sucralose and artifical flavors in xtend. how bad

[ax1]

its obesity not the sugar. i would rather not take anything cancerous esp is if take it everyday.

what i meant was sugar is being as a money making tool. the corps are marketing it to children and brainwashing society into becoming obese, creating a sugar=ecstasy type messages early in childhood is a evil thing.

yes you are 100% correct, i just went off topic a bit with my politics.

actually you would need natural sugar, white sugar is processed, correct?

 

[qwerty33]

i believe so. protein factoy looks great. im between true protein and protein factory, both allow you to make your own protein. Any ideas on which is better

 

[purebred]

Yes, which means it is understudied and untested..oh and unregulated.

Blame the gov't for that.they don't feel its profitable enough to look into it. I'll put my money on Xylitol being healthier (which comes from the bark of a tree) than Splenda/Aspartame/whatever the hell they call it nowadays. Gov't is shady.

 

[Hardnutcheck]

I'll go by how many diet sodas(Sweets in general) a normal person will consume regulary and they're still alive.

2-3 protein Shakes and 1 intraworkout a day, I should be fine.

 

[AE14]

Xtend was ok when I used it...transitioned to Bulk BCAA's though

this is the route I am going to take when my Xtend is done. Just throw in some Mono and Crystal Light and call it a day

 

[qwerty33]

its not just xtend. mostly all proteins have fake sugar and flavors. got to look at the label

 

[hardknock]

its all bullcrap,

people die from eating to much sugar during their lives and these corporate bastards want to brainwash children to eating candy, sugar coated cereal, sugar drinks. they train us at a early age to be suicidal on sugar and the government isnt doing anything about this because the politicians would lose votes fighting it.

instead they focus on bullcrap like banning pro-hormones and supplements when sugar is the evil here.

500,000 americians die every year from smoking and nobody wants to ban that either, see where im getting at?

yeah the rats get cancer from artificial sweeteners in high doses, but the sugar rats DIE! why not just get cancer and live a little longer?

I hear ya!!! I'd much rather take a "drug" that stated one thing but found out it was something TOTALLY different than label claims. I mean, shouldn't we all take these garage chemicals for what they truly are?

Seriously, line me up for some of that anabolic extreme, first hand. I'll take 16 bottles and a casket, please!

..( i am sure you feel the sarcasm oozing)

As far as that last bold, I have no idea what you mean by that. Why would you want to live longer with cancer? Shouldn't you try to eliminate it all together?

 

[ax1]

..( i am sure you feel the sarcasm oozing)

As far as that last bold, I have no idea what you mean by that. Why would you want to live longer with cancer? Shouldn't you try to eliminate it all together?

yes we should eliminate it all together, all though im a lil ignorant and wont be following my own advice. these corporate bastards need to stop using un-natural stuff in our food however, i mean, and i really mean everything by law should be organic, and animals should not be raised in corporate farms.

you know the government subsidizes sugar right? instead of healthy foods they subsidize whats most profitable.

its a scam, government pays to make sugar cheaper in the store, but since the government doesnt actually have anything they take it from someone, which is us the taxpayers. we pay taxes to make it cheaper for people to poison themselves and to help increase the sales of these corporate goblins.

 

[hardknock]

yes we should eliminate it all together, all though im a lil ignorant and wont be following my own advice. these corporate bastards need to stop using un-natural stuff in our food however, i mean, and i really mean everything by law should be organic, and animals should not be raised in corporate farms.

you know the government subsidizes sugar right? instead of healthy foods they subsidize whats most profitable.

its a scam, government pays to make sugar cheaper in the store, but since the government doesnt actually have anything they take it from someone, which is us the taxpayers. we pay taxes to make it cheaper for people to poison themselves and to help increase the sales of these corporate goblins.

I hear you on that but let's be honest, there is a large portion of people who do not even pay taxes so there is a dynamic portion of the population which has no place to cry over what taxes the gov' has us paying and I am not talking about elderly.

 

[ax1]

I hear you on that but let's be honest, there is a large portion of people who do not even pay taxes so there is a dynamic portion of the population which has no place to cry over what taxes the gov' has us paying and I am not talking about elderly.

everybody pays taxes, everybody. they all go to the store and buy something, and they take around 8% more just for purchasing something.

they take something when you make it, and then they take something when you spend it.

many people do not pay taxes when they make it, but they are still usually stuck when spending it.

 

[dumbhick3]

Brushing your teeth everday is only minimal. Without proper care of your teeth, those pearls don't stand a chance even if you only suck down rice cakes your whole life or drink water.

Also, I am sure that you are aware of the fact that sugar isn't the reason for the nations obesity. It is because of a lack of energy expenditure. Calories in cannot be greater than calories out, point blank.

People can swallow down spnich and chicken breast all day but if at the end of that day they are on the couch watching t.v. then the results will be the same, it just takes longer.

Boy, this thread has turned into a monster; it could use some humor.

It's a hard knock life...for us...it's a hard knock life...for us...:lol:

Hardknock:

Calories in, calories out, got it!:toilet:

I only mentioned the oral health comment (brushing teeth, which my dentist tells me isn't the only component of oral health, admittedly) b/c I found it in a letter McNeil (Splenda) wrote to the FDA. They wanted Splenda to be granted approval for "safe for dental health" marketing or something menial (to me) like that (most artificial sweetners have this designation). I thought it was odd b/c I didn't really think about it hitherto. The letter was almost vehement, so I was surprised that it was such a big deal to them (more $ I guess, I dunno). BTW, I didn't brush my teeth yesterday, but that is just one little piece of my overall dental care plan.:32:

I thought that my "if Americans weren't so fat and lazy" comment covered the lack of energy expenditure that you mention above. I guess it didn't.

I like spinach too! Sour Diesel, Jack the Ripper, Haze, good stuff. Chicken breasts are ok I guess, better with spinach of course.:439:

Honestly, how can you expect a serious response to "People can swallow down spnich and chicken breast all day but if at the end of that day they are on the couch watching t.v. then the results will be the same, it just takes longer"?

The OP's post:

Natural And Artificial Flavors, Citric Acid, Acesulfame Potassium, Sucralose, Pyridoxine HCL, Red #40, Blue #1

how bad is this fake sugar and artificial flavors for you

Dumbhick3, I read that long summary that you wrote on the first page but what does that have to do with th Op's question?

I thought he was looking for episodes from various people not what the fda does and doesn't allow.

What does "episodes from various people" mean and how do you know what "he was looking for"? In other words, why are you impugning me as not addressing his question when you aren't even sure what he is asking yourself ("I though he was looking for...")?

I just read the post, replied, and the thread took on a life a raging personality of its own.

It's kind of a question (needs a '?'), and I tried to answer it, but really it's unquantifiable and essentially unanswerable as it is stated. How bad is anything for a specific person? The best I could do was to add my own experience with Splenda story in (along with that of some of my relatives) and quote some relatively useless studies. I guess I failed, but I tried. The FDA failed IMO too, paying no ear service to post-marketing reports and letters requesting a warning be placed on Splenda. So yeah, I mentioned the FDA. If they have no vested interests, then why did they temporarily seize all incoming shipments of stevia from South America at the behest of a letter from NutraSweet along with numerous complaints from NutraSweet. Why do multi-billion dollar companies complain? Because they are losing money. Why does the FDA often listen. Conflicts of interest, jobs at NutraSweet making more money 3 years later.

I look at powders as something to get by on when I don't feel well (I have a cold right now) or don't have time and would otherwise miss one of my 4 or 5 meals, and to supplement my whole food protein to get me to the desired daily protein intake. In response to your cooking-time-lazy-powders comment, I have a 4 hour roundtrip daily commute to work. My relative that lives nearby does too. But he has a girlfriend, so he comes home, cooks, eats, goes straight to bed, and repeats the process. I have been teleworking more lately, so I have less excuse, but I do have some personal reasons that make daily cooking impractical though not impossible.

I wrote two longwinded, half-useful, half-useless summaries on the first page, so I am not sure to which one you are referring, unless you only read one of them. And this makes three.
<End Response to Hardknock>
------------------------------------------
I have been very happy with Protein Factory and have ordered from them for years to the poster to asked about which was better. I don't have any experience with the other one you mentioned. Good to know that more than one such company exists.

Glad to hear that the SunCrystals taste good too. It's nice to have options.

My last thoughts on this subject: Ultimately, we as consumers have to decide what we do and don't want to put in our bodies and not rely on the government to hold our hands or slap them (steroids, sugar, food, pills, powders, information for mental nourishment, TV, spinach, chicken, etc). And it would be nice if we as consumers had more options to choose which sweetener most agrees with us in a powdered supp and avoid the ones that do not. To each, his own, you know? Unfortunately, splenda has become ubiquitous in almost every powdered supplement that needs sweetening, and some that don't.

 

[qwerty33]

altho sun crystals taste good stevia still has not been proven save.

 

[dumbhick3]

altho sun crystals taste good stevia still has not been proven save.

Ahh, but you're wrong.

But first, I should point out that I use stevia not b/c it has or hasn't been proven safe, but b/c it doesn't give me a toxic reaction like Splenda. Between the two, splenda tastes better, but I just can't tolerate it side effect wise. I am not out trying to demonize anyone's sweetener of choice. Some people probably can't tolerate stevia and/or don't like the taste as well.

Another interesting thing that escaped my attention is that one of the two stevia extracts that is responsible for the sweet taste was finally given GRAS (generally regarded as safe) approval by the FDA in December 2008 (at the close of the Bush administration). It seems that aspartame has so fallen out of favor by consumers that the cola companies needed a replacement. And they got it with no new FDA studies being performed and it is now being used in some soft drinks as a sweetener/food additive.

The approval given by the FDA to the zero-calorie, all-natural sweetener stevia has steered strong debate over the safety of such sugar substitutes.

In December of 2008, two new brands containing sweet extracts of the shrub, Stevia Rebaudiana passed an FDA review. The two brands – Cargill’s Truvia which is owned by The Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo’s PureVia developed in collaboration with Merisant – are expected to arrive on department store shelves soon. The excitement in the industry is palpable, especially because these are the first all-natural stevia-based sweeteners that have been approved for use by the FDA for use as sweeteners.

Both Cargill and Merisant claim that they have managed to eliminate the natural licorice taste of the stevia leaves. The two soft drink giants will initially introduce stevia sweetened drinks and beverages in the market. Coca Cola is coming out with Sprite Green and Truvia. Pepsi is introducing several fruit flavors of SoBe Lifewaters sweetened with PureVia.

Amidst all the excitement, concerns are rising that the FDA has been hasty in granting approval to the stevia based sweeteners. According to Michel Jacobson, Head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, studies have found a link between stevia and damage to genetic material. Tests also suggest that Rebaudioside A increases the risk of cancer. Jacobson is calling for more testing to be done before stevia is allowed to be added to foods and drinks.

Merisant owns Nutra-Sweet (aspartame brand) BTW. Notice that Merisant's main point of pride was their success in removing the licorice-like taste from stevia, not performing health studies. But that is OK. Stevia has been used in Japan since 1971 and enjoys a 41% share of the sweetener market with no post-market toxicity reports like splenda and aspartame. So we have studies galore to address the "tests" referred to above (in vivo-does not happen). In answer to the last paragraph above citing health concerns and hasty approval (what, the FDA, hasty approval at the behest of giants like Merisant and Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, no new studies? Never):

A 1985 study reported that steviol, a breakdown product from stevioside and rebaudioside (two of the sweet steviol glycosides in the stevia leaf), is a mutagen in the presence of a liver extract of pre-treated rats[30] — but this finding was criticized on procedural grounds that the data were mishandled in such a way that even distilled water would appear mutagenic.[31] Over the following years bioassay, cell culture, and animal studies have shown mixed results in terms of toxicology and adverse effects of stevia constituents, but in general, they have not been found to be harmful. While reports emerged that found steviol and stevioside to be weak mutagens,[32][33] the bulk of studies show an absence of harmful effects.[34][35] In a 2008 review, 14 of 16 studies cited showed no genotoxic activity for stevioside, 11 of 15 studies showed genotoxic activity for steviol, and no studies showed genotoxicity for Rebaudioside A. Nevertheless, even if a chemical can cause DNA damage in the controlled conditions of a bioassay (e.g., in bacteria, in mammalian cell cultures) it is a fundamentally different question whether it causes cancer in intact organisms (e.g., rodents, humans) or is teratogenic (i.e., causes birth defects). No evidence for stevia constituents causing cancer or birth defects has been found.[34][35]

Other studies have shown stevia to improve insulin sensitivity in rats[36] and possibly even to promote additional insulin production,[37] helping to reverse diabetes and metabolic syndrome.[38] Preliminary human studies suggest that stevia can help reduce hypertension[39] although another study has shown it to have no effect on hypertension.[40] Indeed, millions of Japanese have been using stevia for over thirty years with no reported or known harmful effects.[41] Similarly, stevia leaves have been used for centuries in South America spanning multiple generations in ethnomedical tradition as a treatment for type II diabetes.[42]

In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) performed a thorough evaluation of recent experimental studies of stevioside and steviols conducted on animals and humans, and concluded that "stevioside and rebaudioside A are not genotoxic in vitro or in vivo and that the genotoxicity of steviol and some of its oxidative derivatives in vitro is not expressed in vivo."[43] The report also found no evidence of carcinogenic activity. Furthermore, the report noted that "stevioside has shown some evidence of pharmacological effects in patients with hypertension or with type-2 diabetes"[43] but concluded that further study was required to determine proper dosage.

Stevioside and two generations
of hamsters
In 1991 a study was done by researchers at the Chulalongkorn University Primate Research Center in Bangkok, Thailand (Yodyingyuad, 1991). The researchers' objective was to study the consequences of daily ingestion of stevioside -- the main active sweetening agent in the stevia plant -- in hamsters and its effects on two subsequent generations.
This study involved four groups of 20 hamsters (10 males and 10 females) who were one month old. The first group was fed a daily stevioside dosage of 500 mg/kg; the second group received a higher dose at 1,000 mg/kg; and the third group dosage was the highest at 2,500 mg/kg. The fourth group, which served as the control, received no stevioside. (Chinese researchers have estimated that the daily human consumption of stevioside is about 2 mg/kg; Xili, 1992).
The study showed no significant difference in the average growth of the first generation of hamsters in the groups receiving stevioside -- no matter what dosage they were given. Even the third generation of hamsters, at 120 days of age, showed no significant differences in body weight -- no matter which group they were in.
As to the mating performance, all three generations performed the same, no matter which dose of stevioside they received. Their performance was equal to the controls.
In summary, no growth or fertility abnormalities were found in hamsters of either sex. Mating was efficient and successful.
The researchers agreed, "The results of this study are astonishing. Stevioside at a dose as high as 2,500 mg/kg did not do any harm to these animals. We conclude that stevioside at a dose as high as 2.5 grams per kilogram of body weight affects neither the growth nor reproduction in hamsters."

"Assessment of the carcinogenicity of stevioside in rats"
published in: Food and Chemical Toxicology 1997

This study was performed by Dr. K. Toyoda and colleagues, from the Division of Pathology, National Institute of Health Sciences in Tokyo, Japan. For a period of 104 weeks (two years), three groups of lab rats -- 50 males and 50 females -- were tested. One group received stevioside in a concentration that constituted 2.5 percent of its daily diet; the second group received a concentration that constituted 5 percent of its diet. The third group, which served as the control, received no stevoiside. The rats who received the stevioside weighed less than those in the control group. Considering stevioside has no calories, this makes sense. When the organs and tissues of the rats were examined under a microscope, there was almost no difference between those who were given stevia and those who were not. One interesting difference, however, was that the females who took stevioside had a decreased incidence of breast tumors, while the males displayed a lesser incidence of kidney damage. The researchers state, "It is concluded that stevioside is not carcinogenic in rats under the experimental conditions described."

Excerpted from: "The Stevia Cookbook," copyright 1999 by Ray Sahelian, MD and Donna Gates

A. Yamada, S. Ohgaki, T. Noda, and M. Shimizu. 1985. Chronic toxicity study of dietary stevia extracts in F344 rats. Journal of the Food Science and Hygiene Society of Japan 26, 169-183. (in English).
1."As a result of this protracted and extensive investigation, it was concluded that no significant dose-related changes were found in the growth, general appearance, hematological and blood biochemical findings, organ weights, and macroscopic or microscopic observations, as a result of feeding male and female F344 rats with S. rebaudiana extracts at levels up to 1% of their feed for about two years. This...study...(involved) nearly 500 test animals that were treated for up to two years..the highest dose level administered to the animals represented some 100 times the estimated daily intake of this sweet material in the human diet. The results obtained are supportive of the safety of S. rebaudiana extracts, stevioside and rebaudioside A when consumed as sucrose substitutes by human populations."

1. Food Ingredient Safety Review: Stevia rebaudiana leaves by A. Douglas Kinghorn, Ph.D.
Acute Toxicity
2. "Crude and purified extracts of Stevia rebaudiana have been subjected to acute toxicity tests in rats and mice, the results of which endorse the use of these materials for human consumption.
In a study performed in the United States, no evidence of acute toxicity was observed when separate 2 g/kg doses of the S. rebaudiana sweet glycoside constituents, stevioside, rebaudiosides A-C, dulcoside A, and steviolbioside were administered to mice...The results of these acute toxicity studies in rodents do not predict any potential risk for human populations by the ingestion of S. rebaudiana extracts and constituents."
2. Ibid. at 1.

3. "Acute toxicity was not demonstrated when separate 2 g/kg doses were administered to mice by oral intubation, indicating that a concentrated extract of stevia is less than 1/10 as toxic (acute) as caffeine."
3.Gras Affirmation Petition, Stevia leaves, presented on behalf of the American Herbal Products Association, April 23, 1992

Subacute Toxicity
4. "It has been concluded by Akashi and Yokoyama (H. Asaki and Y. Yokoyama. 1975. Dried-leaf extracts of stevia. Toxicological tests. Shokuhin Kogyo 18(20), 34-43. In Japanese, partial English translation provided), that laboratory chow containing up to 7.0% w/w stevioside produced no untoward toxic effects, when fed to male and female rats for nearly two months."
4. Ibid. at 1.

5. "A subacute toxicity study was carried out on rats using an aqueous extract of S. rebaudiana containing about 50% w/w stevioside. Two levels of extract were mixed with laboratory chow for feeding studies, allowing each animal to receive either 0.25 g or 0.5 g stevioside in 15 g of feed per day. Animals were fed the experimental diets for 56 days...There were no abnormalities relative to controls reported that were dose-related, except for a significant decrease in serum lactic dehydrogenase levels.
Neither of these two subacute toxicity studies would predict any potential harm on ingestion of S. rebaudiana extracts by humans."
5. Ibid. at 1.

I can't post links yet, so I just quoted the lengthy study results above. Sorry for the length. Noting the bold text, which artificial sweetners (cough-splenda) have been put to such scrutiny (multiple multi-year long tests of chronic administration and ridiculously high dosing)? And none of this was done to gain FDA approval-the FDA doesn't need or want studies to make their decisions (substantiated above and below, in context of course).

In 1991, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import. The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."[47] This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated the FDA's own guidelines under which natural substances used prior to 1958, with no reported adverse effects, should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as long as the substance was being used in the same way and format as prior to 1958.

Stevia occurs naturally, requiring no patent to produce it. As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the FDA acted in response to industry pressure.[18] Arizona congressman Jon Kyl, for example, called the FDA action against stevia "a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry."[48] To protect the complainant, the FDA deleted names in the original complaint in its responses to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.[18]

Stevia remained banned until after the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act forced the FDA in 1995 to revise its stance to permit stevia to be used as a dietary supplement, although not as a food additive — a position that stevia proponents regard as contradictory because it simultaneously labels stevia as safe and unsafe, depending on how it is sold.[49]

Although unresolved questions remain about whether metabolic processes can produce a mutagen from stevia in animals, let alone in humans, the early studies nevertheless prompted the European Commission in 1999 to ban stevia's use in food in the European Union pending further research.[50] Singapore and Hong Kong have banned it also.[20] More recent data compiled in the safety evaluation released by the World Health Organization in 2006[43] suggest that these policies may be obsolete.

In December 2008, the FDA gave a "no objection" approval for GRAS status to Truvia (developed by Cargill and The Coca-Cola Company) and PureVia (developed by PepsiCo and the Whole Earth Sweetener Company, a subsidiary of Merisant), both of which are wholly-derived from the Stevia plant. [51]

The FDA cares about your health, first and foremost in these matters (I told you, didn't I tell you?). That is why the FDA is doing and has done so many studies on stevia and its extracts before bringing it to market as a sweetener for Coke and Pepsi. (Sarcasm of course)-not one of the above studies was done by the FDA, except maybe the one that was essentially discredited by the WHO and subsequent findings and by its own methodology. Most were done by Japanese scientists, the very same people who have been using stevia extracts for nearly 40 years. That is why the FDA's actions regarding stevia and its more potent extracts (below) can be best classified as either schizophrenic or as serving the interests of big business at any given time.

In the early 90's, Merisant was concerned about their aspartame market share and told the FDA so. Now in 2008, they along with Cargill (Coke and Pepsi) railroad the GRAS approval through the FDA (b/c ppl don't drink nutra-sweet as much as they used to) for a specific extract of stevia and get a "no objection" rule from the FDA in a period of a few months in 2008. The first letters requesting GRAS status for stevia were written in 1992; hmm, 18 years.

"(The FDA action on stevia is) a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry."
Jon Kyl (R), AZ in a 1993 letter to former FDA Commissioner David Kessler about the 1991 stevia "import alert."

"I had one guy from the FDA tell me 'if we wanted to make carrots (be) against the law, we could do it.'"
Kerry Nielson, former director of operations at Sunrider International, discussing the 1985 FDA seizure of his company's stevia.

LOL-sad and funny, but true. Though they would have some angry farmers to deal with. If we even still grow carrots in the U.S. anymore...

The studies above, taken as a whole, along with the WHO's meta-analysis of stevia studies in 2006, seem pretty conclusive to me. Add to that the fact that it has been used -widely- (41% market share) in Japan (in real live people, not mice or rats) since 1971 (39 years), and with no reports that I can find of post-market consumer toxicity such as we see with splenda and aspartame.

Oh yeah, and the FDA recognized one of the two primary stevia sweet-tasting glycosides, rebiana-A, as GRAS, "generally regarded as safe". Rebiana constitutes about 50% of stevia crude extract; the other primary glycoside is stevioside. Both glcyosides are 250-300 times as sweet as sugar, similar in potency to artificial sweeteners. If the FDA does a 180 and issues a "no objection" rule for rebiana-A, then the safety is clearly gospel:stooges:.

What about plain rebiana and stevioside and whole stevia extracts? See the above study results.

All that is left is philosophical banter, like driving cars has proven to be potentially hazardous. Heh, I drove into a falling, giant tree limb last week during a windstorm and totaled the hood of my car. It is indeed dangerous out there. But a man's gotta work...to pay the deductible for the hood of his car:disappointed:.

If safety is a concern for you, then what more evidence of safety do you want? If the above essay isn't convincing, I guess you have to define your criteria for "proven safe".

If splenda and aspartame don't bother you side effect-wise and you prefer their taste, or sugar, drink them. Whatever's clever.

BTW, I don't know why I didn't find these studies before, but Google + FDA + splenda yielded them. Tough work I know.

 

[hardknock]

everybody pays taxes, everybody. they all go to the store and buy something, and they take around 8% more just for purchasing something.

they take something when you make it, and then they take something when you spend it.

many people do not pay taxes when they make it, but they are still usually stuck when spending it.

Yes, everybody pays some taxes, so I should rephrase that, but there are millions of people who avoid paying yearly taxes and some that skim by on paying very few local taxes.

I have a guy next block to me that hasn't paid taxes on earnings in over 14 years and they guy banks 150,000 yrly. On top of that, most of his local purchases are TAX FREE purchases, been that way for about 8 years. Now, those purchases are not supposed to be for home use; however, we all know how that goes. It is people like this that hurts the actual tax payers.

Those people mentioned above have NO RIGHT to say a damn thing about any gov' issues in concerns with where someone's tax dollars are going.

 

[dumbhick3]

This is kind of off-topic, but who's keeping count...(and I couldn't resist)

I live in a certain state where the standard amount of unemployment "funds" (tax money) is $2,000/month for up to 6 months. And I know of one girl who works 50 hours a week while her boyfriend sits at home collecting 2K a month and working 1 day a week at the place he was "laid off" from (getting paid for that too and taxed on 1 day of work a week) and still collects full health benefits from his company. And he isn't looking for a job. He's not a man in my book if he can sit at home (comfortably) sucking up tax dollars while working 1 day a week with full employee benefits and letting his girlfriend of 10+ years work 50 hours a week. Pathetic. I couldn't stand myself if I were in his place, unless he was disabled to the point of not being able to work (and he isn't-he is just lazy and has no financial incentive to seek a job at the moment). I know the girl, but not the guy, so it's nothing personal; my jaw just kind of dropped when she told me about it (my first thought was why is she still with him?). No wonder half of my paycheck goes to taxes...and I have been almost to the point of too disabled to even work from home...and I worked in great agony for most of this year...but I WORKED and paid taxes which are legitimate when they aren't out of control.

People have needs, we all do, but social action programs/socialism is out of control, stupid, and does nothing to help the economy (and it could use some help last I checked). It actually destroys the economy (death meets taxation). Blatant abuses like the example I gave above really singe my pubes:grumpy:.

Big govt=big tax=anti-constitutional. Didn't we fight a war b/c of taxation without representation?

I have to agree with hardknock. Anyone who does not pay their taxes (fair or unfair) has no right to an opinion regarding pretty much anything related to this country (I took it a little further perhaps). In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to live here at all IMO.

"If we learn anything from history, it is that we learn nothing from history"
-A Princeton history professor, name unknown

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – Attributed to George Washington

 

[purebred]

INDUSTRY SPONSORED RESEARCH
Invalid Link Removed

NON-INDUSTRY SPONSORED RESEARCH
Invalid Link Removed

case closed.

 

[hardknock]

Yeah, I have to laugh, honestly because it is so sad and pathetic that a 30 yr old FAKING disability can garner 1500 a month and an 86 year old man with no family, living off of SSI, can only get 500 bucks a month....

Seriously?

So many people that actually have a NEED for tax money is held from it while some "clever", lazy ba$tard can butcher the system.

Another example:::: There is one lady that comes through my work about 3 times a week and drives a benz, nice Benz but also uses EBT. I am like wtf? How does this lady drive a 67,000 car and get EBT and some Joe Smith with legs blown off can't even get home heating assistance......the gov' has been in the toilet for 100 years.
Though, I cannot solely blame the big gov, it is the small state gov's that help to screw up monies given to community organizations and social organizations designed to help the needy.

 

[WilteredFire]

INDUSTRY SPONSORED RESEARCH
Invalid Link Removed

NON-INDUSTRY SPONSORED RESEARCH
Invalid Link Removed

case closed.

I think everyone who has posted in this thread or read this thread needs to go to the dorway site and do some GOOD reading to see what they have to say about it. The lady who is involved in running the site was speaking about the harmful side effects of these artificial sweeteners and the positive things people got when they got off them were shocking to say the least. If i can get the name of the video documentary that she was in that had some VERY interesting info in it, a guy who did the tests with the FDA also speaks out about the toxicity and things they are NOT telling us, including the way the test results were messed with.

Anyway i'll get the name of the video. Till then people, some reading on dorway's site will do this thread some good to keep it on track rather then focusing on side issues like taxes. We need to change our views from the "Hey but even excess amount of xxx will kill you..." to... "Hey, if this is bad for my health, and the FDA dont really give a damn about my health, I understand that substance X taken in X amounts can be harmful, but thats no excuse for me to say keep on using these sweeteners when I now know that this is toxic and harmful to my body"

I think i'll find that video name within a day or so and post the name here for people who want to make a change to their health to watch, and follow.

 

[qwerty33]

bingo

 

[bikeswimlive]

So I have been using Xtend for about 3/4 months working out atleast 4/5 times a week with it. Needless to say this has me a little concerned. If I was going to make my own intra w/o drink with bulk bcaas, what else should I put in the mix for best effect? Suggestions please? (products/brands/etc.?)

 

[WilteredFire]

So I have been using Xtend for about 3/4 months working out atleast 4/5 times a week with it. Needless to say this has me a little concerned. If I was going to make my own intra w/o drink with bulk bcaas, what else should I put in the mix for best effect? Suggestions please? (products/brands/etc.?)

You know the way I see it is this way, I honestly cant see anything ground breaking with supplements like Xtend that is going to help you make gains that are cost effective, I hope this makes sense? I think by the time the gains add up from using something like this kind of supplement, your probably going to have spent a fair amount of bucks on this. Anyway thats just the way I see it.

Personally I buy myself some bulk Unflavoured 1kg of Whey Isolate...and take this 45minutes or so pre-workout to give my body some extra protein to offset any catabolism during the workout. Im guessing this would be the MAIN benefit of taking a supplement such as Xtend, for its anti-catabolic properties during your workout. You could either just get yourself some BCAA's in bulk or capped form as opposed to the xtend, or even 15-20grams Whey Isolate, and if you want to go the extra way, get yourself some L-leucine powder to have post-workout with your protein shake. If im not wrong with the science, L-leucine added to a mixture of carbs and protein was shown to increase protein synthesis more than just the carbs and protein post workout.

If you do take any bulk powders pre workout, you can always get yourself some NOW foods stevia for only a couple of bucks. Ive been using it for over 2 years everyday, its treated me well. And the taste of this sweetener grows on you with some usage.

In all honestly I think having the right post workout, and pre workout nutrition, with the correct timing with some solid food is going to give you the same results as something like Xtend, or maybe even better for all you know. Not bashing here, just stating my opinion. I hope this helps. Sorry for the long post lol