Artificial Sweetner or Sugar

Artificial Sweetner or Sugar.

- Which one is worse for you?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Artificial Sweeteners are worse. Sugar at least is a source of energy

GF med student says there's nothing wrong with artificial sweeteners and that sugar is the epitome of problems

But I think sugar is not as bad for you as artificial sweeteners

every thing ever made is bad for you. you can get too much water. you can get too much oxygen in your blood. and too much sugar will most definitely kill you. Artificial sweeteners will kill you because of the chemicals causing cancer, while sugar will give you diabitus. If you dont understand, just think of it like this. If OP sucks too much dick, he gets HerpaDerps of the mouth. So dont be like OP, suck only the amount of dicks, you think you deserve.

bump

GF is asking for 'evidence of artificial sweetners causing cancer in humans'.

smfh

Since when a student knows more about the infinite number of studies showing how cancerous those artificial sweeteners are?

The dose makes the poison

That's what I said but she says there's no evidence

(b)ump

She isn't wrong by saying studies are not evidences, but it pinpoints the reality

Many artificial sweeteners are broken down into essential amino acids like phenylalanine when introduced to our GI systems. This provides other important amino acids such as tyrosine, on top of being a precursor for important neurotransmitters (dopamine, serotonin, epinephrine). They have generally been shown to have little if any long term negative effects on our physical well-being, while providing low calorie sweet taste as well as the aforementioned benefits.

Sugar, on the other hand, while providing energy also greatly fluctuates our glutamate processes. On top of that it is a very crude energy source which is quickly processed but is very wasteful in its net energy vs potentially energy as well as leaving significant cellular waste after processing, which requires more energy to clean. Also it makes cakes and other fats taste "right".

I'm not sure which is better or worse for you, but I try not to intake much of either and if I do generally opt for synthesized sweeteners.

artificial sweeteners are just s product of evolving knowledge of food right? Id rather have a house built from steel, insulation, and plaster than a chopped up tree from my yard, bundled leaves, and mud.

Expect your body has evolved to digest real food, not junk.

Sweeteners contain Aspartam and a Burgerland company produces that cancer inducing shit and forces it on the world...its like cigarettes all over again

Lmfao you are a real clown.

Our bodies are not a stagnant rock that holds the nutritional values of hundred year old ancestors instilled upon birth and then never changing until we die. Have you ever tried abstaining from sugar or carbs? First several days are horrible, but in a week's time you feel fine and different. When you consume sugar again you feel horrible because your body has to process it again. Abstaining from meat goes the same way. Hell, same with vegetables. Your body works with what is put in it, if it was responding to some held intellectual value of evolution-based diet we would die within a few weeks due to constantly changing dietary surroundings. Quit doing human beings a disservice and have a little culinary diversity.

Artificial by far, several make me vomit. Even as a kiddo before I knew what the fuck it meant I couldn't drink diet sodas or certain gums, candies etc

>i read an article on the internet that reinforces my opinion
>therefore i am right
>nevermind the hunderds of other articles claiming otherwise

>literally need sugars to live
>"hurr muh carbs"

all of the why?

the clown is you faggot

Thank you.

Please learn anything about chemistry, the human body, food, or how express your thoughts then return

So you wanna say that all the studies that find aspartam is not so healthy are wrong?

You are reflecting on yourself. Aspartame doesn't give you cancer by itself but most of the other components you find packed with are toxic.
I'm not sure about what you are trying to tell. Besides, a rich varied diet is the only right way to eat, but my point is: all those processed shit you eat everyday aren't food. They are made to yield money.

An evolutionary based diet does not mean a forever altering foodstuffs. How brainwashes are you?

I would refer you to the equally importsnt metastudies discussing and showing the flaws in many of those studies.

As brainwashed as we all are subscribing to any dietary philosophy. I'd probably be best off eating dust, getting protein from rotting meat upstream from my creek watersource and supplementing sublingual B vitamins like our ancestors did for millions of years.

Do you not think that claims discrediting complex glutens occurring in a label saying my ketchup is gluten free approved, falsified vegan or kosher stamps, or "organic" foods are also not intended to also gather as much profit as possible?

I agree, our diets should be very diverse so as not to stagnate metabolically. But diversity doesn't have to exclude genetically modified or synthesized foods simply because our survivalist ancestors did not understand complex biochemistry. Changing food and understanding how those changes are a part of what evolution is. Denying change leads to ignorance.

Chow on, my paleobro.

That is true...but you cant deny that there was something fishy about the whole FDA approval of it

There was something fishy about the American Heart Association denying that smokeless nicotine alternatives are any safer or less harmful than combusted tobacco while it is one of the greatest contributors to cardiovascular related death. About the DEA denying that cannabis provides no observable medical benefit in any way. About the tons of studies saying MSG was harmful yet all actual analyses showing it is no worse than sodium, which even itself is not that harmful (hmmm sounds familiar to this thread). But you know agencies and those who benefit from their decisions still pushed it. Try to actually learn and investigate and if you feel comfortable do some experiments yourself and see how you and your body react to anything in life.

Artificial sweeteners win again.

Don't be delusional. I am not implying everything artificial should be rejected.

Biochemists need funds for their studies, usually provided by hideous corporate. Within capitalism, only the one that maximize profits will survive. Thus even if complex synthetic food could be good, it isn't eventually. I'm not anti-GMO. I'm against all those pesticides that we throw literally everywhere.

By the way, Paleo diet doesn't include wheat for plenty of reasons, not just gluten alone.

Link to published studies?

That's actually the most stupid thing I've heard in my life

No.

No.

Eating aspartame will actually make you gain weight by increasing appetite and fat storage. Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765

I never implied that Paleo diet did restrict wheat due to the glutens found in that diet. I understand what a paleo diet includes and excludes and the reasoning behind it and even practiced it myself for a time. I think you may have misread my second statement and thought that somehow it was lumped together with my calling you a paleobro.

I don't really know how much of your response really even applied to anything I said, but I do agree capitalism promotes the bastardisation and ruin of potentially well intended philosophy and science, food included. In many ways I think we are saying the same things, but somehow at odds.

I am delusional, though, but not really about food since it is a pretty scientific field. Still, artificial sweeteners really all the way.

Chow on however you may see fit, my Soylent chugging, post-metaprocessed food substitute friend.

No.

No.

Eating aspartame will actually make you gain weight by increasing appetite and fat storage. Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765

Ups

Sugar or really any carbohydrate, simple or complex, will actually make you gain weight due to increased appetite due to poor and short acting energy metabolism and increase far storage due to excess intake.

[National Institute of Health link here]

This is the exact reason you might as well just eat normal sugar instead of wasting your money on supposed dietetic junk.

Well said but you are obviously wrong.

Since when a female knows more about the infinite number of studies showing how cancerous those artificial sweeteners are?

fify bro

>needing sweet taste
man up, bitch

sugars/sweeteners aren't just for coffee faggot

I was both of the posts.

Obviously wrong how? Thanks for saying it was well said.

I don't see artificial sweeteners as dietetic, I see them as substitutes for a chemical that has different properties while retaining the same sensory function. If you are trying to diet, simply replacing a taste while retaining the same eating style is worthless. Once again, though, I would much rather have engineered and very small (weight and processing wise) molecules than a taste equivalent of sugar which will undoubtedly result in excess glucose and glycogen. But that's just me, and i do not like carbohydrates and their metabolites as energy sources.

>feeeemaaaales

Both are terrible for you in large dosis.

Just drink water.