• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
esquel
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
1-SWEDISH-PEPTIDE-CO
YMSApril21065
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
advertise1
tjk
advertise1
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

The Dangers of Splenda!

I never really looked into how bad this stuff really is for humans. I never use it because I think it taste like hell. I dont like the taste of it...i dont like how it leaves an after taste that seems to ruin everything else I eat or drink for the rest of the day. I think the key with just about everything is how much you use of it. If you abuse anything its going to give you some kind of ill effect and damage something. Thats with just about anything. Hell our body needs water to live....BUT to much water is no good! We could go on and on about this something with millions of other products. I think instead of preaching how bad it is for us..we should be preaching how bad it is to abuse or take to much of just about everything.
 
You people shoot your bathtub gear and take plenty of drugs not prescribed to you but are scared to ingest some Splenda.

Hey, I take offense to that. My gear is mixed up in a sink, not a bathtub.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Yea you guys should use stevia, which has no real long-term studies done on it in this country. Then cherry pick studies on artificial sweeteners and display a fundamental lack of understanding for how to review scientific literature. :banghead:
 
I think the problems come in when people have been using this stuff for years and the accumulation of it over time starts fucking with them.
 
So coke has artificial sugar too. I will look for some studies. So processed food and processed sugar is good for you or its ok? Lets say we dont drink water at all and drink coke instead and what happen? Artificial sugar is not good for you. Will look for some back up info.

A girl actually did just that. Drank diet coke for something like 12 yrs, there was a sotry on the news about her. Her body was a mess, she was 31 I believe and had the insides of an 80 yr old. But yeah, it's good for ya lol

this is one article I found on a girl:

Woman Drinks Nothing But Soda, Develops Heart Problem

It doesn't take a college education to realize there's a huge difference between a natural God-given wholesome food and some man-made Franken-chemical that fools your palate into thinking it's sweet like sugar.

KP, I don't know if that was a "shot" at me with what I said, but I agree with your comment and that was kind of what I was getting at. There are countless studies that say something is bad for you, then countless more to show it isn't. Like you said, eat God-given wholesome food, not something from a lab, and you're gtg
 
Last edited:
You guys cannot cite single examples of people drinking lots of diet soda and having health problems. That is not how science works. I could say the same thing, but with much greater statistical power due to much more people drinking tons of diet drinks and having ZERO problems. My dad has been drinking at least a liter of diet coke every day for like 25 years. No problems at all. And gues what? That doesn't constitute scientific evidence. They've studied aspartame many times for long periods of time and a comprehensive literature review shows no incidence of serious side effects in regularly used amounts, even in people who consume a lot.
 
A girl actually did just that. Drank diet coke for something like 12 yrs, there was a sotry on the news about her. Her body was a mess, she was 31 I believe and had the insides of an 80 yr old. But yeah, it's good for ya lol

this is one article I found on a girl:

Woman Drinks Nothing But Soda, Develops Heart Problem



KP, I don't know if that was a "shot" at me with what I said, but I agree with your comment and that was kind of what I was getting at. There are countless studies that say something is bad for you, then countless more to show it isn't. Like you said, eat God-given wholesome food, not something from a lab, and you're gtg

You guys do know that plenty of natural things are toxic right?
 
You guys do know that plenty of natural things are toxic right?

lol

You say we can't cite a single example of someone consuming lots of diet soda with health problems, then one is posted, and you go to "plenty of natural things are toxic right" :rolleyes:

Some people smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day, don't have cancer or emphysema and live to be 90 yrs old. Does that mean we should all start smoking 2 packs of cigs a day? Where's the logic there?

Funny how so many people drinking "tons" of diet soda with no health problems lol How do you know they don't have health problems? If you have a gash on your arm, leg or head, you go to the hospital, right? Well what about a tumor that you don't know about? That's right, we can't see what's going on inside our bodies unless we do regular checkups with blood work etc. So people very well may be walking around with all sorts of health issues that you can't "see", but are there nonetheless.

Funny that there are "comprehensive literature review shows no incidence of serious side effects in regularly used amounts, even in people who consume a lot". Guess what, the tobacco industry has the same studies showing the exact same thing in regards to tobacco use! Does that make it true?

As I have already stated a few times, there are always studies to show one side and another study to show the other. You have to make up your mind for yourself if you want to consume something or not. And yes, there are "natural things" that are toxic, but I would much rather take my chances consuming natural cane sugar than a man made chemical sweetener.
 
Last edited:
lol

You say we can't cite a single example of someone consuming lots of diet soda with health problems, then one is posted, and you go to "plenty of natural things are toxic right" :rolleyes:

Some people smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day, don't have cancer or emphysema and live to be 90 yrs old. Does that mean we should all start smoking 2 packs of cigs a day? Where's the logic there?

Funny how so many people drinking "tons" of diet soda with no health problems lol How do you know they don't have health problems? If you have a gash on your arm, leg or head, you go to the hospital, right? Well what about a tumor that you don't know about? That's right, we can't see what's going on inside our bodies unless we do regular checkups with blood work etc. So people very well may be walking around with all sorts of health issues that you can't "see", but are there nonetheless.

Funny that there are "comprehensive literature review shows no incidence of serious side effects in regularly used amounts, even in people who consume a lot". Guess what, the tobacco industry has the same studies showing the exact same thing in regards to tobacco use! Does that make it true?

As I have already stated a few times, there are always studies to show one side and another study to show the other. You have to make up your mind for yourself if you want to consume something or not. And yes, there are "natural things" that are toxic, but I would much rather take my chances consuming natural cane sugar than a man made chemical sweetener.

Quite the essay. I don't want to debate with you. Not worth my time tbh. I was referring to Stevia. You have no concept of what a full literature review is. Continue with your silly scare tactics. More aspartame and sucralose for me! And just LOL at the tocacco example. We aren't talking about studies done by companies making the sweeteners. You seriously have no understanding of how scientific research works. Like, none at all. All of your examples are irelevent at best.

For the rest of you who actually have a brain, are open minded, and want to read an actual scientific review of aspartame and the existing research, take a look here: Aspartame ? Truth vs Fiction « Science-Based Medicine
 
A big bag lasts me like 5 days, as I love the stuff.
 
Quite the essay. I don't want to debate with you. Not worth my time tbh. I was referring to Stevia. You have no concept of what a full literature review is. Continue with your silly scare tactics. More aspartame and sucralose for me! And just LOL at the tocacco example. We aren't talking about studies done by companies making the sweeteners. You seriously have no understanding of how scientific research works. Like, none at all. All of your examples are irelevent at best.

For the rest of you who actually have a brain, are open minded, and want to read an actual scientific review of aspartame and the existing research, take a look here: Aspartame ? Truth vs Fiction « Science-Based Medicine

Scare tactics? All I did was give an example since you said nobody had one. There goes your lackluster argument right there. So your dad drinks soda everyday and has no health problems? Good for him. Not everyone that does that can say the same thing. I understand completely how scientific research works, I also know how to skew results to obtain the results desired. This is learned right along side research in college. But that honestly doesn't matter because that's not what I'm talking about. There will be independent studies that show negative effects, and independent studies showing no negative effects, pick which one you want to believe. As I've said numerous times, I could care less what the studies say! There's always a study to refute another, so there really isn't anything groundbreaking about them.

I'm not trying to "debate" with you. You obviously don't see that I am actually agreeing with much of what you say! I don't think aspartame, stevia, or any other sweetener is going to cause someone to sprout a second head or anything. But with everything, moderation is the key. I don't need a study to show me that
 
Last edited:
For the rest of you who actually have a brain, are open minded, and want to read an actual scientific review of aspartame and the existing research, take a look here: Aspartame ? Truth vs Fiction « Science-Based Medicine

Your link has very valid points. But as I've said before, I'm sure that somewhere out there, there is an article/study to refute that. The article was date 2010, so in the last 3 yrs, I'm sure someone has done a study in an effort to refute it.

While we are talking about studies and such, what is your stance on high fructose corn syrup?

I mean, we all have seen the tv commercials about how it's perfectly healthy, then have read studies showing the opposite. Where do you stand on that? (not looking to argue, just want to know your thoughts)
 
Your link has very valid points. But as I've said before, I'm sure that somewhere out there, there is an article/study to refute that. The article was date 2010, so in the last 3 yrs, I'm sure someone has done a study in an effort to refute it.

While we are talking about studies and such, what is your stance on high fructose corn syrup?

I mean, we all have seen the tv commercials about how it's perfectly healthy, then have read studies showing the opposite. Where do you stand on that? (not looking to argue, just want to know your thoughts)

Did you read what I wrote? "My dad has been drinking at least a liter of diet coke every day for like 25 years. No problems at all. And guess what? That doesn't constitute scientific evidence." I explained that using a person as an example is not scientific evidence, which includes my dad example. That was the point...

The article i linked to was a meta-analysis. He reviewed ALL of the literature on aspartame. That is what a full literature review is. Again, your understanding of scientific literature is what we call cherry picking. This article was a thorough review taking into account all major studies in context. So no, a single study coming out after 2010 would not change the picture when you have hundreds of studies done prior. Aspartame has been studied to ridiculous levels.

I don't want to get into a disucssion on anything else. I am sorry i even got into this one. Seriously I do not mean to denigrate you when I say this, but you don't understand how science works, so discussing it with you is really a waste of my time. That is clear to me based on the kinds of comments you've made about picking one study or another to show or refute a point. That is not how you review scientific literature. You review it in totality. Not one study at a time to suit your interest.

If it wasn't clear to anyone else: There have been thorough literature reviews and meta-analyses done of ALL available scientific research on aspartame, which by the way is tons and tons of research, and the conclusion every single time by experts is that aspartame is totally fine in amounts that would be consumed by any normal person. Cherry picking studies, which is what the hippie anti-artificial people do, is pseudoscience. And by the way, stevia is not well studied and has MUCH less evidence in favor of its long-term safety than does aspartame and sucralose.
 
Last edited:
The article i linked to was a meta-analysis. He reviewed ALL of the literature on aspartame. That is what a full literature review is. Again, your understanding of scientific literature is what we call cherry picking. This article was a thorough review taking into account all major studies in context. So no, a single study coming out after 2010 would not change the picture when you have hundreds of studies done prior. Aspartame has been studied to ridiculous levels.

I don't want to get into a disucssion on anything else. I am sorry i even got into this one. Seriously I do not mean to denigrate you when I say this, but you don't understand how science works, so discussing it with you is really a waste of my time. That is clear to me based on the kinds of comments you've made about picking one study or another to show or refute a point. That is not how you review scientific literature. You review it in totality. Not one study at a time to suit your interest.

If it wasn't clear to anyone else: There have been thorough literature reviews and meta-analyses done of ALL available scientific research on aspartame, which by the way is tons and tons of research, and the conclusion every single time by experts is that aspartame is totally fine in amounts that would be consumed by any normal person. Cherry picking studies, which is what the hippie anti-artificial people do, is pseudoscience. And by the way, stevia is not well studied and has MUCH less evidence in favor of its long-term safety than does aspartame and sucralose.

Again, I know how studies work. Science doesn't work in a "way". I never once said to take one study and use its findings to support/refute anything. Your reading comprehension obviously isn't your strongpoint.

You clearly are the smartest person on this forum and you should definitely school us halfwits more often.

In your article from Steven Novella, he indirectly bashes Dr Hull for saying that no evidence would change her mind otherwise, yet that is what you are doing along with Dr Novella. Science doesn't "work" that way, you can't use it to fit your agenda. That's what studies are for, you can always skew the results. Which is what I've been eluding to, but it obviously went right over your head

There will always be studies (plural) to try to discredit another study's findings
 
Last edited:
Diet soda is killing me.
 
NC study discovers chemical in common sweetener damages DNA, can cause cancer

A new study discovered that a chemical found in sucralose, which is sold under the trade name Splenda, damages DNA.

Researchers from North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found sucralose-6-acetate, the chemical that forms when we digest Splenda, is "genotoxic," meaning it breaks up DNA.

The chemical is also found in trace amounts in Splenda itself, raising questions about how the sweetener may contribute to health problems, researchers said.

"Our new work establishes that sucralose-6-acetate is genotoxic," said Susan Schiffman, corresponding author of the study and an adjunct professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The team also found that trace amounts of sucralose-6-acetate can be found in off-the-shelf brands of the sweetener.

The European Food Safety Authority determined that consuming the chemical in quantities exceeding .15 micrograms per day is of "toxicological concern."

"Our work suggests that the trace amounts of sucralose-6-acetate in a single, daily sucralose-sweetened drink exceed that threshold," Schiffman said. "And that’s not even accounting for the amount of sucralose-6-acetate produced as metabolites after people consume sucralose."

For the study, researchers conducted a series of in-vitro experiments, exposing human blood cells to sucralose-6-acetate and monitoring for markers of genotoxicity.

"In short, we found that sucralose-6-acetate is genotoxic, and that it effectively broke up DNA in cells that were exposed to the chemical," Schiffman said.

The researchers also conducted in-vitro tests that exposed human gut tissues to sucralose-6-acetate.

"Other studies have found that sucralose can adversely affect gut health, so we wanted to see what might be happening there," Schiffman said.

"When we exposed sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate to gut epithelial tissues – the tissue that lines your gut wall – we found that both chemicals cause 'leaky gut.' Basically, they make the wall of the gut more permeable. The chemicals damage the 'tight junctions,' or interfaces, where cells in the gut wall connect to each other."

"A leaky gut is problematic, because it means that things that would normally be flushed out of the body in feces are instead leaking out of the gut and being absorbed into the bloodstream."

The researchers also looked at the genetic activity of the gut cells to see how they responded to the presence of sucralose-6-acetate.

It was determined that gut cells exposed to sucralose-6-acetate affected genes related to the following:

Oxidative stress is associated with aging and is defined as a disturbance in the balance between the production of reactive oxygen species (free radicals) and antioxidant defenses, according to the National Library of Medicine.
Essentially what this means is oxidative stress can damage tissues and organs, which can then lead to diseases, including cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes and heart disease

Inflammation

Carcinogenicity

This is essentially means that sucralose-6-acetate can lead to an increased risk of cancer.
"We found that gut cells exposed to sucralose-6-acetate had increased activity in genes related to oxidative stress, inflammation and carcinogenicity," Schiffman said. "This work raises a host of concerns about the potential health effects associated with sucralose and its metabolites."

"It’s time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of sucralose, because the evidence is mounting that it carries significant risks."

If nothing else, Schiffman encourages people to avoid products containing sucralose.

"It’s something you should not be eating," she said.

The paper, "Toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate and its parent sucralose: in vitro screening assays," is published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews. The paper was co-authored by Troy Nagle, Distinguished Professor of Biomedical Engineering at NC State and UNC and Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at NC State; Terrence Furey, professor of genetics and biology at UNC; and Elizabeth Scholl, a former researcher at NC State who is currently at Sciome LLC.

The authors have no conflicts of interest. The research was done with support from the Engineering Foundation at NC State.

 

Forum statistics

Total page views
559,560,519
Threads
136,124
Messages
2,780,230
Members
160,445
Latest member
GFly
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
YMSApril210131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top