Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
One of the subjects talked about this morning on the radio was Aspartame and how dangerous it is to your health. I looked up and read some articles about it and this one was the first that I read: Dangers of Aspartame-10 Reasons to Avoid It. Active Beat-"Avoid Aspartame At All Costs". Some of the reasons to avoid it are because it can contribute to migraines, increase risk of diabetes, and vision problems.
IMO, no one needs a WOW or research, just common sense to know that your body was not meant to take in artificial ingredients. I never liked how diet drinks tasted; one or two was enough for me. I have friends and co-workers with health problems and they are the same ones, coincidence or not, who drink a lot of diet drinks and they start early in the morning as soon as they arrive at work. I see people who will eat huge portions of food and think that they are counter-acting this by having a diet soda. I think that while mormons in particular, obey their WOW and then blow it all on huge portions, junk food, and sodas-diet or not. Sometimes it seems like many people are hell-bent on destroying themselves.
IMO, no one needs a WOW or research, just common sense to know that your body was not meant to take in artificial ingredients. I never liked how diet drinks tasted; one or two was enough for me. I have friends and co-workers with health problems and they are the same ones, coincidence or not, who drink a lot of diet drinks and they start early in the morning as soon as they arrive at work. I see people who will eat huge portions of food and think that they are counter-acting this by having a diet soda. I think that while mormons in particular, obey their WOW and then blow it all on huge portions, junk food, and sodas-diet or not. Sometimes it seems like many people are hell-bent on destroying themselves.
I drink a ton of "diet drinks" every day -- water.
No calories. :)
On the one hand you make a good point -- you don't need some supposedly "inspired" WoW that was mostly based on the ridiculous health fads of the 1830's to know how to eat healthily.
On the other hand, your body wasn't "meant" for anything. And there's nothing inherently "bad" about "artificial" ingredients, just like there's nothing inherently "good" about "natural" ingredients ("natural" arsenic will kill you just fine, for example, while "artificial" iron supplements can keep anemic people alive).
And research is useful. It provides us facts on which we can base good decisions.
No calories. :)
On the one hand you make a good point -- you don't need some supposedly "inspired" WoW that was mostly based on the ridiculous health fads of the 1830's to know how to eat healthily.
On the other hand, your body wasn't "meant" for anything. And there's nothing inherently "bad" about "artificial" ingredients, just like there's nothing inherently "good" about "natural" ingredients ("natural" arsenic will kill you just fine, for example, while "artificial" iron supplements can keep anemic people alive).
And research is useful. It provides us facts on which we can base good decisions.
If you search the internet, you can find scare stories about almost anything. That doesn't mean that the stories are factually based. Aspartame has been the subject of numerous fake internet scares. Other than people who are sensitive to the amino acid phenylalanine, it is safe to use.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
'FDA officials describe aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut." The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe as a non-nutritive sweetener.'
People who want to believe the scare stories may reject the above and claim that there is a giant conspiracy between industry, governments and scientists. Personally, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
'FDA officials describe aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut." The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe as a non-nutritive sweetener.'
People who want to believe the scare stories may reject the above and claim that there is a giant conspiracy between industry, governments and scientists. Personally, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories.
FDA's history of assuring safety is spotty at best.
Doesn't mean Aspartame is dangerous. It means consider the source when choosing for yourself. WoW mimics much of Seventh Day Adventist, Shaker, et al restrictions. All these systems of someone else telling us what to eat/drink, not eat/drink are control mechanisms for the masses.
In my experience, Mormons are the most addicted to sugar, 'diet' drinks, over eat regularly (despite fasting sunday) and are hyper focused on their next meal. The size of the men sitting in front at sacrament testifies to gluttony.
Doesn't mean Aspartame is dangerous. It means consider the source when choosing for yourself. WoW mimics much of Seventh Day Adventist, Shaker, et al restrictions. All these systems of someone else telling us what to eat/drink, not eat/drink are control mechanisms for the masses.
In my experience, Mormons are the most addicted to sugar, 'diet' drinks, over eat regularly (despite fasting sunday) and are hyper focused on their next meal. The size of the men sitting in front at sacrament testifies to gluttony.
sweetners trick the body into craving real sugar, but the consumer persists with the artficial sweetner. The sweetner tricks the endocrine system into releasing insulin to collect the expected sugar from the sweetness tasted on the tongue. This response is not fulfilled due to no actual sugar being consumed, so all this insulin travelling in the blood system is making the consumer crave something sugary or high in fatty calories, which is the next best thing to sugar for the endocrine system to process.
Over time, this leads to an ineffective response to dietary sugars and excessive consumption of unhealthy fats, and in turn leads to fatties with type II diabetes.
This is disregarding the fact that some people have adverse reactions to synthesised products and artificial sweetners are in just about every processed product available at the grocery store.
Drinking less diet drinks and more water is the answer, which is common sense as opie pointed out.The WOW doesn't event 'save' mormons from the current pandemic that is mature onset diabetes.
Over time, this leads to an ineffective response to dietary sugars and excessive consumption of unhealthy fats, and in turn leads to fatties with type II diabetes.
This is disregarding the fact that some people have adverse reactions to synthesised products and artificial sweetners are in just about every processed product available at the grocery store.
Drinking less diet drinks and more water is the answer, which is common sense as opie pointed out.The WOW doesn't event 'save' mormons from the current pandemic that is mature onset diabetes.
^^^
Excellent. Thank you for explaining it scientifically.
Excellent. Thank you for explaining it scientifically.
Mormons avoid coffee but no problem with the opioids and narcotics. Statistics for Utah are shameful. Better to be dealing with a caffeine addiction than an opiate one.
The church should address this problem of 'prescribed medications' but it likely won't. Good luck to LDS who think themselves superior as they down the doctor prescribed meds.
The church should address this problem of 'prescribed medications' but it likely won't. Good luck to LDS who think themselves superior as they down the doctor prescribed meds.
you are very welcome.
anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sweetners trick the body into craving real sugar,
> but the consumer persists with the artficial
> sweetner. The sweetner tricks the endocrine
> system into releasing insulin to collect the
> expected sugar from the sweetness tasted on the
> tongue. This response is not fulfilled due to no
> actual sugar being consumed, so all this insulin
> travelling in the blood system is making the
> consumer crave something sugary or high in fatty
> calories, which is the next best thing to sugar
> for the endocrine system to process.
Clinical tests show otherwise.
"Satiety" didn't change significantly, whether people ate "real" sucrose or artificial sweeteners. No additional "cravings."
And while aspartame was close to "real" sucrose with regard to insulin production post-consumption (a bit lower up front, a bit higher later), stevia was considerably lower overall.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900484/
-------------------------------------------------------
> sweetners trick the body into craving real sugar,
> but the consumer persists with the artficial
> sweetner. The sweetner tricks the endocrine
> system into releasing insulin to collect the
> expected sugar from the sweetness tasted on the
> tongue. This response is not fulfilled due to no
> actual sugar being consumed, so all this insulin
> travelling in the blood system is making the
> consumer crave something sugary or high in fatty
> calories, which is the next best thing to sugar
> for the endocrine system to process.
Clinical tests show otherwise.
"Satiety" didn't change significantly, whether people ate "real" sucrose or artificial sweeteners. No additional "cravings."
And while aspartame was close to "real" sucrose with regard to insulin production post-consumption (a bit lower up front, a bit higher later), stevia was considerably lower overall.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900484/
you will note I said sweeteners - I did not call out any artificial substance in particular, although I will agree that the thread calls out aspartame in particular, however, it is plain to see that I did not and therefore do not require you to respond with your 'correction' regarding aspartame itself. It would have been more appropriate of you to have given it to the whole thread instead of replying to my particular post.
Can you provide me with your own credentials that prove that you are an expert on diet and nutrition (without quoting open access wikipaedia, which is often wrong) before I allot any weight to anything you say on the subject that contradicts my textbooks and teachers. You have already claimed expertise in so many other differing fields of speciality that I doubt whether you have a great understanding of yet another field (physiology) unless you are a registered savant.
Otherwise keep your mouth shut and your fingers to yourself instead of behaving like the pompous arse that you obviously want people to believe you are.
Can you provide me with your own credentials that prove that you are an expert on diet and nutrition (without quoting open access wikipaedia, which is often wrong) before I allot any weight to anything you say on the subject that contradicts my textbooks and teachers. You have already claimed expertise in so many other differing fields of speciality that I doubt whether you have a great understanding of yet another field (physiology) unless you are a registered savant.
Otherwise keep your mouth shut and your fingers to yourself instead of behaving like the pompous arse that you obviously want people to believe you are.
anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you will note I said sweeteners - I did not call
> out any artificial substance in particular,
> although I will agree that the thread calls out
> aspartame in particular, however, it is plain to
> see that I did not and therefore do not require
> you to respond with your 'correction' regarding
> aspartame itself. It would have been more
> appropriate of you to have given it to the whole
> thread instead of replying to my particular post.
What have you got against additional information?
Why is more knowledge, from a peer-reviewed study, than you provided a problem?
And it was provided to the whole thread. Everybody can read it.
> Can you provide me with your own credentials that
> prove that you are an expert on diet and nutrition
> (without quoting open access wikipaedia, which is
> often wrong) before I allot any weight to anything
> you say on the subject that contradicts my
> textbooks and teachers.
Nice (inverse)appeal to authority fallacy.
Worthless, but nice.
It's information from a peer-reviewed scientific study.
Read it. Check the references in it.
Learn something.
> You have already claimed
> expertise in so many other differing fields of
> speciality that I doubt whether you have a great
> understanding of yet another field (physiology)
> unless you are a registered savant.
And of course, you must resort to insults.
Par for the course.
And dishonest ones at that.
> Otherwise keep your mouth shut and your fingers to
> yourself instead of behaving like the pompous arse
> that you obviously want people to believe you are.
News flash: you aren't a moderator, and you have no standing to tell me what I can or can't say or post.
Yes, I know you wish you COULD do so...but you can't.
Why don't you try discussing the facts I presented instead of tossing insults, calling names, and acting like you get to tell everyone what to do?
It's much more constructive.
-------------------------------------------------------
> you will note I said sweeteners - I did not call
> out any artificial substance in particular,
> although I will agree that the thread calls out
> aspartame in particular, however, it is plain to
> see that I did not and therefore do not require
> you to respond with your 'correction' regarding
> aspartame itself. It would have been more
> appropriate of you to have given it to the whole
> thread instead of replying to my particular post.
What have you got against additional information?
Why is more knowledge, from a peer-reviewed study, than you provided a problem?
And it was provided to the whole thread. Everybody can read it.
> Can you provide me with your own credentials that
> prove that you are an expert on diet and nutrition
> (without quoting open access wikipaedia, which is
> often wrong) before I allot any weight to anything
> you say on the subject that contradicts my
> textbooks and teachers.
Nice (inverse)appeal to authority fallacy.
Worthless, but nice.
It's information from a peer-reviewed scientific study.
Read it. Check the references in it.
Learn something.
> You have already claimed
> expertise in so many other differing fields of
> speciality that I doubt whether you have a great
> understanding of yet another field (physiology)
> unless you are a registered savant.
And of course, you must resort to insults.
Par for the course.
And dishonest ones at that.
> Otherwise keep your mouth shut and your fingers to
> yourself instead of behaving like the pompous arse
> that you obviously want people to believe you are.
News flash: you aren't a moderator, and you have no standing to tell me what I can or can't say or post.
Yes, I know you wish you COULD do so...but you can't.
Why don't you try discussing the facts I presented instead of tossing insults, calling names, and acting like you get to tell everyone what to do?
It's much more constructive.
blah, blah, I'm pompous, blah, blah, gonna report this one, blah blah, why won't you accept my obviously greater intellect and 'corrective advice' is just coz I care about 'facts' and is just for you and not for the whole thread because you are so often in need of correction by me and my pals, blah, blah, I will deny any malicious intent of course coz you are paranoid, blah, blah, I'm not a troll even though I behave like one frequently, I'll keep saying that hoping it will become accepted as true sometime, blah, blah, pompous blah......
..........but still no credentials or would know stevia is a natural product and not completely artificial.
..........but still no credentials or would know stevia is a natural product and not completely artificial.
C'mon, anonuk... Instead of bickering, please post some study results that back up your claims.
Science isn't about "look at my credentials", it's about "look at my results" and "here's how I got them".
Science isn't about "look at my credentials", it's about "look at my results" and "here's how I got them".
I explained the metabolic/endocrine system for processing sugar in layman's terms. Taste is included as a trigger within the metabolic system. I do not need to quote any studies to show how the metabolic system works and to ask for such is unnecessary when the information is readily available online. I am claiming nothing 'new'.
You may believe or disbelieve what I post as you wish - you can even check it out if you so please. But neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell me I'm talking tosh when they are quoting a single study that recorded the effects of a natural sweetener alongside an artificial one. Schoolboy error. It wasn't even related to the point I was making either, but was directed at me and not the thread in general.
Complaining poster could have taken the time to look for a real study that compared only artificial sweeteners and their long term effects.
Calling me out for 'bickering'and not the other 'bickerer' only demonstrates your bias and shows you have not really been following the information contained within my posts.
I need input nothing more to either you or ifieIknoweverything regarding this thread.
You may believe or disbelieve what I post as you wish - you can even check it out if you so please. But neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell me I'm talking tosh when they are quoting a single study that recorded the effects of a natural sweetener alongside an artificial one. Schoolboy error. It wasn't even related to the point I was making either, but was directed at me and not the thread in general.
Complaining poster could have taken the time to look for a real study that compared only artificial sweeteners and their long term effects.
Calling me out for 'bickering'and not the other 'bickerer' only demonstrates your bias and shows you have not really been following the information contained within my posts.
I need input nothing more to either you or ifieIknoweverything regarding this thread.
anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I need input nothing more to either you or
> ifieIknoweverything regarding this thread.
Then you'll stop inputting insults, fallacies, and other nonsense?
Great.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I need input nothing more to either you or
> ifieIknoweverything regarding this thread.
Then you'll stop inputting insults, fallacies, and other nonsense?
Great.
anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> blah, blah, I'm pompous, blah, blah, gonna report
> this one, blah blah, why won't you accept my
> obviously greater intellect and 'corrective
> advice' is just coz I care about 'facts' and is
> just for you and not for the whole thread because
> you are so often in need of correction by me and
> my pals, blah, blah, I will deny any malicious
> intent of course coz you are paranoid, blah, blah,
> I'm not a troll even though I behave like one
> frequently, I'll keep saying that hoping it will
> become accepted as true sometime, blah, blah,
> pompous blah......
You seem to have a real talent for making up shit I never said or implied. And a real problem dealing with facts.
I suggest working on it instead of just tossing childish insults.
> ..........but still no credentials or would know
> stevia is a natural product and not completely
> artificial.
I never said otherwise. I posted some *facts* that compared sucrose, aspartame, and stevia with regard to "cravings," insulin production, and metabolism.
Have you actually read the link yet, or are you just going to continue to be an ass?
-------------------------------------------------------
> blah, blah, I'm pompous, blah, blah, gonna report
> this one, blah blah, why won't you accept my
> obviously greater intellect and 'corrective
> advice' is just coz I care about 'facts' and is
> just for you and not for the whole thread because
> you are so often in need of correction by me and
> my pals, blah, blah, I will deny any malicious
> intent of course coz you are paranoid, blah, blah,
> I'm not a troll even though I behave like one
> frequently, I'll keep saying that hoping it will
> become accepted as true sometime, blah, blah,
> pompous blah......
You seem to have a real talent for making up shit I never said or implied. And a real problem dealing with facts.
I suggest working on it instead of just tossing childish insults.
> ..........but still no credentials or would know
> stevia is a natural product and not completely
> artificial.
I never said otherwise. I posted some *facts* that compared sucrose, aspartame, and stevia with regard to "cravings," insulin production, and metabolism.
Have you actually read the link yet, or are you just going to continue to be an ass?
*facepalm*
anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *facepalm*
(edit)Never mind. Not worth it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2017 08:31PM by ificouldhietokolob.
-------------------------------------------------------
> *facepalm*
(edit)Never mind. Not worth it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2017 08:31PM by ificouldhietokolob.
To be fair, the study you linked to does cite multiple earlier studies that do back up anonuk's claims, or at least suggest in conclusion what he's discussed, so he's not just making shit up. In addition, the study doesn't specifically look at the effects of artificially sweetened drinks...the participants were given a pre-meal snack (crackers) with aspartame, etc... There have been recent studies conducted that have looked specifically at diet drinks and weight gain. To be fair to you, I believe these were behavioral studies that didn't look at insulin levels, etc... I haven't seen any studies that have warned of any dangers of aspartame, but they have shown that diet soda, over water, tends to lead to weight gain. However, they've also noted that switching from regular soda to diet can still help you lose weight.
I have a good friend that lost a lot of weight by switching to diet soda. He was drinking 1,000+ calories a day, so he naturally lost weight quickly when he switched. He still drinks a ton of soda, and he has multiple health problems that his doctors blame on that habit.
I have several overweight friends and family members that are Diet Coke fiends. Their weight gain may have something to do with artificial sweeteners increasing cravings as some studies have suggested, but it might just be that they're lazy. They think they're being healthy by drinking diet, so they don't eat right or exercise...ever...and I don't think I've ever seen any of them drink water.
I have a good friend that lost a lot of weight by switching to diet soda. He was drinking 1,000+ calories a day, so he naturally lost weight quickly when he switched. He still drinks a ton of soda, and he has multiple health problems that his doctors blame on that habit.
I have several overweight friends and family members that are Diet Coke fiends. Their weight gain may have something to do with artificial sweeteners increasing cravings as some studies have suggested, but it might just be that they're lazy. They think they're being healthy by drinking diet, so they don't eat right or exercise...ever...and I don't think I've ever seen any of them drink water.
Anon:/ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be fair, the study you linked to does cite
> multiple earlier studies that do back up anonuk's
> claims, or at least suggest in conclusion what
> he's discussed, so he's not just making shit up.
That's a (mostly) valid point that makes anonuk's rage even more ridiculous...clearly he didn't even read the study I pointed to, because it did indeed confirm *some* of what he was claiming (while contradicting other parts).
One of his claims: artificial sweeteners kick off insulin production. Which the study found was mostly true (the insulin response to aspartame was nearly as high as the insulin response to sucrose).
Another of his claims: that artificial sweeteners induce "cravings" for "real sugar" products. Which the study found was completely false.
Rather than read the paper, though, and see that it partially supported his claims and partially refuted them, he went into an immediate, uninformed, irrational tirade.
> In addition, the study doesn't specifically look
> at the effects of artificially sweetened
> drinks...
True, but unless there's good reason to think the effects of aspartame are different when consumed in a drink (and there isn't), that's probably irrelevant.
The cracker "snack" was used to insure a consistent baseline, so that changes in insulin production and blood sugar levels would be solely due to the "sweetener" involved and no other factors.
> ...but they
> have shown that diet soda, over water, tends to
> lead to weight gain. However, they've also noted
> that switching from regular soda to diet can still
> help you lose weight.
Yep. Which may be more "behavior" than ingredient-based. Many of those researchers think the "diet soda weight gain" likely comes because people think that since they're being "good" by drinking diet soda, they can over-indulge on the rest of their meal. Which of course leads to weight gain.
> I have a good friend that lost a lot of weight by
> switching to diet soda. He was drinking 1,000+
> calories a day, so he naturally lost weight
> quickly when he switched. He still drinks a ton
> of soda, and he has multiple health problems that
> his doctors blame on that habit.
Of course. As long as you don't "make up" the calories somewhere else, dropping 1,000 calories a day will help you lose weight.
> I have several overweight friends and family
> members that are Diet Coke fiends. Their weight
> gain may have something to do with artificial
> sweeteners increasing cravings as some studies
> have suggested, but it might just be that they're
> lazy. They think they're being healthy by
> drinking diet, so they don't eat right or
> exercise...ever...and I don't think I've ever seen
> any of them drink water.
Can you point me to these "some studies have suggested" that artificial sweeteners increase cravings?
I've looked, and can't find any peer-reviewed ones, and I'd like to see some.
Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be fair, the study you linked to does cite
> multiple earlier studies that do back up anonuk's
> claims, or at least suggest in conclusion what
> he's discussed, so he's not just making shit up.
That's a (mostly) valid point that makes anonuk's rage even more ridiculous...clearly he didn't even read the study I pointed to, because it did indeed confirm *some* of what he was claiming (while contradicting other parts).
One of his claims: artificial sweeteners kick off insulin production. Which the study found was mostly true (the insulin response to aspartame was nearly as high as the insulin response to sucrose).
Another of his claims: that artificial sweeteners induce "cravings" for "real sugar" products. Which the study found was completely false.
Rather than read the paper, though, and see that it partially supported his claims and partially refuted them, he went into an immediate, uninformed, irrational tirade.
> In addition, the study doesn't specifically look
> at the effects of artificially sweetened
> drinks...
True, but unless there's good reason to think the effects of aspartame are different when consumed in a drink (and there isn't), that's probably irrelevant.
The cracker "snack" was used to insure a consistent baseline, so that changes in insulin production and blood sugar levels would be solely due to the "sweetener" involved and no other factors.
> ...but they
> have shown that diet soda, over water, tends to
> lead to weight gain. However, they've also noted
> that switching from regular soda to diet can still
> help you lose weight.
Yep. Which may be more "behavior" than ingredient-based. Many of those researchers think the "diet soda weight gain" likely comes because people think that since they're being "good" by drinking diet soda, they can over-indulge on the rest of their meal. Which of course leads to weight gain.
> I have a good friend that lost a lot of weight by
> switching to diet soda. He was drinking 1,000+
> calories a day, so he naturally lost weight
> quickly when he switched. He still drinks a ton
> of soda, and he has multiple health problems that
> his doctors blame on that habit.
Of course. As long as you don't "make up" the calories somewhere else, dropping 1,000 calories a day will help you lose weight.
> I have several overweight friends and family
> members that are Diet Coke fiends. Their weight
> gain may have something to do with artificial
> sweeteners increasing cravings as some studies
> have suggested, but it might just be that they're
> lazy. They think they're being healthy by
> drinking diet, so they don't eat right or
> exercise...ever...and I don't think I've ever seen
> any of them drink water.
Can you point me to these "some studies have suggested" that artificial sweeteners increase cravings?
I've looked, and can't find any peer-reviewed ones, and I'd like to see some.
Thanks.
An LDS woman (wife of former boss) is huge on supplements, and insists that every one has celiac, just like her. I dropped her as a friend when she insisted that my son has MS because of Aspartame, and that if he only quit drinking diet sodas, or whatever, his MS would go away.
I'm trying to cut out soda altogether, but it's not easy. We like the frozen punch and lemonade drinks; they don't have the Aspartame but they are high in high fructose corn syrup. We measured the sugar content in a can of soda by converting the grams to teaspoons. In one can, it has the equivalent of 25 teaspoons of sugar! No wonder there are more and more people who are diagnosed with Type II Diabetes.
Twenty five teaspoons is more than half a cup. How big is this can???
corn syrup, sometimes disguised as glucosefructose syrup, is very high in sweetness and so is very economical for producers, but not so good for the consumer as it is mostly stored as fat by an endocrine system doing it's best to regulate blood sugar levels. There is so much sugar in the blood that a speedy clean up is needed and storing the excess calories as fats is the easiest way for the body to do so. Unfortunately, this can lead to fatty deposits around the liver as the body does it's best to deal with the regular floods of glucose.
Corn syrup is actually worse than artificial sweetners because of the deluge of glucose and the flood of insulin released to deal with it - the last of the insulin released in a rush has no more sugar left to collect, so the endocrine system sends a message to the brain to crave sugar (or fat) to give the insulin some work to do. Now we have a downward spiral that can easily get out of control without being noticed. All of a sudden the consumer needs bigger clothes and when you buy bigger clothes you are comfortable again and so do not feel a need to diet or change any habits.
A few generations ago only rich people got fat, now it is poor people who get fat because of the poor processed diet most people think they can afford. Healthy food is much more filling and keeps the consumer feeling fuller longer so less goes further, if it is available at all. Producers rely upon consumers not knowing or not caring what the ingredients actually are and what those ingredients do to the body over time.
The so called words of wisdom do nothing to prevent modern lifestyle related illnesses amongst the membership. Not directly from God then, if you believe in a god, that is.
Corn syrup is actually worse than artificial sweetners because of the deluge of glucose and the flood of insulin released to deal with it - the last of the insulin released in a rush has no more sugar left to collect, so the endocrine system sends a message to the brain to crave sugar (or fat) to give the insulin some work to do. Now we have a downward spiral that can easily get out of control without being noticed. All of a sudden the consumer needs bigger clothes and when you buy bigger clothes you are comfortable again and so do not feel a need to diet or change any habits.
A few generations ago only rich people got fat, now it is poor people who get fat because of the poor processed diet most people think they can afford. Healthy food is much more filling and keeps the consumer feeling fuller longer so less goes further, if it is available at all. Producers rely upon consumers not knowing or not caring what the ingredients actually are and what those ingredients do to the body over time.
The so called words of wisdom do nothing to prevent modern lifestyle related illnesses amongst the membership. Not directly from God then, if you believe in a god, that is.
This is utter nonsense. The very first thing your body does with table sugar (sucrose) is that an enzyme, sucrase, splits the weak chemical bond in sucrose, converting it to equal parts glucose and fructose. From that point on in your body, glucose is glucose, period. It doesn't matter whether it came from sucrose, HFCS, or honey.
BTW, honey also consists of already separated glucose and fructose, and is so chemically similar to honey that it is frequently used to adulterate honey because it is very difficult to detect, and a lot cheaper. Honey from SE Asia and China are often adulterated.
In sucrose, the ratio of glucose to fructose is always exactly 50/50. In HFCS, it can be adjusted. In baked goods in particular, HFCS actually has less fructose than table sugar. Glucose browns better than fructose, but does not taste as sweet. Pure corn syrup, which has been around since the Civil War, is straight glucose. It is used in baking, but doesn't actually taste very good eaten straight.
Soft drinks use HFCS that is higher in fructose. Incidentally, fructose seems to be the main cause of health problems from sugar intake, but whether that fructose comes from table sugar, HFCS, or honey doesn't appear to make any difference at all.
Once it is in your body, there is not a dime's worth of difference between HFCS and table sugar. The HFCS in baked goods is actually marginally better for you than sugar (lower fructose), but the difference is very small.
Anyway, claims that HFCS is some sort of poison are utter bulls***. Your body treats it like sugar. We eat too much sugar, but there is nothing especially worse about HFCS.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2017 02:47PM by Brother Of Jerry.
BTW, honey also consists of already separated glucose and fructose, and is so chemically similar to honey that it is frequently used to adulterate honey because it is very difficult to detect, and a lot cheaper. Honey from SE Asia and China are often adulterated.
In sucrose, the ratio of glucose to fructose is always exactly 50/50. In HFCS, it can be adjusted. In baked goods in particular, HFCS actually has less fructose than table sugar. Glucose browns better than fructose, but does not taste as sweet. Pure corn syrup, which has been around since the Civil War, is straight glucose. It is used in baking, but doesn't actually taste very good eaten straight.
Soft drinks use HFCS that is higher in fructose. Incidentally, fructose seems to be the main cause of health problems from sugar intake, but whether that fructose comes from table sugar, HFCS, or honey doesn't appear to make any difference at all.
Once it is in your body, there is not a dime's worth of difference between HFCS and table sugar. The HFCS in baked goods is actually marginally better for you than sugar (lower fructose), but the difference is very small.
Anyway, claims that HFCS is some sort of poison are utter bulls***. Your body treats it like sugar. We eat too much sugar, but there is nothing especially worse about HFCS.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2017 02:47PM by Brother Of Jerry.
all sugars are ultimately converted to glucose by the body. Our brains cannot function without glucose so our bodies store as much of it as possible as a survival instinct.
This is the reason type I diabetics suffer fits of unconsciousness when their blood sugar falls (aka have an hypoglycemic episode): the parasympathetic nervous system has put every other function of the body on hold or reduced function in order to maintain brain function with the limited glucose available.
Excess glucose is stored as fat. A substance with the equivalent sweetness of twenty five cups of sugar in a much smaller volume is great news for producers but not for consumers, for reasons stated previously - the body's own system for dealing with spikes in glucose levels caused by dietary intake.
This is the reason type I diabetics suffer fits of unconsciousness when their blood sugar falls (aka have an hypoglycemic episode): the parasympathetic nervous system has put every other function of the body on hold or reduced function in order to maintain brain function with the limited glucose available.
Excess glucose is stored as fat. A substance with the equivalent sweetness of twenty five cups of sugar in a much smaller volume is great news for producers but not for consumers, for reasons stated previously - the body's own system for dealing with spikes in glucose levels caused by dietary intake.
I think that aspartame does have substantial negative health consequences. It breaks down into Methanol and Formaldehyde as it is metabolized and those chemical compounds are NOT good for biological systems. A person will probably discover that as they consume large amounts of aspartame. Yah, and WHERE is the MORmON church on issuing a WOW style warning on that one??????
I have another major league gripe with MORmONISM relative to health and nutrition. In the D and C, much like the bible, it says that wheat is for man, and granted Wheat has changed a lot since Joseph SMith was doing his health code show boating, but wheat, especially modern variety, is (NOT good) for this man, not at all! I realize that apologists can say that I am a special case and that it would not be right to cover my special case in a general message .........IF ONLY there was some way that a specialized personal individualized health code message of the same significance as the WOW could have been sent to me. ........Oh wait, there was a way!!!! it is / was called my patriarchal blessing. Too bad for me that it did not provide the needed message on wheat to me, instead it prattled on and on about the importance of (non existent) Jesus in my life.
Back to the WOW, its shortage for me is compounded by the fact that it gives me and everyone else submitting to it that our bases are totally covered health wise IF we just abstain from Booze and tobacco and coffee, (granted Not do hard drugs), and cut back on meat in the summer time. Oh, and eat wheat as it for man.
One more instance of MORmONISM being outed as CRAP !!!!!!
I have another major league gripe with MORmONISM relative to health and nutrition. In the D and C, much like the bible, it says that wheat is for man, and granted Wheat has changed a lot since Joseph SMith was doing his health code show boating, but wheat, especially modern variety, is (NOT good) for this man, not at all! I realize that apologists can say that I am a special case and that it would not be right to cover my special case in a general message .........IF ONLY there was some way that a specialized personal individualized health code message of the same significance as the WOW could have been sent to me. ........Oh wait, there was a way!!!! it is / was called my patriarchal blessing. Too bad for me that it did not provide the needed message on wheat to me, instead it prattled on and on about the importance of (non existent) Jesus in my life.
Back to the WOW, its shortage for me is compounded by the fact that it gives me and everyone else submitting to it that our bases are totally covered health wise IF we just abstain from Booze and tobacco and coffee, (granted Not do hard drugs), and cut back on meat in the summer time. Oh, and eat wheat as it for man.
One more instance of MORmONISM being outed as CRAP !!!!!!
Cabdriver Philosopher Observation: These days there are a lot of histrionic know-nothings who use the Internet as a vehicle for peddling all sorts of nonsense that is wholly unsubstantiated. Talk radio is equally unchecked.
Full Disclosure: I do not use NutraSweet despite having been diagnosed with early stage Type II Diabetes about four years ago. That one's genetic, folks, and mine is well-controlled; my own mother has lived with hers for over 25 years. I took my own blood sugar reading an hour ago, and my sugar level was 117 (any actual MD's in the audience, feel free to comment).
I do use Splenda, however, and here's what I think people should look at:
The same bull $#!% that was originally published about Aspartame by a "Dr. Mercola" was repeated almost verbatim for Splenda (sucralose).
Exhibit A: Compare the rhetoric:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/28/neotame-more-toxic-than-aspartame.aspx
>One reason for aspartame and neotame's potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame and are also present in neotame -- are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage. Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism. So although you're not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame and neotame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/18/sucralose-side-effects.aspx
>The third issue is of particular importance for diabetics, who tend to use artificial sweeteners to manage their condition.9 Alas, both animal and human studies showed sucralose alters glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels. A related study published in the journal Diabetes Care10 in September came to a virtually identical conclusion. Compared to the control group, obese patients using sucralose experienced a greater incremental increase in peak plasma concentrations, a greater incremental increase in insulin and peak insulin secretion rate, along with a decrease in insulin clearance.
To keep this on-topic, there's a "political tactic" that demagogues such as Brigham Young and Dr. Mercola use that we call "scapegoating." BY, and LDS apologists since, have vilified "wicked anti-Mormons," and Dr. Mercola uses similar tactics to foster hysteria about artificial sweeteners.
And that, folks, is not a false analogy.
Class dismissed...
Full Disclosure: I do not use NutraSweet despite having been diagnosed with early stage Type II Diabetes about four years ago. That one's genetic, folks, and mine is well-controlled; my own mother has lived with hers for over 25 years. I took my own blood sugar reading an hour ago, and my sugar level was 117 (any actual MD's in the audience, feel free to comment).
I do use Splenda, however, and here's what I think people should look at:
The same bull $#!% that was originally published about Aspartame by a "Dr. Mercola" was repeated almost verbatim for Splenda (sucralose).
Exhibit A: Compare the rhetoric:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/28/neotame-more-toxic-than-aspartame.aspx
>One reason for aspartame and neotame's potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame and are also present in neotame -- are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage. Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism. So although you're not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame and neotame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/18/sucralose-side-effects.aspx
>The third issue is of particular importance for diabetics, who tend to use artificial sweeteners to manage their condition.9 Alas, both animal and human studies showed sucralose alters glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels. A related study published in the journal Diabetes Care10 in September came to a virtually identical conclusion. Compared to the control group, obese patients using sucralose experienced a greater incremental increase in peak plasma concentrations, a greater incremental increase in insulin and peak insulin secretion rate, along with a decrease in insulin clearance.
To keep this on-topic, there's a "political tactic" that demagogues such as Brigham Young and Dr. Mercola use that we call "scapegoating." BY, and LDS apologists since, have vilified "wicked anti-Mormons," and Dr. Mercola uses similar tactics to foster hysteria about artificial sweeteners.
And that, folks, is not a false analogy.
Class dismissed...
All I can tell you all is that about the time I switched from drinking full sugar soda to diet soda (complete with the evil aspartame) was the same time I realised the church was not true.
Coincidence? Surely not.
Coincidence? Surely not.
that proves it - aspartame is from stan
Diet soda triggers a migraine about every other time I drink it. So I don't drink it anymore.
Personally I have severe reactions to all artificial flavors and colors in foods. I mean SEVERE, even if added to a so called 'natural' supplement. It took me a while to figure out what the hell was going on, but praise be to baby jesus I did!
For me it's all natural and only natural as much as I can get in this polluted f'd up environment these days, and my body thanks me for it. :)
On the Word of Wisdom, I was just thinking how ridiculous it is that with that title it sounds like it's meant to be some kind of advice, not a code that you HAVE to live by or ELSE, you can be kicked out of the 'church'.. that alone (that if you eat or drink certain things) should make it clear that it's a CULT.
I mean what you put in your body and the decisions you make for it should be up to YOU not some 'church'.. Crazy.
But in re. health info on the internet there is certainly plenty of misinformation there and often it takes a lot of digging to get at the truth. But that also doesn't mean the so called 'official' news sites are correct either. Mainstream media was bought by big corporate industries a LONG time ago as has been many government regulatory agencies. So trusting more authorities is the LAST thing I do when it comes to my body and my health. Best to do thorough research, non biased peer reviewed scientific studies when possible, or just non biased (as in non-profit motivated) and also listen to your own body's needs and responses.
I've studied alternative and natural remedies for over 20 years and it's all I use now. But I have learned that there is also misinformation and Multi Level Marketing that goes on in the alternative health world. So even then you have to be careful. But just because there is deception to be aware of as well doesn't mean that all alternative natural medicine or info against chemical additives, artificial flavors, or other mainstream food stuffs and medicines, is a scam either.
We have to be careful, esp. with our indoctrination backgrounds to not look at the world in black and white or trust all other 'authority' sources outside of the cult. I say question EVERYTHING and then question it AGAIN!
For me it's all natural and only natural as much as I can get in this polluted f'd up environment these days, and my body thanks me for it. :)
On the Word of Wisdom, I was just thinking how ridiculous it is that with that title it sounds like it's meant to be some kind of advice, not a code that you HAVE to live by or ELSE, you can be kicked out of the 'church'.. that alone (that if you eat or drink certain things) should make it clear that it's a CULT.
I mean what you put in your body and the decisions you make for it should be up to YOU not some 'church'.. Crazy.
But in re. health info on the internet there is certainly plenty of misinformation there and often it takes a lot of digging to get at the truth. But that also doesn't mean the so called 'official' news sites are correct either. Mainstream media was bought by big corporate industries a LONG time ago as has been many government regulatory agencies. So trusting more authorities is the LAST thing I do when it comes to my body and my health. Best to do thorough research, non biased peer reviewed scientific studies when possible, or just non biased (as in non-profit motivated) and also listen to your own body's needs and responses.
I've studied alternative and natural remedies for over 20 years and it's all I use now. But I have learned that there is also misinformation and Multi Level Marketing that goes on in the alternative health world. So even then you have to be careful. But just because there is deception to be aware of as well doesn't mean that all alternative natural medicine or info against chemical additives, artificial flavors, or other mainstream food stuffs and medicines, is a scam either.
We have to be careful, esp. with our indoctrination backgrounds to not look at the world in black and white or trust all other 'authority' sources outside of the cult. I say question EVERYTHING and then question it AGAIN!
we are all different and different things affect us all in different ways. Some will have a particularly bad reaction to artificial additives and some will not. This may even change over the course of a lifetime and something that cause adverse affects once may one day be perfectly safe, and vice versa.
Excessive consumption of anything is bad for us all - even if those cocktails do taste rather good.
Excessive consumption of anything is bad for us all - even if those cocktails do taste rather good.
If you want some serious artificial sweetness, try going back to church.
Here all, a word of wisdom:
Maybe we should grow the fuck up and stop needing everything so gawddamn sweet all the time, eh?
Including our food.
Sugar is bad, fat is good.
Human
Maybe we should grow the fuck up and stop needing everything so gawddamn sweet all the time, eh?
Including our food.
Sugar is bad, fat is good.
Human
I read all those scary studies, too, and I have formed my own opinions about food additives, and organic food vs."conventional" food. Yes, there are a lot of scams out there, but try to keep one step ahead. Buy foods from a reputable market. I like to know where my fresh vegetables and fruits are grown. Buy fresh food in season--otherwise it might have been stored for a year and a half. Anyway, all of this researching and debating is part of survival.
Learn what you can--and then listen to your own body. Follow your own gut instincts.
I have IC, which is a painful, incurable bladder condition, and it is closely associated with MS. I don't have MS. But, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt:
I, Pariah, can feel perfectly fine, and if I drink a diet soda with aspartame, I will be crying in pain within 10 minutes. I'm talking about severe abdominal bladder pain, that brings tears to my eyes! The identical soda drink, regular, with sugar and not aspartame, does not effect me.
Find out for yourself. Quit diet soda drinks, and see how you feel. At first, the withdrawals can be unpleasant, so you probably don't feel any better--so give yourself two weeks off the stuff.
Are you drinking strictly diet soda, and eating "sugar-free" stuff--and you are still overweight? What is your body telling you, with that?
I gave up sugar, too, because I didn't like the sugar-crashes, and the constant cravings. I needed more energy for sports. It was an experiment, cold-turkey. At first, I felt jittery. After a few days, I had headaches and body aches, but after a week, I was sleeping better and performing better in sports. It is worth it--for me as an individual--to feel this good! So--sugar makes me feel almost as cruddy as aspartame does. After 2 weeks off of sugar, I had lost 7 pounds. I have never lost that much, that fast. (I've always been in the normal weight range.)
It is safe to say, for me, that:
1) My bladder does not like aspartame, and I get very sick from it.
2) Sugar makes me tired, and I don't perform sports as well.
3) Giving up sugar made me lose weight.
About wheat--it is not the same "wheat" that our ancestors ate. It has been genetically altered to contain much more gluten. I don't understand why America invented the "Food Pyramid" as a guideline for healthy eating, with grains at the bottom, supporting the entire pyramid. Six servings of grains--you have got to be kidding!
It is hard to keep silent, when most of my TBM friends brag about the latest diet fad they are following. They think they have found the magic pill for weight loss, and they talk around in circles, while sipping their diet Pepsi and nibbling at their green salad heaped with ranch dressing. They are all still as overweight and grouchy as ever. These poor women have been skipping breakfast, eating only one meal a day, fasting, and cleansing, and starving themselves for years.
I just made sure my own children didn't make these mistakes. They have good health habits, and, they don't miss out, if they just take a few bites of whatever party foods they want, on occasion, and then get out there and play all the games.
Learn what you can--and then listen to your own body. Follow your own gut instincts.
I have IC, which is a painful, incurable bladder condition, and it is closely associated with MS. I don't have MS. But, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt:
I, Pariah, can feel perfectly fine, and if I drink a diet soda with aspartame, I will be crying in pain within 10 minutes. I'm talking about severe abdominal bladder pain, that brings tears to my eyes! The identical soda drink, regular, with sugar and not aspartame, does not effect me.
Find out for yourself. Quit diet soda drinks, and see how you feel. At first, the withdrawals can be unpleasant, so you probably don't feel any better--so give yourself two weeks off the stuff.
Are you drinking strictly diet soda, and eating "sugar-free" stuff--and you are still overweight? What is your body telling you, with that?
I gave up sugar, too, because I didn't like the sugar-crashes, and the constant cravings. I needed more energy for sports. It was an experiment, cold-turkey. At first, I felt jittery. After a few days, I had headaches and body aches, but after a week, I was sleeping better and performing better in sports. It is worth it--for me as an individual--to feel this good! So--sugar makes me feel almost as cruddy as aspartame does. After 2 weeks off of sugar, I had lost 7 pounds. I have never lost that much, that fast. (I've always been in the normal weight range.)
It is safe to say, for me, that:
1) My bladder does not like aspartame, and I get very sick from it.
2) Sugar makes me tired, and I don't perform sports as well.
3) Giving up sugar made me lose weight.
About wheat--it is not the same "wheat" that our ancestors ate. It has been genetically altered to contain much more gluten. I don't understand why America invented the "Food Pyramid" as a guideline for healthy eating, with grains at the bottom, supporting the entire pyramid. Six servings of grains--you have got to be kidding!
It is hard to keep silent, when most of my TBM friends brag about the latest diet fad they are following. They think they have found the magic pill for weight loss, and they talk around in circles, while sipping their diet Pepsi and nibbling at their green salad heaped with ranch dressing. They are all still as overweight and grouchy as ever. These poor women have been skipping breakfast, eating only one meal a day, fasting, and cleansing, and starving themselves for years.
I just made sure my own children didn't make these mistakes. They have good health habits, and, they don't miss out, if they just take a few bites of whatever party foods they want, on occasion, and then get out there and play all the games.
For those with young families, it can be pretty easy to get everybody used to a sensible health regime. Good habits can be adopted just as easily as bad ones. We have never had soft drinks (sodas) in our fridge, since it is always understood that they are for occasional treats only (like birthday parties). Sugar gets a lot of bad press here. Diet sodas may be slightly better or slightly worse - who knows. The point is, you can get out of the habit of drinking any kind of soda. Water is the obvious choice (but don't get me started on bottled water - I cannot understand why people buy that!).
We originally thought orange juice was a good alternative, but now we find that it is pretty full of sugar too. So we have one small glass a day. The kids know that we are monitoring them (quietly) and they always ask before they go to the fridge to get something. (This may not last too much longer before they realise they could sneak in when no-one is around, but from experience, once these habits and rules are set, they can become pretty good at self-regulating). They know that even if they do cheat, they are not doing their health any good, and they also do not feel good about misleading us. Being caught would be embarrassing and would result in loss of trust, which would be a bad outcome for the medium term.
My generation was keen to try smoking, for a bit of rebelliousness. The next generation will not do so, since smoking now looks stupid rather than cool - they will probably go straight to party drugs - but many of them will recognise that the risks in taking illicit unregulated substances are too great.
Back on topic - having set the healthy habits in place, it is not hard to follow them. Make sure everyone has the chance to have a little bit of a treat each day (one chocolate biscuit, or some ice-cream at dinner, one glass of juice), plus the occasional extra treat when you go out for dinner, on holiday or on a long drive. They are more appreciated because of the scarcity.
If you have a regime like this, they will still occasionally ask for extra treats - but it is very easy to say no, and the refusal is readily accepted. Every now and again they might get something special - that's part of the fun.
I recognise this type of habit is hard to impose in families with older children, and does require commitment from all parties. In these cases, a softly softly gradual approach may be needed, rather than cold turkey. For those just starting out, however, I recommend setting these household habits early - they can take hold very quickly.
We originally thought orange juice was a good alternative, but now we find that it is pretty full of sugar too. So we have one small glass a day. The kids know that we are monitoring them (quietly) and they always ask before they go to the fridge to get something. (This may not last too much longer before they realise they could sneak in when no-one is around, but from experience, once these habits and rules are set, they can become pretty good at self-regulating). They know that even if they do cheat, they are not doing their health any good, and they also do not feel good about misleading us. Being caught would be embarrassing and would result in loss of trust, which would be a bad outcome for the medium term.
My generation was keen to try smoking, for a bit of rebelliousness. The next generation will not do so, since smoking now looks stupid rather than cool - they will probably go straight to party drugs - but many of them will recognise that the risks in taking illicit unregulated substances are too great.
Back on topic - having set the healthy habits in place, it is not hard to follow them. Make sure everyone has the chance to have a little bit of a treat each day (one chocolate biscuit, or some ice-cream at dinner, one glass of juice), plus the occasional extra treat when you go out for dinner, on holiday or on a long drive. They are more appreciated because of the scarcity.
If you have a regime like this, they will still occasionally ask for extra treats - but it is very easy to say no, and the refusal is readily accepted. Every now and again they might get something special - that's part of the fun.
I recognise this type of habit is hard to impose in families with older children, and does require commitment from all parties. In these cases, a softly softly gradual approach may be needed, rather than cold turkey. For those just starting out, however, I recommend setting these household habits early - they can take hold very quickly.
Donald Rumsfeld and Searle pulled more dirty tricks than Joseph Smith to get Aspartame approved. By far Aspartame is the most dangerously toxic artificial food product on the planet
1. Donald Rumsfeld: Mr Aspartame ... In the late 70s he was Chairman and Chief Executive of Searle. Searle was the manufacturer of Aspartame ... The Food and Drug Administration in the States had tested Aspartame and had seen that it was the cause of brain cancer and brain tumours in rats, so the FDA refused to give it a licence. Donald Rumsfeld and Searle – they financed very significantly Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign. Within forty-eight hours of Ronald Reagan being sworn in the Presidency, Ronald Reagan had removed the head of the FDA and replaced him with a guy Donald Rumsfeld had put forward, and within two weeks was given a licence. Ian R Crane, Hidden Agenda lecture, Glastonbury 2006
2. Whether they’re (American Diabetes Association?) just deluding themselves and choosing not to believe it’s toxic, refusing to look at the evidence, or they’re just concerned about the money and couldn't care less, I don’t know, but when you look at the patho-physiology of diabetes and the effect of aspartame, it’s absolute nonsense for anybody who has diabetes to be on aspartame. Particularly in a neurological aspect, it’s going to make it a lot worse. Dr Russell Blaylock, interview
3. The horrendous toxicity of Aspartame has been well documented ever since its inception. Sudden deaths logically arise from several of its many toxicities. For example, Christina Onassis, Patty Crane, and Carol Hamm are amongst those that I know of who were using Aspartame and were addicted to it, and visibly deteriorating under its influence when they suddenly, and unexpectedly, died there from. Dr James Bowen, Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in Those Exposed to Aspartame
4. How many people do you know these days with a neurological disorder … Studies in the New England Journal of Medicine show a growing trend in the rate of such disorders in recent years. Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, 2004
Neuroscientist Dr John Olney – he suggests one likely candidate: in 1983 the US population began ingesting significant quantities of a substance never before used for human consumption, the artificial sweetener Aspartame. ibid.
‘The animals that died after being fed Nutrasweet they didn’t autopsy the animals right away … The tissues broke down and liquified.’ ibid.
1‘They knew that this product Aspartame [Aspartylphenylalanine] with time breaks down into a product called Diketopiperazine, closely related to a carcinogenic compound.’ ibid.
‘They had the brain damage study from Olney’s lab … They didn’t give them to the FDA.’ ibid.
FDA scientists found series deficiencies related to all tests on genetic damage. ibid.
Rumsfeld [president of Searle]: ‘Not interested in the truth, not interested in the facts.’ ibid.
In 1980 the Public Board of Inquiry voted unanimously to reject the use of Aspartame until additional studies could be done.
ibid.
5. Aspartame is by far the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to food. Mercola.com feature article
6. Millions of Americans gobble down diet sodas, artificial sweeteners and thousands of other products that contain huge amounts of aspartame and never even imagine that they could literally be destroying their health. Aspartame was discovered by accident in 1965 when James Schlatter, a chemist for G D Searle & Company, was testing an anti-ulcer drug. It is the most common sweetening additive being used in over 6,000 consumer foods, beverages, multivitamins, frozen desserts, cereals, pharmaceutical products, and artificial sweeteners sold worldwide.
One thing that many Americans do not realize is that Donald Rumsfeld played a key role in pushing the approval of aspartame through the FDA ...
While it has a very sweet taste, the truth is that aspartame is much worse for you than sugar is.
Out of 90 independently-funded studies on aspartame, 83 of them found that the artificial sweetener causes one or more serious health problems.
Aspartame contains three very insidious components: methanol, phenylalanine, and aspartic acid. All three of these chemicals have each been shown to either stimulate brain cells to death, severely disrupt hormone balances in the brain or act as a dangerous nerve poison ...
Aspartame accounts for over 75 per cent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death. Organic Health online article
1. Donald Rumsfeld: Mr Aspartame ... In the late 70s he was Chairman and Chief Executive of Searle. Searle was the manufacturer of Aspartame ... The Food and Drug Administration in the States had tested Aspartame and had seen that it was the cause of brain cancer and brain tumours in rats, so the FDA refused to give it a licence. Donald Rumsfeld and Searle – they financed very significantly Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign. Within forty-eight hours of Ronald Reagan being sworn in the Presidency, Ronald Reagan had removed the head of the FDA and replaced him with a guy Donald Rumsfeld had put forward, and within two weeks was given a licence. Ian R Crane, Hidden Agenda lecture, Glastonbury 2006
2. Whether they’re (American Diabetes Association?) just deluding themselves and choosing not to believe it’s toxic, refusing to look at the evidence, or they’re just concerned about the money and couldn't care less, I don’t know, but when you look at the patho-physiology of diabetes and the effect of aspartame, it’s absolute nonsense for anybody who has diabetes to be on aspartame. Particularly in a neurological aspect, it’s going to make it a lot worse. Dr Russell Blaylock, interview
3. The horrendous toxicity of Aspartame has been well documented ever since its inception. Sudden deaths logically arise from several of its many toxicities. For example, Christina Onassis, Patty Crane, and Carol Hamm are amongst those that I know of who were using Aspartame and were addicted to it, and visibly deteriorating under its influence when they suddenly, and unexpectedly, died there from. Dr James Bowen, Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in Those Exposed to Aspartame
4. How many people do you know these days with a neurological disorder … Studies in the New England Journal of Medicine show a growing trend in the rate of such disorders in recent years. Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, 2004
Neuroscientist Dr John Olney – he suggests one likely candidate: in 1983 the US population began ingesting significant quantities of a substance never before used for human consumption, the artificial sweetener Aspartame. ibid.
‘The animals that died after being fed Nutrasweet they didn’t autopsy the animals right away … The tissues broke down and liquified.’ ibid.
1‘They knew that this product Aspartame [Aspartylphenylalanine] with time breaks down into a product called Diketopiperazine, closely related to a carcinogenic compound.’ ibid.
‘They had the brain damage study from Olney’s lab … They didn’t give them to the FDA.’ ibid.
FDA scientists found series deficiencies related to all tests on genetic damage. ibid.
Rumsfeld [president of Searle]: ‘Not interested in the truth, not interested in the facts.’ ibid.
In 1980 the Public Board of Inquiry voted unanimously to reject the use of Aspartame until additional studies could be done.
ibid.
5. Aspartame is by far the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to food. Mercola.com feature article
6. Millions of Americans gobble down diet sodas, artificial sweeteners and thousands of other products that contain huge amounts of aspartame and never even imagine that they could literally be destroying their health. Aspartame was discovered by accident in 1965 when James Schlatter, a chemist for G D Searle & Company, was testing an anti-ulcer drug. It is the most common sweetening additive being used in over 6,000 consumer foods, beverages, multivitamins, frozen desserts, cereals, pharmaceutical products, and artificial sweeteners sold worldwide.
One thing that many Americans do not realize is that Donald Rumsfeld played a key role in pushing the approval of aspartame through the FDA ...
While it has a very sweet taste, the truth is that aspartame is much worse for you than sugar is.
Out of 90 independently-funded studies on aspartame, 83 of them found that the artificial sweetener causes one or more serious health problems.
Aspartame contains three very insidious components: methanol, phenylalanine, and aspartic acid. All three of these chemicals have each been shown to either stimulate brain cells to death, severely disrupt hormone balances in the brain or act as a dangerous nerve poison ...
Aspartame accounts for over 75 per cent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death. Organic Health online article
thank you for taking the time to compile this information.
You read it on the Internet. Reminds me of the anti-fluoride crap, seriously.
Information from authentic, peer-reviewed research rather than the Histrionics Anonymous crowd...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/aspartame-isnt-bad-says-chemistry/
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
Information from authentic, peer-reviewed research rather than the Histrionics Anonymous crowd...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/aspartame-isnt-bad-says-chemistry/
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You read it on the Internet. Reminds me of the
> anti-fluoride crap, seriously.
>
> Information from authentic, peer-reviewed research
> rather than the Histrionics Anonymous crowd...
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/aspartame-isnt
> -bad-says-chemistry/
This link refers to a video compiled by 'The American Chemical Society' which according to the link is 'a congressionally chartered, independent organization of chemists that publishes about 50 academic journals'. (no list provided in text of article listing better known titles of journals to provide context).
Now, I am afraid that even though these chemists may have 'independently' come together, the fact that they market 50 titles of journals (complete with advertising) tells me they protect big business. You may not agree and that is fair enough. The article makes one mention of a 'possible' problem with the metabolisation of sugar and so it is not completely forthcoming with all information, just like an lds apologist using an 'appeal to authority' due to the number of publications the group owns and the fact they call themselves 'independent'. I do wonder what, exactly, they are independent of? Drug companies? Government? University affiliation? A conscience?
The article ends:
''What this video doesn’t address is the emerging but limited research raising questions about how artificial sweeteners affect gut bacteria and glucose intolerance.
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to clarify the role the American Chemical Society plays in the scientific community and to highlight recent studies about other artificial sweeteners, namely saccharin. The headline has been updated to reflect the specific studies on aspartame discussed in the video.''
Selectively picked studies, of course.
There is no way I would consider this pbs article to be peer reviewed - others may have other standards and that is okay - even if it does feature a video from an 'independent group' of 50 chemists, the implication being they have nothing to promote but pure truth, just like other large 'independent' video producing groups such as tscc.
No, I did not bother watching the video as I can tell from the article text it will be propaganda and apologist fodder using all the same tricks of the trade as the church used in their 'essays' or 'gospel topics'
>
> http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
from the above link:
''CLAIM: The artificial sweetener aspartame is responsible for an epidemic of cancer, brain tumors, and multiple sclerosis.
FALSE
EXAMPLE: [Collected via e-mail, 1998].
......
......
David G. Hattan, Ph.D.
Acting Director, Division of Health Effects Evaluation
LAST UPDATED: 8 June 2015''
so no, not peer reviewed unless you count two peers with differing opinions. Only two professionals are mentioned in the article, the protaganist has gone on a lecture tour with plenty information. The main refutation coming from a guy who claims authority due to his current employer who has never acted underhanded in any way, ever (sarcasm). The guy sounds very like an lds apologist and is using the kind of 'fallacious arguments' cabbie and some others love to point out to others as inaccurate and with no worth. The article makes no mention of type II diabetes or problems with the sugar metabolising process within humans caused by prolific use of artificial sweeteners - at all.
He does, however, admit that 'some people' may have an adverse reaction, making himself sound like an apologist once more.
Sorry cabbie, those articles are NOT what pass for 'peer reviewed studies' in my world - perhaps I live in a world of make believe, who knows for sure?
Everyone is different and it affects everyone differently - to deny such is rather dishonest and is also against science. This last paragraph is for everyone reading and not just for cabbie.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You read it on the Internet. Reminds me of the
> anti-fluoride crap, seriously.
>
> Information from authentic, peer-reviewed research
> rather than the Histrionics Anonymous crowd...
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/aspartame-isnt
> -bad-says-chemistry/
This link refers to a video compiled by 'The American Chemical Society' which according to the link is 'a congressionally chartered, independent organization of chemists that publishes about 50 academic journals'. (no list provided in text of article listing better known titles of journals to provide context).
Now, I am afraid that even though these chemists may have 'independently' come together, the fact that they market 50 titles of journals (complete with advertising) tells me they protect big business. You may not agree and that is fair enough. The article makes one mention of a 'possible' problem with the metabolisation of sugar and so it is not completely forthcoming with all information, just like an lds apologist using an 'appeal to authority' due to the number of publications the group owns and the fact they call themselves 'independent'. I do wonder what, exactly, they are independent of? Drug companies? Government? University affiliation? A conscience?
The article ends:
''What this video doesn’t address is the emerging but limited research raising questions about how artificial sweeteners affect gut bacteria and glucose intolerance.
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to clarify the role the American Chemical Society plays in the scientific community and to highlight recent studies about other artificial sweeteners, namely saccharin. The headline has been updated to reflect the specific studies on aspartame discussed in the video.''
Selectively picked studies, of course.
There is no way I would consider this pbs article to be peer reviewed - others may have other standards and that is okay - even if it does feature a video from an 'independent group' of 50 chemists, the implication being they have nothing to promote but pure truth, just like other large 'independent' video producing groups such as tscc.
No, I did not bother watching the video as I can tell from the article text it will be propaganda and apologist fodder using all the same tricks of the trade as the church used in their 'essays' or 'gospel topics'
>
> http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
from the above link:
''CLAIM: The artificial sweetener aspartame is responsible for an epidemic of cancer, brain tumors, and multiple sclerosis.
FALSE
EXAMPLE: [Collected via e-mail, 1998].
......
......
David G. Hattan, Ph.D.
Acting Director, Division of Health Effects Evaluation
LAST UPDATED: 8 June 2015''
so no, not peer reviewed unless you count two peers with differing opinions. Only two professionals are mentioned in the article, the protaganist has gone on a lecture tour with plenty information. The main refutation coming from a guy who claims authority due to his current employer who has never acted underhanded in any way, ever (sarcasm). The guy sounds very like an lds apologist and is using the kind of 'fallacious arguments' cabbie and some others love to point out to others as inaccurate and with no worth. The article makes no mention of type II diabetes or problems with the sugar metabolising process within humans caused by prolific use of artificial sweeteners - at all.
He does, however, admit that 'some people' may have an adverse reaction, making himself sound like an apologist once more.
Sorry cabbie, those articles are NOT what pass for 'peer reviewed studies' in my world - perhaps I live in a world of make believe, who knows for sure?
Everyone is different and it affects everyone differently - to deny such is rather dishonest and is also against science. This last paragraph is for everyone reading and not just for cabbie.
The reference to the American Chemical Society has the statement you cited, "'a congressionally chartered, independent organization of chemists that publishes about 50 academic journals.'"
I hope this information makes it across the pond, but academic journals are the definition of "peer reviewed" here in the colonies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Chemical_Society
>The ACS is a leading source of scientific information through its peer-reviewed scientific journals, national conferences, and the Chemical Abstracts Service. Its publications division produces 51 scholarly journals including the prestigious "Journal of the American Chemical Society," as well as the weekly trade magazine "Chemical & Engineering News."
The utter hypocrisy you manifest in claiming dubious "nutritionist sources" are valid while the ones PBS noted is mind boggling. I've watched the fear-mongering tactics of such operations for over half-a-century now,and unfortunately, they find a ready audience of gullible sorts such as yourself to perpetuate their nonsensical drama.
Roadkill...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2017 01:56PM by SL Cabbie.
I hope this information makes it across the pond, but academic journals are the definition of "peer reviewed" here in the colonies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Chemical_Society
>The ACS is a leading source of scientific information through its peer-reviewed scientific journals, national conferences, and the Chemical Abstracts Service. Its publications division produces 51 scholarly journals including the prestigious "Journal of the American Chemical Society," as well as the weekly trade magazine "Chemical & Engineering News."
The utter hypocrisy you manifest in claiming dubious "nutritionist sources" are valid while the ones PBS noted is mind boggling. I've watched the fear-mongering tactics of such operations for over half-a-century now,and unfortunately, they find a ready audience of gullible sorts such as yourself to perpetuate their nonsensical drama.
Roadkill...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2017 01:56PM by SL Cabbie.
Some of the journals they own may well be peer reviewed but that does not mean the group of chemists running the show are unbiased. They do have their advertisers to think of, and as you pointed out they do produce a lot of trade publications which definitely cater more to advertisers with their products to push than to the ordinary sole trader. Claims of authority due to ownership of 50 titles is one of those fallacies you love to call out.
I have shown no references so I do not understand why you call me a hypocrite for providing questionable sources: everything I have said can be obtained by anyone from educational websites aimed at children, so I apologise if I am incorrect in believing ordinary people can check stuff in the public domain all by themselves to ensure the integrity of the 'claims' or having the bother to check the reliability of any link I provide.
Please refrain from name calling. Please also refrain from asking me to believe a publishing conglomerate doesn't have any biases. Any group can get registered with congress, as far as I am aware, there is much writing that is registered with congress that many people claim is cow manure; george washington's prophecy being a more famous example of something registered with congress but called out as fabricated. Being registered at congress is meaningless according to people who consider george's washington's so-called prophecy to be hokum. If hokum writing can be registered, hokum companies can too.
I have shown no references so I do not understand why you call me a hypocrite for providing questionable sources: everything I have said can be obtained by anyone from educational websites aimed at children, so I apologise if I am incorrect in believing ordinary people can check stuff in the public domain all by themselves to ensure the integrity of the 'claims' or having the bother to check the reliability of any link I provide.
Please refrain from name calling. Please also refrain from asking me to believe a publishing conglomerate doesn't have any biases. Any group can get registered with congress, as far as I am aware, there is much writing that is registered with congress that many people claim is cow manure; george washington's prophecy being a more famous example of something registered with congress but called out as fabricated. Being registered at congress is meaningless according to people who consider george's washington's so-called prophecy to be hokum. If hokum writing can be registered, hokum companies can too.
anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...I do not understand
> why you call me a hypocrite...
> Please refrain from name calling.
Maybe that's why.
Have you read your own posts?
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...I do not understand
> why you call me a hypocrite...
> Please refrain from name calling.
Maybe that's why.
Have you read your own posts?
anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> perhaps I
> live in a world of make believe...
Finally something you and I can agree on.
-------------------------------------------------------
> perhaps I
> live in a world of make believe...
Finally something you and I can agree on.
I said perhaps, not that I did or do and I was being sarcastic as I assume you could tell. My apologies if you do not understand sarcasm. My bad for assuming, I know to assume makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me', as they say.
I really appreciate and enjoy everyone's responses with this thread, especially what esias wrote.
Our son is currently a senior at the University of Utah and also works full time in the Critical Care Unit at the U of U Hospital.
He will receive his Bachelor's next spring, and his minor is in Nutrition. His favorite classes are in Physiology and the research and information he has acquired both through work and classes are what spurred him on to try to live as healthy a life as possible. He avoids all sodas-artificially sweetened or not, anything from "the dead aisles" in the grocery store, no desserts except on rare occasions, and works out almost every other day.
He had his yearly physical a couple months ago, and his pcp said that he is the healthiest patient he has ever examined. He also left the church with us and knew it was false ever since he was about 10 years old. He didn't need the W of W; he just used common sense and what his body was telling him he needed to do; his work and his research confirmed that you don't need a religion telling you to be healthy.
Our son is currently a senior at the University of Utah and also works full time in the Critical Care Unit at the U of U Hospital.
He will receive his Bachelor's next spring, and his minor is in Nutrition. His favorite classes are in Physiology and the research and information he has acquired both through work and classes are what spurred him on to try to live as healthy a life as possible. He avoids all sodas-artificially sweetened or not, anything from "the dead aisles" in the grocery store, no desserts except on rare occasions, and works out almost every other day.
He had his yearly physical a couple months ago, and his pcp said that he is the healthiest patient he has ever examined. He also left the church with us and knew it was false ever since he was about 10 years old. He didn't need the W of W; he just used common sense and what his body was telling him he needed to do; his work and his research confirmed that you don't need a religion telling you to be healthy.
I drink diet coke. I gave it up for a couple of years. Nothing changed. I am a type 2 diabetic, but it also runs in the family. My dad drank diet coke and he got diabetes, but his sisters drank diet coke, too, and they didn't get it. He and all his siblings were overweight.
I have 5 siblings. Four of us are overweight. The one who is the most overweight doesn't have diabetes and yet the other three of us do. One of the ones who has diabetes drinks NO DIET DRINKS. My grandmother ate extremely healthy and she had diabetes--my mother's mom, not my dad's. It runs in the family. My very overweight brother also doesn't have hypertension and he is in his 50s.
My boyfriend's father smoked a pipe and cigars until the day he died at almost 92. The doctors kept telling him to quit to extend his life. He told them it was one of the few things left that he enjoyed that he could actually do. He was MORE THAN READY to die and didn't want to extend his life any further.
For me, I just don't care. We all have our "vices." If I die younger, so be it. If I had had my choice, I would have checked out years ago. I know my kids still need me, but their dad can be there for them.
Oh, and I didn't eat all that well while raising my kids. They eat very healthy, my daughter eats to the extreme on the health side. They are both very thin. I was also very thin up until my ex started cheating on me and then left.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2017 12:15PM by cl2.
I have 5 siblings. Four of us are overweight. The one who is the most overweight doesn't have diabetes and yet the other three of us do. One of the ones who has diabetes drinks NO DIET DRINKS. My grandmother ate extremely healthy and she had diabetes--my mother's mom, not my dad's. It runs in the family. My very overweight brother also doesn't have hypertension and he is in his 50s.
My boyfriend's father smoked a pipe and cigars until the day he died at almost 92. The doctors kept telling him to quit to extend his life. He told them it was one of the few things left that he enjoyed that he could actually do. He was MORE THAN READY to die and didn't want to extend his life any further.
For me, I just don't care. We all have our "vices." If I die younger, so be it. If I had had my choice, I would have checked out years ago. I know my kids still need me, but their dad can be there for them.
Oh, and I didn't eat all that well while raising my kids. They eat very healthy, my daughter eats to the extreme on the health side. They are both very thin. I was also very thin up until my ex started cheating on me and then left.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2017 12:15PM by cl2.
Aspartame consists of two amino acids derived from egg white. It is essentially a protein, which is why it can't be heated. It does what egg white (or any other protein) does when you heat it. It coagulates and changes flavor. It is an irreversible change. You can't unboil an egg.
Aspartame also has the same number of calories, gram for gram, as table sugar. The difference is that it takes only about a tenth as much Aspartame as sugar to sweeten a product. A lot of people don't much care for the taste, and the mouth feel is a bit different too, compared to sugar. But poison? Only if you are allergic to egg white, which some people are.
Aspartame also has the same number of calories, gram for gram, as table sugar. The difference is that it takes only about a tenth as much Aspartame as sugar to sweeten a product. A lot of people don't much care for the taste, and the mouth feel is a bit different too, compared to sugar. But poison? Only if you are allergic to egg white, which some people are.
Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Aspartame also has the same number of calories,
> gram for gram, as table sugar. The difference is
> that it takes only about a tenth as much Aspartame
> as sugar to sweeten a product.
If that is true then a typical can of aspartame soda would have from 15 to 20 calories, but they are advertised /labeled as zero calorie , so how does that work ?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Aspartame also has the same number of calories,
> gram for gram, as table sugar. The difference is
> that it takes only about a tenth as much Aspartame
> as sugar to sweeten a product.
If that is true then a typical can of aspartame soda would have from 15 to 20 calories, but they are advertised /labeled as zero calorie , so how does that work ?
Wikipedia sez:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Properties_and_use
It only takes 1/200 the amount of aspartame to achieve the same level of sweetness. That would put the caloric content of a diet soda at less than one calorie.
Mystery solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Properties_and_use
It only takes 1/200 the amount of aspartame to achieve the same level of sweetness. That would put the caloric content of a diet soda at less than one calorie.
Mystery solved.
Hm-m-m-m. How interesting, that a lot of artificial sweetener imbibers think that it is bad for them, but they drink it anyway.
It is insane to choose a favorite treat, as opposed to good health. There are thousands of other treats out there that actually promote good health. To me, the choices seem to be "no-brainers". It's like, win-win.
No amount of expensive tests by the FDA and chemical companies (I guess these people need jobs) and no amount of advertising is going to persuade me to eat something that causes my body violent pain and energy "crashes."
Maybe I'm actually lucky that my body rejects that junk! My children were lucky that they cooperated with developing good eating habits. They don't make it a crusade, they aren't obsessed, they just prefer healthy food. They give their own children healthy food, too.
I know Mormon mothers--and entire Primaries--who constantly bribe and entice children with sweets. Some of them won't touch any of that junk themselves, yet are constantly feeding it to the children. Makes no sense at all.
Good for Valkyrie queen and her son! Health-conscious children and teens are also less likely to harm their body and mind with drugs and alcohol.
It is insane to choose a favorite treat, as opposed to good health. There are thousands of other treats out there that actually promote good health. To me, the choices seem to be "no-brainers". It's like, win-win.
No amount of expensive tests by the FDA and chemical companies (I guess these people need jobs) and no amount of advertising is going to persuade me to eat something that causes my body violent pain and energy "crashes."
Maybe I'm actually lucky that my body rejects that junk! My children were lucky that they cooperated with developing good eating habits. They don't make it a crusade, they aren't obsessed, they just prefer healthy food. They give their own children healthy food, too.
I know Mormon mothers--and entire Primaries--who constantly bribe and entice children with sweets. Some of them won't touch any of that junk themselves, yet are constantly feeding it to the children. Makes no sense at all.
Good for Valkyrie queen and her son! Health-conscious children and teens are also less likely to harm their body and mind with drugs and alcohol.
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.