101–110 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sucralose found in common sweetener damages DNA, may cause cancer [1] [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sucralose-found-in...
Reality: At the very highest concentrations of the sucralose compound tested in this study, using cells in petri dishes, one marker of gene damage was slightly elevated
This one is quite avoidable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I take it you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide? I mean, how many more decades does one need to really make a decision on these?
There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-sub...
For the able-bodied, it may be enough to incorporate more exercise into our life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-sub...
I think you'll find nothing I said contradicts that statement.
> I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose.
Then I posted a link to a study showing Sucralose is toxic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MSM media is always trying to convince people they can live longer if they stick with coffee, berries, dark chocolate and wine — as if those foods needed boosters. And if true I’m quite sure we’d have people out there living to 150…
You probably can live longer if you stick with coffee (black), berries (minus the food you put the berries on top of), dark chocolate (unsweetened), and wine (in strict moderation).
Heart Disease and Cancer, most in old age, are the top two.
Making micro adjustments to your diet just doesn't stand a chance at making a meaningful difference.
Obviously the real driver of aging is that there was no selective pressure to keep the organism working after sufficient semi-clones were brought online, and keeping an organism functional is a hard problem. The solution is to gain the ability to simulate the organism that results from a particular DNA sequence, understand the design problems in the organism, fix the problems, then alter human DNA to include the fixe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it’s worth, Wikipedia is currently referencing a 2009 study which had previously tested 1000mg/kg in humans.
Really? For a 100kg human (me) that is 100g a day of taurine which is more than 3 ounces or this whole bottle https://www.amazon.com/NOW-Supplements-Taurine-Strength-Caps... and costs about $9. Seems like a lot. Contrast that to the claim that people should eat about 800mg/kg a day of protein overall https://www.sclhealth.org/blog/2019/07/how-much-protein-is-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you'll find nothing I said contradicts that statement.
You have a short memory. Not long ago you wrote the following > I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. Then I posted a link to a study showing Sucralose is toxic.
> There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion.
I get that you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide that we all find themselves on. That's fine, and you are welcome to come to that conclusion. It's not one I've come to, but that's why the world is made up of different people. Remember, what I actually said was:
> These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not.
as well as the post you quoted. So I'm really not sure what you're arguing about here. Nothing I said contradicts your statement of "There are studies for and against...". Indeed, there are. Decades of them.
...in mice.
I am interested in informed skepticism, because this is kinda compelling.
Disclaimer: I don't really know shit.