first ask the right question before you get the right answers my friends.

 

[rubberring]

Let's get something right first: There are two different things, things that are healthy, and things that are not. Our body is programed to work right 100% of the time, and the only thing that will stand in the way of that is interference. So our body needs no help, just no interference. Now, things that give our body interference is stress. Any type of stress whether it be Physical, chemical, or emotional stress. So things that give our body stress are not healthy, or in other words bad for you because they cause stress. I think we could ALL agree that things that need to be put in the body should come from the Earth, things that are natural.... We are all made from the earth, we were made out of the earth and when we die, we will become part of the earth again. It's simple biology. So, artificial sweetners, something that is not natural, man made, a toxin so to speak would be unhealthy. It causes a toxicity in our body, which in turn causes chemical stress and therefore interference in our body -- one side effect would be headaches. Now, in that case I would call an artificial sweetner toxic, and unhealthy, or in other words "bad for you". It has no positive traits, only negetive... so if something has no positive benefts, but did have negetive traits, I would... by LOGIC, call it harmful....... There are only two ways to get sick... by either a deficiency in something, or a toxicity to something.... artificial sweetners cause a toxicity to the body. They are harmful!

There is so much misinformation in that post I wouldn't know where to begin.

You also have to take things into consideration... who is doing these studies, what question are they asking when they do the tests.. If nobody did a study on "are artificial sweetners unhealthy" then we will never know. They ahve done a lot of studies, on if artificial sweetners cause cancer, but they have never done a study that said do artificial sweetners cause stress on the body... you have to first ask the right question before you get the right answers my friends.

People have died from water toxicity... and I'm pretty sure water is natural. Oh, and running causes stress on the body.

No offense, but your logic is illogical. Your facts are based on your assumptions... and I have no idea what your assumptions are based on.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Let's get something right first: There are two different things, things that are healthy, and things that are not.

Well, that is not getting anything right. In reality, the vast majority of compounds that we commonly ingest have a much more, let's say, "health neutral" effect - that is, they are neither "healthy" and/or "unhealthy."

Our body is programed to work right 100% of the time, and the only thing that will stand in the way of that is interference.

Incorrect.

So our body needs no help, just no interference. Now, things that give our body interference is stress.

Again, incorrect. This would assume that overactive cellular proliferation (i.e., cancer) requires exogenous (outside the body) "interference," but often it does not. It can and often is hereditary - or in other words, defectiveness was programed in that person's genome.

Any type of stress whether it be Physical, chemical, or emotional stress. So things that give our body stress are not healthy, or in other words bad for you because they cause stress.

Wrong. Stress comes in varying kinds and degrees, and as a matter of fact, some stress is entirely necessary for the body's proper function. The beta oxidation of fatty acids, for example, is classically "stressful," but also necessary in order to avoid conditions that precipitate hypercholesterolemia, dyslipidemia, NIDDM, and so on.

I think we could ALL agree that things that need to be put in the body should come from the Earth, things that are natural.... We are all made from the earth, we were made out of the earth and when we die, we will become part of the earth again.

Koombaya?

So, artificial sweetners, something that is not natural, man made, a toxin so to speak would be unhealthy.

No.

It causes a toxicity in our body, which in turn causes chemical stress and therefore interference in our body -- one side effect would be headaches.

No, it's not.

Now, in that case I would call an artificial sweetner toxic, and unhealthy, or in other words "bad for you".

I am sure you would.

It has no positive traits, only negetive... so if something has no positive benefts, but did have negetive traits, I would... by LOGIC, call it harmful.......

I am sure you would, because you do not understand how logic works. Reference my post about negative and positive claims.

 

[Tone]

Well, that is not getting anything right. In reality, the vast majority of compounds that we commonly ingest have a much more, let's say, "health neutral" effect - that is, they are neither "healthy" and/or "unhealthy."



Incorrect.



Again, incorrect. This would assume that overactive cellular proliferation (i.e., cancer) requires exogenous (outside the body) "interference," but often it does not. It can and often is hereditary - or in other words, defectiveness was programed in that person's genome.



Wrong. Stress comes in varying kinds and degrees, and as a matter of fact, some stress is entirely necessary for the body's proper function. The beta oxidation of fatty acids, for example, is classically "stressful," but also necessary in order to avoid conditions that precipitate hypercholesterolemia, dyslipidemia, NIDDM, and so on.



Koombaya?



No.



No, it's not.



I am sure you would.



I am sure you would, because you do not understand how logic works. Reference my post about negative and positive claims.

You are an idiot in my opinion. You have no clue what you are talking about, you think that cancer is a genetic disease? Its not, its caused by lifestyle stresses... you are right about there being good stress and bad stress. I was talking about the bad stress.

 

[Tone]

There is so much misinformation in that post I wouldn't know where to begin.



People have died from water toxicity... and I'm pretty sure water is natural. Oh, and running causes stress on the body.

No offense, but your logic is illogical. Your facts are based on your assumptions... and I have no idea what your assumptions are based on.

You are right, people can die from a water toxicity, like I said, toxic things are harmful on the body, so too much water can cause negative stress, and you can die from it. Running causes stress on the body, but it also has benefits..... LIKE I SAID ---- something that is has ONLY negative effects and NO benefit would be harmful in my opinion. Quit being a retard and comprehend what I am writing

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You are an idiot in my opinion. You have no clue what you are talking about, you think that cancer is a genetic disease? Its not, its caused by lifestyle stresses... you are right about there being good stress and bad stress. I was talking about the bad stress.

I suppose it was asking too much of you to read something thoroughly. Let me state it more simply.

Cancer is an unchecked development of a cell - it arises over time as defects in the genetic coding of that cell are replicated again and again, causing the expression of the defect (i.e., the cancer) to become more pronounced.

There are times when this can arise due to ingesting carcinogens which mutate the cell's DNA expression. Other times, the mutation is programmed into the person's DNA - you know, hereditary cancer that affects generations upon generations of the same family with varying degrees of lifestyle stress.

I was giving you too much credit.

 

[rubberring]

You are right, people can die from a water toxicity, like I said, toxic things are harmful on the body, so too much water can cause negative stress, and you can die from it. Running causes stress on the body, but it also has benefits..... LIKE I SAID ---- something that is has ONLY negative effects and NO benefit would be harmful in my opinion. Quit being a retard and comprehend what I am writing

To comprehend what you're writing would call for you to have intelligence in the first place. You sound like an 8th grade halfwit.

Your so-called logic usually goes something like this:

"1 + 1 = 11, so based on that..."

You should've taken your own advice and stayed "done with this thread." But hey, keep going. At least you're entertaining. I enjoy watching Mullet hand your e-ass to you over and over. :lol:

 

[Tone]

I suppose it was asking too much of you to read something thoroughly. Let me state it more simply.

Cancer is an unchecked development of a cell - it arises over time as defects in the genetic coding of that cell are replicated again and again, causing the expression of the defect (i.e., the cancer) to become more pronounced.

There are times when this can arise due to ingesting carcinogens which mutate the cell's DNA expression. Other times, the mutation is programmed into the person's DNA - you know, hereditary cancer that affects generations upon generations of the same family with varying degrees of lifestyle stress.

I was giving you too much credit.

I don't believe that genetics predetermines a chronic illness. I just don't believe it. and you can't find any data to prove it true, or untrue.

http://www.thewellnesspractice.com

Why don't you read about what Dr. Chestnut talks about, you might learn something.

 

[rubberring]

Why don't you read about what Dr. Chestnut talks about, you might learn something.

Intellectual pretentiousness just doesn't suit you.

 

[Tone]

We have conflicting ideas of what health and wellness is. You two probably think that being healthy is going to your doctor to get a prescription, and covering up your symptoms. I think that being healthy is getting my proper nutrients, and staying away from things that are toxic to my body. I believe that artificial sweetners are toxic to my body. Therefore I, and all of my clients stay away from them. And until somebody can prove to me that AS can benefit me, I will go on believing this. Its as simple as that. So you can negetive rep me all you want, but I still believe what I believe, you can try to belittle me all you want, but I know that I am right... and I hope you both die of cancer. but don't worry cuz if you do, its probably already predetermined, so your lifestyle has nothing to do with it. According to mullet.

 

[rubberring]

We have conflicting ideas of what health and wellness is.

Agreed.

You two probably think that being healthy is going to your doctor to get a prescription, and covering up your symptoms.

You don't know what I believe... but you are definitely the king of assumptions.

and I hope you both die of cancer.

You stay classy, Tone.

 

[PublicEnemy]

I don't believe that genetics predetermines a chronic illness. I just don't believe it. and you can't find any data to prove it true, or untrue.

Serious question here...

Are you f*cking retarded?

EDIT: I forgot to add that I am quite eager for your response.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I don't believe that genetics predetermines a chronic illness. I just don't believe it. and you can't find any data to prove it true, or untrue.

http://www.thewellnesspractice.com

Why don't you read about what Dr. Chestnut talks about, you might learn something.

To get this straight: you do not feel that cancer, which is a mutation in the expression of genes responsible for controlling cell growth and death, has anything to do with gene expression, which is inherited at birth?

 

[CrazyChemist]

This thread has gotten out of control, lol. People killing themselves over diet soda. You guys have fun - i'm un-subbing. G'Night all.

 

[Tone]

To get this straight: you do not feel that cancer, which is a mutation in the expression of genes responsible for controlling cell growth and death, has anything to do with gene expression, which is inherited at birth?

I believe what you are saying to be true. I do not believe that when you are born you are predetermined to have a chronic illness. I believe that lifestyle has determination on whether or not you develop cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes. ect.... Not that a person is born with it and no matter what they do they will develop these diseases. Obviously I believe there to be some acceptions, but for the majority I feel it is about lifestyle choices, and what we do or do not put into our bodies, examples: processed foods, additives, pesticides, herbicides, hormones from cows/chickens ect... Our drinking water, HFCS, sugars, MSG.... the list could go on, You look at native americans who did not have a history of heart disease, or diabetes before we came to this country, now you can see a very high rate of this. Don't tell me it was because they were predetermined to have it, cuz they weren't...


I am sorry for any rude comments I have made, to any of you in this thread. My Philosophy on health and wellness is different than most. I use a holistic approach, and I do not agree with a lot of western medicine. So, I am very sorry for all of my offense behaviors, I just get a little amped when I get into debates about this. I think it is time for me to get out of this thread, once and for all... lol...

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I believe what you are saying to be true. I do not believe that when you are born you are predetermined to have a chronic illness. I believe that lifestyle has determination on whether or not you develop cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes. ect.... Not that a person is born with it and no matter what they do they will develop these diseases. Obviously I believe there to be some acceptions, but for the majority I feel it is about lifestyle choices, and what we do or do not put into our bodies, examples: processed foods, additives, pesticides, herbicides, hormones from cows/chickens ect... Our drinking water, HFCS, sugars, MSG.... the list could go on, You look at native americans who did not have a history of heart disease, or diabetes before we came to this country, now you can see a very high rate of this. Don't tell me it was because they were predetermined to have it, cuz they weren't.

This is 100% true, and does not differ from my opinion. However, to say that genetic coding has nothing to do with the development of disease at all is naive. Diet, exercise levels, environmental pollutants, genetics, etc., they all play their part.

 

[Tone]

I wish that I could explain to you the things I have learned under Dr. Chestnut. As you can see, my talent is NOT explaining information... lol..If you want to read a little more about my thoughts and understand them better than check out this interview.

http://www.thewellnesspractice.com/news/american_chiropractor/dr_james_chestnut_american_chiropractor_magazine_interview.pdf

Or you can always get his books... The Innate Diet & Natural Hygiene

 

[Mulletsoldier]

If there are 99 fools screaming what is right against 1 man, I will take the side of the 1 man just so long as he has evidence. You have none, unfortunately, Tone.

 

[Ubiquitous]

In moderation, diet soda/products are ok... But I try and eliminate all artificial sweeteners and acid-forming chemicals from my diet. Diet Cola's have too many negatives to even get into. They are extremely acidic (both from the added acids and from the acidic sweeteners). I think people also often over-look the fact that a serving of artificially sweetened protein powder has ALOT more sucralose than say a bottle of Mountain Dew... Try and buy unflavored/unsweetened whey isolate and add cinnamon/stevia. Not only is this healthier, but cinnamon/stevia are very alkaline!

-Alex

I like what Alex said. I've opened my mind up to the alkaline/acidic food subject and it's pretty interesting... to me at least.

Mullet, look at you all grown up! I'm very proud of you. It's been quite a while since I visited for reasons other than looking at Buki's log.

Mullet, dear one... instead of arguing logic and empirical evidence,you must focus all that bundle of seething debate energy on fixing the lag time in the canadian health system. I hear the wait time for simple appointments is unbelievable.

In all honestly, the soda (or pop as Mullet would call it) is not beneficial for you no matter how you slice it. Diet or regular. Some people allow themselves guilty pleasures, others do not. Educate yourself and choose what you want to believe. No one (especially on the internet) can realistically make you change your mind unless you're looking to change it.

People can argue FDA approvals (really?) or double blind tests... They can dredge up studies from highly touted people, or they can cite a forum member. It doesn't really add up to much because both sides will always have a point. One will call one paranoid, others will call them ignorant.

Again, I like what Alex had to say.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I like what Alex said. I've opened my mind up to the alkaline/acidic food subject and it's pretty interesting... to me at least.

Mullet, look at you all grown up! I'm very proud of you. It's been quite a while since I visited for reasons other than looking at Buki's log.

Mullet, dear one... instead of arguing logic and empirical evidence,you must focus all that bundle of seething debate energy on fixing the lag time in the canadian health system. I hear the wait time for simple appointments is unbelievable..

Haha, hi Ubi!

The wait and clearance times can be protracted, most definitely, but it ultimately comes down to examining the system on an ad hoc basis. For example, I recently was suffering through a sub-acute bowl obstruction, and I was in the GP's office for no more than ten minutes before being ushered to the front, and then in the emergency room for no more than twenty as well. Surgeries, however, can be a different beast entirely!

 

[BBB]

If I knew it was toxic, I would have quite drinking it 30 years ago. By the way my health markers are just fine.

 

[madds87]

Back to the genetic diseases..... Just bare with me on this one ha..... Sooooo nothing could have stressed the body to "spark" the "genetic" disease, from the beginning that is? So, at the root of the family tree they always had that "genetic" disease? I know it would be hard to explain this but, im just checking if im correct. Or are you saying that reaction just occured without any action? Would this be the same thought process of luck or fate? I know we do not have alot of research on most of the diseases whether they are genetic or not.
For example I have crohnes disease. Im the only one in my family that has ever had this disease. Now my mothers side of the family has had digestive problems chronic heartburn, diverticulitis(sp?), etc.. So maybe that is relative. But i cant help but consider that my family tree, since the beginning, has had digestive problems, and also say that nothing in the past caused these digestive problems.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Back to the genetic diseases..... Just bare with me on this one ha..... Sooooo nothing could have stressed the body to "spark" the "genetic" disease, from the beginning that is? So, at the root of the family tree they always had that "genetic" disease? I know it would be hard to explain this but, im just checking if im correct. Or are you saying that reaction just occured without any action? Would this be the same thought process of luck or fate? I know we do not have alot of research on most of the diseases whether they are genetic or not.
For example I have crohnes disease. Im the only one in my family that has ever had this disease. Now my mothers side of the family has had digestive problems chronic heartburn, diverticulitis(sp?), etc.. So maybe that is relative. But i cant help but consider that my family tree, since the beginning, has had digestive problems, and also say that nothing in the past caused these digestive problems.

No, no. Here is a way to think about it.

Every cell of our body is comprised of DNA, which is itself comprised of an infinite combination of four amino acids: adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine. Differing combinations of these amino acid are responsible for producing different proteins, and in turn, differing tissues. This is called sequence.

Now, a gene is a distinctly identifiable sequence of these amino acids, the function of which corresponds to coding even more proteins - this encoding is called genetic expression. So, a gene is responsible for arranging these amino acids into various proteins. For example, the GLUT4 gene is responsible for encoding the GLUT4 protein.

While genes are always inherited, their function (expression) can be altered by a wide range of things, including chemical and metabolic stimuli. Changing how much a gene is expressed will in turn effect the amount of protein it encodes. For example, many types of cancer are caused by reducing the expression of tumor suppressant genes, while others are responsible for increasing the expression of genes responsible for cell development.

To your question: 'What sparks genetic diseases?' Well, if a particular person's gene has its expression manipulated, then that manipulated expression becomes ingrained in that person's genetic code. They will therefore pass that deficient expression on and on; however, the passing of genetic material is not always unilinear.

How much of that deficient expression is passed on to future generations ultimately depends upon what type of gene it is, at which stage the altered expression exists, and so on. As I tried to say, the picture is really quite convoluted, and myriad factors play their part. But with that being said, reducing cancer, or any other disease which involves genomic sequence, down to dietary factors alone is literally ****ing retarded.

 

[madds87]

Ok so a disease starts by the "manipulation" and once the "manipulation" is permanent or unbalanced. But with this happening wouldnt this happen due to stress? im sorry if im not getting this..... Im trying... lol

But then why would disease be growing? like more and more people are getting cancer and more and more people are getting crohnes? diabetes, etc. etc. Would it be growing because of DNA throughout the years becoming more and more lets say "unbalanced"? would this be considered evolutionary?

Im trying my best to keep up mullet..... without a college education.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

College smollege. I have never taken a science-based course beyond eleventh grade.

I think you may be understanding precisely what "genetic disease" means, which is common considering the terms "genes" and "disease" are thrown around pretty carelessly.

A "genetic disease," is one in which the precipitating cause is the altered expression of a gene responsible for encoding a certain set of proteins intimately involved in the disease, like cancer. Cancer is always the altered expression of genes that are responsible for cell development and death, and as a result, cancer is a "genetic disease." A disease of pathological genomic sequence.

Other diseases, however, do not necessarily involve altering the expression of genes. All diseases are of course pathological, and therefore, all diseases involving the malfunctioning of some bodily system - but there are many steps along the pathway, other than genetic expression, that this malfunction can occur upon.

Only the former type of disease is going to passed on to subsequent generations, unless, that is, an acquired disease ultimately affects the expression of the same genes in the same meta-population over time. It is possible that diabetes is an instance of such an acquired disease, insofar as dietary changes over thousands of generations leading to glucose metabolic genes having their expression altered within the wider species.

 

[madds87]

So genetics can cause a chronic illness for some diseases. The other illnesses that require a "malfunction" of a bodypart could of happened due to genetic mutation caused from diet change or "stress"? Lol this is rediculously precise. How could you even tell the diference? Either way stress is involved correct? Or you saying DNA is meant to screw up?
And even if there is no research to prove this or not but, Lets say AS is stressfull on the body could this be the "stress" that would be causeing the chronic illness? not including other aspects like diet, toxins, etc. Most of the time its not just one thing that causes the illness normally its several attributes. Smokers dont get lung cancer just from smoking cigarettes. Its also because of lack of excercise, diet, etc. That also brings me to another point what about lung cancer? Is this in the same category that you explained above? or should that cancer be dismissed?

Maybe monkeys had diabetes from the beginning hence the problem now! hahaha.... jk.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Not going to lie, I am not tracking you - especially on the first part. "So genetics can cause a chronic illness for some diseases." Diseases are chronic illnesses.