71–80 of 131 posts
It might be the placebo effect, but I'm fairly confident it's not. Placebo effect or not, it has a discernible impact on my cognitive ability, so I avoid it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's natural like sugar, Why is that relevant? That's orthogonal to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. There's no reason, based on that information, that I should expect it to be any more or less toxic than Splenda. I mean, the wrong 100% natural mushroom will kill you pretty dead.
Well that's not true. Saying it's natural suggests that we have atleast evolved with it in the environment, likely interacted with it at times and have developed biological means of interacting and dealing with it. If something is not natural (i.e. doesn't normally exist in nature), then we would not have developed a biological response to it yet, which means it frankly more dangerous because the body does not know h…
Potentially interesting article that gives up half-way through at the most interesting part to digress into an anti-anti-synthetic chemical rant. Not that I'm against that, but I was really intrigued to learn why a chemical that has the properties of being reactive isn't reactive. The article just says that your body doesn't break it down. What does digestion have to do with it? If a molecule is reactive, then its re…
Certain insecticides[0] and flame-retardants[1] are among the more infamous organohalides. Sucralose is also an organohalide.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabromobisphenol_A
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's natural like sugar, Why is that relevant? That's orthogonal to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. There's no reason, based on that information, that I should expect it to be any more or less toxic than Splenda. I mean, the wrong 100% natural mushroom will kill you pretty dead.
Well that's not true. Saying it's natural suggests that we have atleast evolved with it in the environment, likely interacted with it at times and have developed biological means of interacting and dealing with it. If something is not natural (i.e. doesn't normally exist in nature), then we would not have developed a biological response to it yet, which means it frankly more dangerous because the body does not know h…
I know HN hate anecdotal stories, but here goes anyways. 6 months ago, despite my regular exercise routine, I was about 20 pounds over my college weight and prediabetic. Instead of following my doctor’s recommendations and going on Metformin, I cut all nearly sugars out of my diet and replaced it with sucralose, fat, and fiber. Now, exactly 5 lbs sugar equivalent of sucralose later, and I’m back to my college weight.…
Don't take this as a personal attack on your opinion, but I just don't understand this. The distinction that we make between artificial chemicals and natural chemicals seems to be whether it was invented by humans or invented by evolution. That's a fine distinction to make, but why are human invented chemicals seen as the _worse_ of the two? When evolution invents a chemical it's completely random and untested. When humans invent a chemical they vet it through rigorous study and testing. Given a random chemical from nature and a random chemical from human labs, I'll take my chances on humans.
Real-life examples of evolution engineering... heart conditions, dementia, HIV, anemia, etc. Anemia is a good example, because it makes humans immune to malaria. Just a few side effects though...
I feel like our track record is stellar compared to all the follies of evolution. So why are our chemicals viewed in such a negative light compared to these Loki designed chemicals? It's absurd.
Speaking specifically about sugar versus artificial sweeteners, all our studies to date have indicated that sugar is decidedly toxic at average consumption levels, whereas sucralose/aspartame is non-toxic. Again, it seems like nature designed a worse chemical than us.
It's good to see that Splenda isn't the potential toxic substance we began to wonder it was, but I agree that it tastes icky. That said, I wonder why Stevia isn't considered to sweeten drinks? It's very sweet, it's natural like sugar (meaning it's not synthetic or lab-grown), it also has zero calories, and it doesn't taste icky!
> it's natural like sugar, Why is that relevant? That's orthogonal to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. There's no reason, based on that information, that I should expect it to be any more or less toxic than Splenda. I mean, the wrong 100% natural mushroom will kill you pretty dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I updated my original comment to describe what I was talking about when saying "natural"
You still didn't give any reason why something that is natural should be preferred over something that is synthetic or lab grown. Honestly, other than fear of 'teh chemicals,' I can't think of a reason.
Too bad it tastes weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please just be cautious not to fall into the trap of the 'vital principle'[1]. If you had a bottle of L-ascorbic acid ("vitamin C") in your right hand synthesized in a laboratory and a bottle of L-ascorbic acid in your left extracted from rose hips, you'd agree that except for making arguments about impurities (certainly as likely in the 'natural' extract) that the molecules are identical in every sense in both cases…
I've always taken the "natural is better" argument to be based on what else is in the product. The drug industry has a long history of taking a complex natural product and isolating out specific chemicals, then patenting a manufacturing process for those chemicals to sell them as drugs. Sometimes that's fine, but there are many cases where the drugs have side-effects that the natural product doesn't have and that's d…
I know HN hate anecdotal stories, but here goes anyways. 6 months ago, despite my regular exercise routine, I was about 20 pounds over my college weight and prediabetic. Instead of following my doctor’s recommendations and going on Metformin, I cut all nearly sugars out of my diet and replaced it with sucralose, fat, and fiber. Now, exactly 5 lbs sugar equivalent of sucralose later, and I’m back to my college weight.…
Maybe you need a new doctor to go along with your new sweetener =)