LostOne4Ever
LostOne4Ever's JournalThe Evidence Supports Artificial Sweeteners Over Sugar
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The Evidence Supports Artificial Sweeteners Over Sugar[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"][center]
[/center]
JULY 27, 2015
Aaron E. Carroll
In the last few years, I’ve watched a continuing battle among my friends about which is worse for you: artificial sweeteners or sugar. Unless you want to forgo all beverages that are sweet, you’re going to run into one of these. Rather than rely on anecdote or myth, we can inform this debate with research.
The available evidence points to the fact that there appears to be a correlation between sugar consumption and health problems; none can be detected with artificial sweeteners.
Let’s start with artificial sweeteners. These have, for decades, been attacked as harmful chemicals. But everything is a “chemical,” and not all of them are bad for us. One of the oldest artificial sweeteners is saccharin. Starting in the 1980s, Congress mandated that any product containing it be accompanied by the following: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”
But what was the basis for this decision? A review article published in The Annals of Oncology in 2004 noted that more than 50 studies had been published looking at saccharin in rats. Twenty of these were “one generation” studies, meaning that they did not look at the rats’ offspring. In only one of those studies did huge amounts of saccharin produce cancer, and it was in a type of rat that is frequently infected with a bladder parasite that would leave it susceptible to saccharin-induced bladder cancer...
[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]More at link.
Just another nail in the coffin of the people who insist that artificial is always bad, natural is always good. Now, please excuse me as I go drink another can coke zero and enjoying all the weight I lost since I switch to it from real cokes.[/font]
The ULTIMATE reason why you should vote for Bernie Sanders
[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]There have been numerous posters who have stated why they feel that Bernie Sanders should be the nominee. But, to date, I have yet to see the ULTIMATE reason why we should vote for Bernie over Hillary.
And that reason is....[font color=crimson face=impact size=8]this guy![/font]:
YES! There is a real possibility that Donald Trump could be the Rethug nominee. And simply put, Hillary just can not compete with Trump's [font color=crimson face=impact size=8]Epically Bad Hair[/font]. I mean look at her!
Her hair is [font color=crimson face=impact size=8]FABULOUS!!![/font] IT IS PERFECT!!! There is no way she could compete! The country would take one look at her and then him and vote for him out of pure pity!
ONLY ONE MAN has the hair needed to beat trump!
[font color=crimson face=impact size=8]BERNIE FREAKIN SANDERS!!![/font]
Look at those lockes that will not be tamed! Look upon the epitome of Chaos itself. Trump's hair might be epic, but SANDER's silvery locks are the stuff of [font color=crimson face=impact size=8]LEGEND!!![/font]
ONLY BERNIE COULD EVER HOPE TO COMPETE.
There is just no comparison. Sorry Hillary, you gave it your best but you just can't beat the hair.
And you should be thanking the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that fact! YIKES!!![/font]
Profile Information
Gender: ConfusedHometown: Somewhere in Texas
Home country: USA
Current location: What part of lost do you not understand?
Member since: Sat Apr 20, 2013, 03:29 AM
Number of posts: 9,290