Could this be the most stupid question about Energy Drinks?

poah

Chunkers1980 wrote:

How's he wrong?

his statment

"Stuff like aspartame and polyols are bad news. Natural ones like stevia are generally ok."


is complete bollox

BloggingFit

POAH wrote:

BloggingFit wrote:

POAH wrote:

BloggingFit wrote:

What facts am I ignoring? That it's safe? Healthy? Do enlighten me. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should see that choosing to not consume sweeteners is a better, more healthy option? Or am I wrong as I apparently know nothing.

why

Why what? Consume natural or consume artificial? Let's all consume artificial products that has no long term evidence over the food that came from the earth and has not been manipulated and messed around with. Good choice and well done. It's not mine and this is causing a few individuals some issues it seems. That's fine but don't try and ridicule me for my opinion on the matter if you don't agree. Move on.

but you've still not said why or offered any proof as to why its bad for you. aspartame is about 40 years old so there is plenty of long term evidence to say its safe. Drugs are artificial I bet you take them

Do happy pills count? I get what you're saying but in a lot of these instances we have little choice and the exposure isn't over a prolonged period of time.

There is evidence to suggest that can can increase appetite and decrease metabolic rate with prolonged use over time. You are effectively tricking the body into thinking it is having sugar when in fact it is not. Your body is already preparing to regulate your energy balance, metabolism, calorie burning, etc just by thinking about or smelling food.

Any sweet taste (such as a sweetener) will signal your body that calories are on the way and trigger a whole set of hormonal and metabolic responses to get ready for those calories. To then deny the calories could potentially throw this system out and start to create the issues mentioned initially. At least with natural sweeteners there is a calorie content present so this issue is less pronounced.

Regarding the carcinogenic issue or rather potential properties I understand the evidence at hand, the chemical breakdown/makeup etc, but I'm personally still not convinced about long term, regular exposure.

poah

BloggingFit wrote:

Do happy pills count? I get what you're saying but in a lot of these instances we have little choice and the exposure isn't over a prolonged period of time.

There is evidence to suggest that can can increase appetite and decrease metabolic rate with prolonged use over time. You are effectively tricking the body into thinking it is having sugar when in fact it is not. Your body is already preparing to regulate your energy balance, metabolism, calorie burning, etc just by thinking about or smelling food.

Any sweet taste (such as a sweetener) will signal your body that calories are on the way and trigger a whole set of hormonal and metabolic responses to get ready for those calories. To then deny the calories could potentially throw this system out and start to create the issues mentioned initially. At least with natural sweeteners there is a calorie content present so this issue is less pronounced.

Regarding the carcinogenic issue or rather potential properties I understand the evidence at hand, the chemical breakdown/makeup etc, but I'm personally still not convinced about long term, regular exposure.

you are not tricking your body into thinking it is getting sugar by ingesting artifical sweetners

BloggingFit

You can trick and manipulate the body in many ways so it's a fair assumption that it can expect food when all the necessary stimuli are activated. Have you not find by chewing gym your digestive system starts to become active and a sensation of hunger can kick in? I find it an interesting theory and feasible along with effects of micro bacteria in the gut. Worth checking out if it interests you.

Angus Young

But the fact remains that after 40 years of common usage around the world there is no evidence that it is 'potentially' carcinogenic.

poah

aspartame does not act on the same biochemical pathways that sugar does, it doesn't even enter the blood stream and normal doses.

chewing stimulates certain aspects of digestion but that is not the same as affecting fatty acid metablolism. I studied probiotics 16 years ago with applications to fish farm rearing of the larvae as part of my MSc in aquatic microbiology. not your day is it

BloggingFit wrote:

You can trick and manipulate the body in many ways so it's a fair assumption that it can expect food when all the necessary stimuli are activated. Have you not find by chewing gym your digestive system starts to become active and a sensation of hunger can kick in? I find it an interesting theory and feasible along with effects of micro bacteria in the gut. Worth checking out if it interests you.

BloggingFit

POAH wrote:

aspartame does not act on the same biochemical pathways that sugar does, it doesn't even enter the blood stream and normal doses.

chewing stimulates certain aspects of digestion but that is not the same as affecting fatty acid metablolism. I studied probiotics 16 years ago with applications to fish farm rearing of the larvae as part of my MSc in aquatic microbiology. not your day is it

I asked a question, you gave me an answer.
What was the nature of the study for the probiotics?

poah

BloggingFit wrote:

What was the nature of the study for the probiotics?

to prevent this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16033454

njee20

Is this still going on?! Can't you two take this to PM?

Angus Young

njee20 wrote:

Is this still going on?! Can't you two take this to PM?

There's this amazing new feature on the internet - you click on something else and you go there instead of here.