371–380 of 584 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite following you... do you mean the difference between cooked and raw, or something else?
I'm saying that you don't find it distasteful that we add sweeteners to raw cocoa powder to make chocolate edible for humans, so what's distasteful in adding sweeteners to animal feed to make it edible for animals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cancer rates are rising rapidly. Soon 50% of people will have cancer. I’d say something is going on
From NIH's National Cancer institute: * Approximately 39.5% of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes (based on 2015–2017 data). This is no where near 50% of people "having cancer". * The rate of new cases of cancer (cancer incidence) is 442.4 per 100,000 men and women per year (based on 2013–2017 cases). (.442%) * The cancer death rate (cancer mortality) is 158.3 per 100,000…
The challenge you have here is that aspartame isn't just one of most widely studied substances in the food chain, but that it's also one of the most widely and vigorously consumed. People drink a lot of diet soda; a lot of people drink it to the exclusion of all other liquids. So it's going to be tricky to get the epidemiology to match up with the claim here: if aspartame is meaningfully carcinogenic (meaning: more t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My Peruvian climbing guide turned me onto stevia which doesn't fall into any of your categories. It is really a wholesome plant extract instead of something chemists have invented which leads me to have confidence in its (so far as we know) lack of carcinogenicity.
By that logic, burning tobacco shouldn't be carcinogenic either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most bread you get from a supermarket (even outside the US) is highly processed garbage, as are many common sandwich fillings (mayo, salami, margarine). The typical sandwich is probably up there with many of the other least healthy things you could eat, so yeah, ground up wheat with filling to make it taste good is probably fair.
Mayo is processed garbage?? Please explain. It’s whipped egg with lemon and oil, maybe some salt.
These days, it’s actually listed as compatible with heart healthy diets (the oil is typically a “good fat”, and the eggs raise cholesterol levels data is weak at best)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mayo is processed garbage?? Please explain. It’s whipped egg with lemon and oil, maybe some salt.
Helmans also uses Calcium Disodium EDTA for shelf life. Im not saying its bad, or being processed is bad, but its manufactured at scale with additional ingredients to make it shelf stable. Its not the same thing you make at home. Frankly I think thats fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harmless garbage, mind you
Nitrate laden meat consumption is heavily correlated with colon cancer, no?
Also, “sodium nitrate free” and “uncured” meat typically contains celery salt, which is chemically identical to sodium nitrate, except that the maximum safety levels don’t apply, so sometimes it has more nitrate in it than would otherwise be legal.
The misleading “uncured” and “sodium nitrate free” language on labels is mandated by labeling standards in the US, so keep that in mind when directing your rage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it a healthy alternative to sugar? If you have a one in five chance to live ten years longer because you don't develop cardiovascular issues from obesity, but one in a million develops cancer, I mean... It's going to depend on how this turns out exactly.
Nothing is safer than sugar if you're just talking about a few grams for your coffee.
The amount of calories in two teaspoons of sugar is minuscule.
The challenge you have here is that aspartame isn't just one of most widely studied substances in the food chain, but that it's also one of the most widely and vigorously consumed. People drink a lot of diet soda; a lot of people drink it to the exclusion of all other liquids. So it's going to be tricky to get the epidemiology to match up with the claim here: if aspartame is meaningfully carcinogenic (meaning: more t…
The other big challenge is from a SAR (structure-activity relationship) point of view, it's completely benign looking from just about any way you look at it. It's two peptides, and a methanol (which yes, gets converted to formaldehyde, but so does fruit pectin). There's nothing zany about its structure, it's not particularly lipophilic, no receptor bindings of note, no spicy reactive groups, no alkylators, no interca…
Warnings like these quickly hit the Prop 65 problem - the notices are so ubiquitous you go blind to them.