Gym and fitness (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter HelterSkelter
- Start date
They found out that when giving as much artificial sweeteners to mice then sugar, that the bacteria who live on methanol will significantly grow in number, and represent a bigger percentage of the small intestine flora, wich causes alteration of blood levels.
What we learn from this article that its a bad idea to drink 10 liters of diet coke when you eat a combined total of 5 grams of suger during the day, for a long time.
What we learn from this article that its a bad idea to drink 10 liters of diet coke when you eat a combined total of 5 grams of suger during the day, for a long time.
If you eat 5 grams of suger per day then you are going to have some serious issues
If you want to be specific : Based on lab results by decent labs, there is 192mg of asparthane in a liter of diet coke.
Why ? Because the maximum the average person consumes on a given day is 6 liters. Wich is a tenth of the mass needed for the methanol buildup to become perhaps potentially maybe notsure problematic in a few specific females
And i havent even gone over the part where their targetgroup is just horribly bad in the first place.
If you want to be specific : Based on lab results by decent labs, there is 192mg of asparthane in a liter of diet coke.
Why ? Because the maximum the average person consumes on a given day is 6 liters. Wich is a tenth of the mass needed for the methanol buildup to become perhaps potentially maybe notsure problematic in a few specific females
And i havent even gone over the part where their targetgroup is just horribly bad in the first place.
Those diets are far worse on the body then a potential risk to have a chance to have a slight positive variation in glucose blood levels
- - - Updated - - -
Bloodglucose levels can vary a bit.It only becomes an issue when you go past the treshhold regularly and you have an affinity for diabetis type 2. And even that will take years to develop.
We are talking about variations like 100 to 100.5. Whilst dokters dont bother unless you are above 115 on a sober stomache in the morning.
You know what is actually harmfull ? Never eating meat.
- - - Updated - - -
Bloodglucose levels can vary a bit.It only becomes an issue when you go past the treshhold regularly and you have an affinity for diabetis type 2. And even that will take years to develop.
We are talking about variations like 100 to 100.5. Whilst dokters dont bother unless you are above 115 on a sober stomache in the morning.
You know what is actually harmfull ? Never eating meat.
@Zacheryah, don't you think it's just a tiny little bit worrying that the body reacted in a way the scientists didn't predict at all? The doses might be ridiculous, but the fact that we're still finding out new things about artificial sweeteners makes me cautious.
Also, you seem to skip over this part of the study:
Also, you seem to skip over this part of the study:
Scientists dont predict reactions. You monitor it, if something happens try to find a cause and thats that.
For example, we know the breakdown metabolites and pathway for aspartane. Each of the metabolites is well knownso the FDA orders a limit on the concentration based on "10% of the concentration that could start causing issues".
Secondly, the wordt "significant disturbances", need to be seen in context here. Its the statistical context, meaning simply that there is a statistically relevant change.
Like 100.0 to 100.1 for example.
You misunderstood here cause you define "significant" as "alot". But thats usually the case with these articles, dont worry.
We are talking about neglectable small changes.
"a glass of alcohol per day is healthy", right ?
I can pull out 15 of this kind of study that will link any alcohol intake to a much bigger disturbance, to significantly increased growth of candida fungus in the body, to significant alteration of the natural flora in a females private parts, etc.
'everything causes cancer, according to studies'. Please, see these in perspective. This is not a softenon story.
For example, we know the breakdown metabolites and pathway for aspartane. Each of the metabolites is well knownso the FDA orders a limit on the concentration based on "10% of the concentration that could start causing issues".
Secondly, the wordt "significant disturbances", need to be seen in context here. Its the statistical context, meaning simply that there is a statistically relevant change.
Like 100.0 to 100.1 for example.
You misunderstood here cause you define "significant" as "alot". But thats usually the case with these articles, dont worry.
We are talking about neglectable small changes.
"a glass of alcohol per day is healthy", right ?
I can pull out 15 of this kind of study that will link any alcohol intake to a much bigger disturbance, to significantly increased growth of candida fungus in the body, to significant alteration of the natural flora in a females private parts, etc.
'everything causes cancer, according to studies'. Please, see these in perspective. This is not a softenon story.
Nah man, i'm just getting annoyed by how studies pop up here and there, whilst people have never lived longer then they do now.
What me annoys the most is how they go like disturbance of glucose blood levels. Fucking cringe. Read one of the billion studies about the effect of sugar containing beverage and its effect on the glucose blood levels, and much more important : the insuline levels.
Comparing that to artificial sweeteners is a total joke.
Instead of asshole studies getting attention, it would be better if the focus could be on processed foods versus clean food, wich has a massive colleration to pretty much every single cardiovascular condition.
Let me shock you with this fact, altho @Maddy might disagree :
A bodybuilder who is on the juice for 6 months/year, for decades, but never surpasses the widely recommended capacitys.
That eats very clean all this time.
Will be perfectly healthy at the age of 55 in the big majority of cases.
A person who never touches alcohol or drugs, but feeds on processed food, will be off worse.
There, put that in perspective. (this is not a reason to go juicing, just giving an idea how bad processed food is compared to clean food).
*************************
clean food : food wich lacks added nutrient value and is very pure on carbs or protein or fat.
examples :
protein : whey/cassine powder. chicken meat.
carbs : white and brown rice. pasta. oats. barely altered grain producs.
fats : olive oil. majority of nuts. cottage cheese
combined natural clean products
Fat+protein (evening foods) : Eggs. red meat (<10%fat). technically also cottage cheese but the protein count isnt relevant.
carb+protein : weightgainers and quality energy bars
**************************************************
- - - Updated - - -
master, i'm getting a masters degree.
We'll see about a doctorate when i'm finished with this, its not certain at this point
What me annoys the most is how they go like disturbance of glucose blood levels. Fucking cringe. Read one of the billion studies about the effect of sugar containing beverage and its effect on the glucose blood levels, and much more important : the insuline levels.
Comparing that to artificial sweeteners is a total joke.
Instead of asshole studies getting attention, it would be better if the focus could be on processed foods versus clean food, wich has a massive colleration to pretty much every single cardiovascular condition.
Let me shock you with this fact, altho @Maddy might disagree :
A bodybuilder who is on the juice for 6 months/year, for decades, but never surpasses the widely recommended capacitys.
That eats very clean all this time.
Will be perfectly healthy at the age of 55 in the big majority of cases.
A person who never touches alcohol or drugs, but feeds on processed food, will be off worse.
There, put that in perspective. (this is not a reason to go juicing, just giving an idea how bad processed food is compared to clean food).
*************************
clean food : food wich lacks added nutrient value and is very pure on carbs or protein or fat.
examples :
protein : whey/cassine powder. chicken meat.
carbs : white and brown rice. pasta. oats. barely altered grain producs.
fats : olive oil. majority of nuts. cottage cheese
combined natural clean products
Fat+protein (evening foods) : Eggs. red meat (<10%fat). technically also cottage cheese but the protein count isnt relevant.
carb+protein : weightgainers and quality energy bars
**************************************************
- - - Updated - - -
master, i'm getting a masters degree.
We'll see about a doctorate when i'm finished with this, its not certain at this point
Thing is jack, the base food advice i'm giving here, is incredibly easy to understand and follow. Its not that special
carbs and protein untill 4/6pm, fat and protein after 4/pm. Unless you had a severe training and you take some recovery carb.
Use only complex carbs, and use fruits if you need fast acting carbs, Unless you have a competition going
Use clean foods, and try to balance out a diet that is around the caloric intake of your weight
cheat 2/3 meals per week without feeling remotely guilty
- - - Updated - - -
Okay, okay
Not that young tho, i'm getting 29 next week
carbs and protein untill 4/6pm, fat and protein after 4/pm. Unless you had a severe training and you take some recovery carb.
Use only complex carbs, and use fruits if you need fast acting carbs, Unless you have a competition going
Use clean foods, and try to balance out a diet that is around the caloric intake of your weight
cheat 2/3 meals per week without feeling remotely guilty
- - - Updated - - -
did i stutter? i said future Doctor, no if's or but's young man
Not that young tho, i'm getting 29 next week
Of course you predict reactions. You state a hypothesis and conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis. It's called the scientific method.
Context is important, for sure. Where in the report or article do you see that the "significant" change is, in this case, actually insignificant given the context?
Also, just because processed food is be a bigger problem and that we live longer now than we used to doesn't mean sweeteners is a non-important subject.
Context is important, for sure. Where in the report or article do you see that the "significant" change is, in this case, actually insignificant given the context?
Also, just because processed food is be a bigger problem and that we live longer now than we used to doesn't mean sweeteners is a non-important subject.