531–540 of 584 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honey is sweet because it has sugar in it, the same reason people would be using an artificial sweetener in the first place.
Sure, it just doesn’t have the health disadvantages of the alternatives. It might even be good for you.
Not to mention that with aspartame in particular, the evidence is sparse and low quality. The verbiage regarding Sucralose in actual human terms of consumption are much more alarming. I generally try to keep any sweet drink consumption with meals, or otherwise sweetened with stevia (which has seen it's own detractors). Given a century and a half of food industry lies, disinformation, misinformation and tethers with regulatory bodies, it's really hard to believe anything and just defer to if it was considered "food" a couple hundred years ago.
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…
I remember reading back in the early 90s a number of studies that showed elevated risks of certain brain cancers from aspartame. The evidence was pretty strong - it wasn't conclusive (hence the "possibly" qualifier in this label), but it was enough that I was personally convinced. The link between aspartame and cancer is much stronger than the one between cyclamate (banned in 1970 but legal in the EU) and cancer. My…
In the end, it's all a mixed bag, and who knows if it's actually better or worse than consuming more than 25-40mg of fructose or alcohol in a day. There are massive corporate interests in all directions with deep revolving doors in regulatory and research bodies. It's effectively impossible to know.
Is it a variety/strain of food that was considered "food" 250+ years ago? Probably safe. Is it a new strain that has a multiplier of hystamine or other negative hormonal responses, or in a consumption that is a multiple of 250+ years ago? Probably not safe. That's my take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be interesting to see sugar linked to cancer too. Alcohol already has been (with a much stronger link than aspartame).
Sugar being a readily metabolized energy source is almost undoubtedly a cancer source because increase in energy results in increase in cellular production one way or another, which leads to higher risk of mutated cancerous cells, period. Hence the link of obesity to cancer as well. The fact is that anything that increases the amount of you or the rate of you over time over the bare minimum needed for survival is an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cancer rates are rising rapidly. Soon 50% of people will have cancer. I’d say something is going on
Aren't you a Google search away from seeing that this is the opposite of the truth? I'm asking because I didn't look very hard, but I'm on IARC's dataviz site right now looking at a graph of cancer rates --- all causes excluding non-melanoma skin cancer --- sharply down since the '50s (no surprise, tobacco), and also down since the 1990s. You can find cancer sites that break that trend, like bladder cancer, but (for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sugar being a readily metabolized energy source is almost undoubtedly a cancer source because increase in energy results in increase in cellular production one way or another, which leads to higher risk of mutated cancerous cells, period. Hence the link of obesity to cancer as well. The fact is that anything that increases the amount of you or the rate of you over time over the bare minimum needed for survival is an…
Diet drink consumption gone up, but doesnt seem to have made a dent in the obesity crisis. Your point is only valid if it actually lowers sugar and other carbs intake. Which isn't the case for most people. Next to that. With diet drinks people drink more since they feel like they can get a way with, some do with sugar variants as well, but seems like more people binge drink diet versions which could lead to higher ex…
More people need to stop consuming garbage that wouldn't have been considered food 250+ years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sugar being a readily metabolized energy source is almost undoubtedly a cancer source because increase in energy results in increase in cellular production one way or another, which leads to higher risk of mutated cancerous cells, period. Hence the link of obesity to cancer as well. The fact is that anything that increases the amount of you or the rate of you over time over the bare minimum needed for survival is an…
Eating fruit and honey alone for anything “sweet” has worked great for me. Never get any cravings for anything else. It seems to me like these things truly are the carb sources we are “meant” to eat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eating fruit and honey alone for anything “sweet” has worked great for me. Never get any cravings for anything else. It seems to me like these things truly are the carb sources we are “meant” to eat.
Worth noting, that fruit would generally only be available a few weeks out of the year, and natural varieties not nearly as sweet as what's in the stores. Honey was also in much more limited supply. We consume a multiple of fructose and glucose of what would have been consumed just a couple hundred years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carbs are essential for good health and any sort of exercising. Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?
Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. I mean, good luck avoiding them and liking chewing gum. Or good luck if you are diabetic and want a soda from time to time. Folks on keto diets avoid a lot of carbs, and diabetics tend to watch them. Artificial sweeteners help folks do this. Honey has similar woes to actual sugar, and if you are using the artificial stuff to avoid the effects of real sugar, h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carbs are essential for good health and any sort of exercising. Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?
>Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? People aren't literally eating zero carbs, they are minimizing their carb intake for various reasons (like being diabetic). With almost any variety in your diet, you are getting enough carbs to function. People "avoid carbs" because with our modern world of abundance, it is too easy to over consume carbs. If you are diabetic, honey is more likely to put you in an early…
I’d be willing to bet in more than 50% of cases it does.
> Source?
Didn’t WHO or some similar organisation just start officially recommending against them? I haven’t actually read any of the research on this, I’ve just taken my advice from people who have. My personal source is an argument from nature along the lines of “if we didn’t need artificial sweeteners for 300,000 years, we probably won’t need them now”.