active network espn
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community
93 Replies Last post: May 17, 2006 3:35 PM by Amiria   Go to original post 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next
Click to view peachtree003's profile Pro 61 posts since
Jul 23, 2004
75. Jun 15, 2005 12:36 AM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
Here's a little anecdote about aspartame. Maybe it is just a silly letter, but who knows?
Aspartame was "safe" when it first came out, too.


> > In October of 2001, my sister started getting very sick. She had
>stomach spasms and she was having a hard time getting around. Walking was a
>major chore. It took everything she had just to get out of bed; she was
>in so much pain.
> >
> > By March 2002, she had undergone several tissue and muscle biopsies
>and was on 24 various prescription medications. The doctors could not
>determine what was wrong with her. She was in so much pain, and so
>sick...she just knew she was dying.
> >
> > She put her house, bank accounts, life insurance, etc., in her
> > oldest daughters name, and made sure that her younger children were to be
>taken care of. She also wanted her last hooray, so she planned a trip
>to FL (basically in a wheelchair) for March 22nd.
> >
> > On March 19th I called her to ask how her most recent tests went,
> > and she said they didn't find anything on the test, but they believe she had MS.
> >
> > I recalled an article a friend of mine E-mailed to me and I asked my
>sister if she drank diet soda? She told me that she did. As a matter of
>fact, she was getting ready to crack one open that moment... I told her
>not to open it, and to stop drinking the diet soda ! I E-mailed her
>the article my friend, a lawyer, had sent.
> >
> > My sister called me within 32 hours after our phone conversation and
>told me she had stopped drinking the diet soda AND she could walk!!!! The
>muscle spasms went away. She said she didn't feel 100% but she sure
>felt a lot better. She told me she was going to her doctor with this
>article and would call me when she got home.
> >
> > Well, she called me, and said her doctor was amazed! He is going to
>call all of his MS patients to find out if they consumed artificial
>sweeteners of any kind...
> >
> > In a nutshell, she was being poisoned by the Aspartame in the
>dietsoda...and literally dying a slow and miserable death.
> >
> > When she got to FL March 22nd, all she had to take was one pill, and
>that was a pill for the Aspartame poisoning! She is well on her way to a
>complete recovery ... and she is walking!!! No wheelchair!!!
> >
> > This article saved her life If it says "SUGAR FREE" on the label, DO
>NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!!
> >
> > I have spent several days lecturing at the WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL
>CONFERENCE on "ASPARTAME," marketed as 'NutraSweet,' 'Equal,' and 'Spoonful.'
> >
> >
> > In the keynote address by the EPA, it was announced that in the
> > United States in 2001 there is an epidemic of multiple sclerosis and systemic
>lupus. It was difficult to determine exactly what toxin was causing
>this to be rampant.
> >
> > Why Aspartame is so dangerous: When the temperature of
>this sweetener exceeds 86 degrees F, the wood alcohol in ASPARTAME
>converts to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, which in turn causes
>metabolic acidosis. Formic acid is the poison found in the sting of
>fire ants. The methanol toxicity mimics, among other conditions, multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus.
> >
> > Many people were being diagnosed in error. Although multiple
> > sclerosis is not a death sentence.. methanol toxicity is!
> >
> > Systemic lupus has become almost as rampant as multiple sclerosis,
>especially with Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi drinkers. The victim usually
>does not know that the Aspartame is the culprit. He or she continues
>its use; irritating the lupus to such a degree that it may become a
>life-threatening condition.We have seen patients with systemic lupus
>become asymptotic, once taken off diet sodas.In cases of those
>diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, (when in reality, the disease is
>methanol toxicity), most of the symptoms disappear. We've seen many
>cases where vision loss returned and hearing loss improved
>markedly.This also applies to cases of tinnitus and fibromyalgia.
> >
> > "If you are using ASPARTAME (NutraSweet,
>Equal, Spoonful, etc.) and you suffer from fibromyalgia symptoms, spasms,
>shooting, pains, numbness in your legs, cramps, vertigo, dizziness,
>headaches, tinnitus, joint pain, unexplainable depression, anxiety
>attacks, slurred speech,blurred vision, or memory loss...you probably
>have ASPARTAME poisoning!"
> >
> > Is it reversible?" Yes! Yes! Yes! STOP drinking diet sodas and be
>alert for Aspartame on food labels!Many products are fortified with it!!!
> >
> > This is a serious problem. Dr. Espart (one of my speakers) remarked
>that so many people seem to be symptomatic for MS and during his recent
>visit to a hospice; a nurse stated that six of her friends, who were
>heavy Diet Coke addicts, had all been diagnosed with MS. This is beyond
coincidence!
> >
> >
> > Diet soda is NOT a diet product! It is a chemically altered,
> > multiple SODIUM (salt) and ASPARTAME containing product that actually makes you crave carbohydrates. It is far more likely to make you GAIN weight!
> These products also contain formaldehyde, which stores in the fat cells,
>particularly in the hips and thighs. Formaldehyde is an absolute toxin
>and is used primarily to preserve "tissue specimens."
> >
> > Many products we use every day contain this chemical but we SHOULD
> > NOT store it IN our body!!!
> >
> > Dr. H. J. Roberts stated in his lectures that once free of the "diet
>products" and with no significant increase in exercise e; his
>patientslost an average of 19 pounds over a trial period.
> >
> >
> > Aspartame is especially dangerous for diabetics. We found that some
>physicians, who believed that they had a patient with retinopathy, in
>fact, had symptoms caused by Aspartame. The Aspartame drives the blood
>sugar out of control. Thus diabetics may suffer acute memory loss due
>to the fact that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are NEUROTOXIC when
>taken without the other amino acids necessary for a good balance.
>Treating diabetes is all about BALANCE. Especially with diabetics, the
>Aspartame passes the blood/brain barrier and it then deteriorates the
>neurons of the brain; causing various levels of brain damage, seizures,
>depression, manic depression, panic attacks, uncontrollable anger and rage.
> >
> > Consumption of Aspartame causes these same symptoms in
> > non-diabetics, as well.
> >
> > Documentation and observation also reveal that thousands of children
>diagnosed with ADD and AHD have had complete turnarounds in their
>behavior when these chemicals have been removed from their diet. So
>called "behavior modification prescription drugs" (Ritalin and others)
>are no longer needed. Truth be told, they were never NEEDED in the
>first place!
> >
> > Most of these children were being "poisoned" on a daily basis with
> > the very foods that were "better for them than sugar."
> >
> > It is also suspected that the Aspartame in thousands of pallets of
>diet Coke and diet Pepsi consumed by men and women fighting in the Gulf War,
>may be partially to blame for the well-known Gulf War Syndrome.
> >
> > Dr. Roberts warns that it can cause birth defects, i.e., mental
>retardation, if taken at the time of conception and during early
>pregnancy. Children are especially at risk for neurological disorders
>and should NEVER be given artificial sweeteners. There are many
>different case histories to relate of children suffering grand mal
>seizures and other neurological disturbances due to the use
> of NutraSweet.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it is not always easy to convince people that
>Aspartameis to blame for their child's illness. Stevia, which is a sweet herb, NOT
>A MANUFACTURED ADDITIVE, helps in the metabolism of sugar, which would
>be ideal for diabetics. It has now been approved as a dietary
>supplement by the FDA. It is known that for many years the FDA outlawed
>this true sweet food," due to their loyalty to MONSANTO Chemical Company.
> >
> > Books on this subject are available:
> >
> > EXCITOTOXINS: THE TASTE THAT KILLS written by Dr. Russell Blayblock
> > (Health Press 1-800-643-2665) And: DEFENSE AGAINST ALZHEIMER'S
>DISEASE-written by DR H. J. Roberts, also a diabetic specialist.
> >
> > These two doctors will soon be posting a position paper with case
>histories on the deadly effects of Aspartame on the Internet. According
>to the Conference of the American College of Physicians, "We are talking about a plague of neurological diseases directly caused by the use of this deadly poison."
> >
> > Herein lies the problem: There were Congressional Hearings when
>Aspartame was included 100 different products and strong objection was made
>concerning it's use.. Since this initial hearing, there have been two
>subsequent hearings and still, nothing has been done. The drug and
>chemical lobbies have very deep pockets. Sadly, MONSANTO'S patent on
>Aspartame has EXPIRED!!
> >
> > There are now over 5,000 products on the market that contain this
>deadly chemical and there will be thousands more introduced.
> >
> > Everybody wants a "piece of the Aspartame pie." I assure you that
>MONSANTO, the creator of Aspartame, knows how deadly it is. And isn't
>it ironic that MONSANTO funds, among others, the American Diabetes
>Association, the American Dietetic Association and the Conference of
>the American College of Physicians? This has been recently exposed in
>the New York Times. These cannot criticize any additives or convey
>their link to MONSANTO because they take money from the food industry
>and are required to endorse their products.
> >
> >
> > Senator Howard Metzenbaum wrote and presented a bill that would
>require label warnings on products containing Aspartame, especially regarding
>pregnant women, children and infants. The bill would also institute
>independent studies on the known dangers and the problems existing in
>the general population regarding seizures, changes in brain chemistry,
>neurological changes and behavioral symptoms. The bill was killed.
> >
> > It is known that the powerful drug and chemical lobbies are
>responsible for this, letting loose the hounds of disease and death on an
>unsuspecting and uninformed public.Well, you're informed now!!!! YOU
>HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!!
> >
> >
Click to view Acidosis078's profile Legend 315 posts since
Jun 26, 2006
76. Jun 15, 2005 12:56 AM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
The Centre for Disease Control has reported that Aspartame can not cause diseases such as MS or Lupus. The letter your referring to is known as the Nancy Merkle hoax and is an urban legend that has been floating around since 1998.
Click to view broadbill's profile Pro 156 posts since
Sep 27, 2004
77. Jun 15, 2005 9:26 AM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Acidosis:
The Centre for Disease Control has reported that Aspartame can not cause diseases such as MS or Lupus. The letter your referring to is known as the Nancy Merkle hoax and is an urban legend that has been floating around since 1998.<HR>



This is a funny thing about human nature though....

even if this WAS true: ONE person has a problem with aspartame (or splenda, or whatever) the news media gets ahold of the story, puts an expose on TV and soon enough aspartame becomes bad for EVERYONE....even though MILLIONS of people drink/eat it EVERY DAY with NO problems. For me, the numbers speak, not an isolated incident that may or may not be caused by aspartame.

Does it surprise me that Aspartame could cause a problems with someone?...not really, biology is very complex and we are so diverse enough of a species that somebody, somewhere, may react adversely to it....even if it's proven safe for 99.99999% of the population.

Do you avoid it? I guess so if it make you feel better....
Click to view Knox Runner's profile Rookie 2 posts since
Mar 2, 2005
78. Jun 15, 2005 9:32 AM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
quote:<HR>Originally posted by broadbill:

.

Does it surprise me that Aspartame could cause a problems with someone?...not really, biology is very complex and we are so diverse enough of a species that somebody, somewhere, may react adversely to it....even if it's proven safe for 99.99999% of the population.
<HR>


That is an excellent point broadbill. When the FDA or CDC states that a food/compound is not linked to increased disease, they are not making the assertion that the product is safe for every single person. They are saying that a given product does not lead to an occurrence rate of disease that is statistically greater than that of other random problems caused by other foods in the population.
Click to view AndyHass's profile Legend 1,385 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
79. Jun 15, 2005 9:38 AM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
quote:<HR>Originally posted by gebuh:
cool- now we can add it to the list of all the other safe stuff foisted upon us:

bha/bht
nitrates
hydrogenated oils
pesticides
bgh
antibiotics
aspartame
highly refined/processed anything
irradiation- oh I'm sorry- cold pasturization

its safe healthy stuff like this that makes us the healthiest people on earth- o wait no, it makes us fat, diabetic and coronary/kidney/colon disease ridden. That's the big picture. Maybe splenda is really ok- I mean how bad can sugar mixed with chlorine be? I'm sure if that was the only "safe" lab food you ate everything would be fine. But it ain't.

<HR>
Click to view AndyHass's profile Legend 1,385 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
80. Jun 15, 2005 9:46 AM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
quote:<HR>Originally posted by gebuh:
cool- now we can add it to the list of all the other safe stuff foisted upon us:
antibiotics
aspartame
highly refined/processed anything
irradiation- oh I'm sorry- cold pasturization

its safe healthy stuff like this that makes us the healthiest people on earth- o wait no, it makes us fat, diabetic and coronary/kidney/colon disease ridden. That's the big picture.
<HR>


Antibiotics have saved millions of lives. Where is your proof that they are "unsafe?" Sure, you don't want to take them indefinitely and mess up your natural flora, but truly unsafe? Show me how many people have been killed by antibiotics.
Aspartame - this is a funny one. You're probably basing this on the study that showed it caused cancer in mice. You probably didn't look far enough to see that to get a similar effect a human would have to eat about half a pound of the stuff daily for 10 years.
"highly processed?" I laugh when people try to say "natural" stuff is necessarily safer. There is plenty of natural stuff that will hurt you.
Irradiation has never been shown to harm anyone. People just freak out reflexively from the incorporation of the word "radiation" in it.
I've got news for you, life is a terminal condition. If you avoid everything that stands a .001% chance of harming you you'll die of starvation (and asphyxia since you have to stop breathing oxygen, another potent poison).
What makes this country a pot of health problems is our terrible, SELF-CHOSEN average diet. Most people are at least moderately overweight. A majority also live and work in crowded urban areas with nasty air pollution.
Click to view Mikey314159's profile Pro 99 posts since
May 14, 2004
81. Jun 15, 2005 1:27 PM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyHass:
Antibiotics have saved millions of lives. Where is your proof that they are "unsafe?" Sure, you don't want to take them indefinitely and mess up your natural flora, but truly unsafe? Show me how many people have been killed by antibiotics.
Aspartame - this is a funny one. You're probably basing this on the study that showed it caused cancer in mice. You probably didn't look far enough to see that to get a similar effect a human would have to eat about half a pound of the stuff daily for 10 years.
"highly processed?" I laugh when people try to say "natural" stuff is necessarily safer. There is plenty of natural stuff that will hurt you.
Irradiation has never been shown to harm anyone. People just freak out reflexively from the incorporation of the word "radiation" in it.
I've got news for you, life is a terminal condition. If you avoid everything that stands a .001% chance of harming you you'll die of starvation (and asphyxia since you have to stop breathing oxygen, another potent poison).
What makes this country a pot of health problems is our terrible, SELF-CHOSEN average diet. Most people are at least moderately overweight. A majority also live and work in crowded urban areas with nasty air pollution.
<HR>


Finally somebody here is making some sense! Thanks for helping to explain the truth. As for peachtree's article/study, I simply had to laugh when I saw it. Seriously, do you actually beleive that? Formic acid or formaldehyde or whatever depositing mostly on the hips and thighs??? Come on, that comment in itself should have steered you away from such an unscientific and laughable article. Aspartame, by the way, is made from the two amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine (natural, not that it matters). It is completely safe except if you have phenylketonurea but that's another story. It is used for diabetics as it DOES NOT cause the changes in blood glucose and regular sugar does. This is fact and cannot be disputed.
Click to view peachtree003's profile Pro 61 posts since
Jul 23, 2004
82. Jun 15, 2005 4:19 PM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
quote:<HR>Finally somebody here is making some sense! Thanks for helping to explain the truth. As for peachtree's article/study, I simply had to laugh when I saw it. Seriously, do you actually beleive that? Formic acid or formaldehyde or whatever depositing mostly on the hips and thighs??? Come on, that comment in itself should have steered you away from such an unscientific and laughable article. Aspartame, by the way, is made from the two amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine (natural, not that it matters). It is completely safe except if you have phenylketonurea but that's another story. It is used for diabetics as it DOES NOT cause the changes in blood glucose and regular sugar does. This is fact and cannot be disputed. <HR>


I just thought it interesting I found that article in my inbox the same day I found this splenda debate. I thought I'd share.
As a personal anecdote; I've never had problems with aspartame. Splenda definitely gives me GI issues, but not aspartame. My daughter though, gets wild after drinking it. We were advised by the pediatrician (and just common sense on our part after seeing her right after drinking it) not to give it to her, so we don't. We don't substitute it with sugar either, which I agree is another concern.

Kids really enjoy fresh fruit in season and ice cold bottled water. They don't miss soda. Its not a big deal to keep it out of the house.
Click to view Mikey314159's profile Pro 99 posts since
May 14, 2004
83. Jun 15, 2005 10:35 PM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
quote:<HR>Originally posted by peachtree:
I just thought it interesting I found that article in my inbox the same day I found this splenda debate. I thought I'd share.
As a personal anecdote; I've never had problems with aspartame. Splenda definitely gives me GI issues, but not aspartame. My daughter though, gets wild after drinking it. We were advised by the pediatrician (and just common sense on our part after seeing her right after drinking it) not to give it to her, so we don't. We don't substitute it with sugar either, which I agree is another concern.

Kids really enjoy fresh fruit in season and ice cold bottled water. They don't miss soda. Its not a big deal to keep it out of the house.
<HR>


Just wondering, when you're talking about drinking aspartame, was that in diet coke? Diet coke contains caffeine which is more likely the reason for your daughter going wild.
Click to view gebuh's profile Pro 102 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
84. Jun 15, 2005 11:05 PM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
sorry, should have clarified that better- I meant the antibiotics injected into the animals we eat.
aspartame; no I'm not basing its inclusion because of one study.

I realize that there are lots of "natural" things that will hurt you- thats an unreasonable assertion: "since natural things will hurt you, highly processed is good for you". I have a challenge for you: for the next month, eat only highly processed foods, let me know how you feel.
"irradiation has never been shown to harm anyone" - its a wonder thats not used as a slogan.
I can see the ad campaign: "irradiation : you can't prove anything- so why not?'

My biggest problem with all this stuff is not how safe it is- but how little the average consumer is allowed to know about it. If irradiation is so wonderful, why not post it everywhere its used?
At no time did I suggest that we should only eat "natural foods" I've said it over and over again, but that doesn't fit into your all or nothing philosophy- so you ignore it. I'm just concerned with disclosure. Just tell me the truth- I'll figure out my comfort level on my own.

you say our problem is with our choices- but these choices involve highly processed, low nutrient, high fat/sugar/chemicals. You can't have it both ways.- this junk can't be harmless and dangerous at the same time.


quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyHass:
Antibiotics have saved millions of lives. Where is your proof that they are "unsafe?" Sure, you don't want to take them indefinitely and mess up your natural flora, but truly unsafe? Show me how many people have been killed by antibiotics.
Aspartame - this is a funny one. You're probably basing this on the study that showed it caused cancer in mice. You probably didn't look far enough to see that to get a similar effect a human would have to eat about half a pound of the stuff daily for 10 years.
"highly processed?" I laugh when people try to say "natural" stuff is necessarily safer. There is plenty of natural stuff that will hurt you.
Irradiation has never been shown to harm anyone. People just freak out reflexively from the incorporation of the word "radiation" in it.
I've got news for you, life is a terminal condition. If you avoid everything that stands a .001% chance of harming you you'll die of starvation (and asphyxia since you have to stop breathing oxygen, another potent poison).
What makes this country a pot of health problems is our terrible, SELF-CHOSEN average diet. Most people are at least moderately overweight. A majority also live and work in crowded urban areas with nasty air pollution.
<HR>
Click to view Mikey314159's profile Pro 99 posts since
May 14, 2004
85. Jun 16, 2005 8:08 AM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
quote:<HR>Originally posted by gebuh:
sorry, should have clarified that better- I meant the antibiotics injected into the animals we eat.
aspartame; no I'm not basing its inclusion because of one study.

I realize that there are lots of "natural" things that will hurt you- thats an unreasonable assertion: "since natural things will hurt you, highly processed is good for you". I have a challenge for you: for the next month, eat only highly processed foods, let me know how you feel.
"irradiation has never been shown to harm anyone" - its a wonder thats not used as a slogan.
I can see the ad campaign: "irradiation : you can't prove anything- so why not?'

My biggest problem with all this stuff is not how safe it is- but how little the average consumer is allowed to know about it. If irradiation is so wonderful, why not post it everywhere its used?
At no time did I suggest that we should only eat "natural foods" I've said it over and over again, but that doesn't fit into your all or nothing philosophy- so you ignore it. I'm just concerned with disclosure. Just tell me the truth- I'll figure out my comfort level on my own.

you say our problem is with our choices- but these choices involve highly processed, low nutrient, high fat/sugar/chemicals. You can't have it both ways.- this junk can't be harmless and dangerous at the same time.


<HR>


It is the indiscriminate use of antibiotics which leads them to cause problems. There is no problem with the antibiotics themselves. Actually, I found out in one of my courses (Some of the stuff I learn in school actually is true even though you may not believe it) that chickens are not given antibiotics and haven't been for many years, although people continue to believe that this is the case.
There are alot more things other than irradiation that you aren't told about. You usually aren't told what method is used to pasteurize your milk, for example. Also, it is well known that fruits undergo irradiation, hey you seem to know about it! Irradiation is not dangerous and helps to preserve food (not just fruits) by killing microorganisms and inactivating enzymes which could have otherwise endangered your health. The same goes for BHT, BHA, vaccuum sealing, canning...
One must provide a definition of processed before they can determine what is "good or bad". Much of the processing done to food is there to make sure that our food is safe and does not endanger our health. Such is the case with water purification, milk pasteurization, fortification of grains and cereals, antioxidants added to boxes, etc. It is often not the processing that makes a food unhealthy, but the food itself is not the best choice. Potato chips are unhealthy whether they are fried at home or bought at the store. That amount of grease per serving is not good for your health either way, natural or not. Enriched grains are not natural but have saved developed nations from widespread vitamin and mineral deficiencies which have plagued our past. Fruits are good, and I don't think irradiation makes them unnatural, simply safer. Anyway, I could go on forever but that's my basic point.
Click to view gebuh's profile Pro 102 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
86. Jun 19, 2005 7:05 PM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
irradiation and preservatives are not added to protect our health- they're to increase shelf like and therefore profit. "fortifying" grains is done because the grains have been stripped of anything nutritious- whole grains don't need to be "fortified". irradiation to make fruit "safer"? huh? I didn't realize fruit had suddenly become so dangerous.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mikey314159:
It is the indiscriminate use of antibiotics which leads them to cause problems. There is no problem with the antibiotics themselves. Actually, I found out in one of my courses (Some of the stuff I learn in school actually is true even though you may not believe it) that chickens are not given antibiotics and haven't been for many years, although people continue to believe that this is the case.
There are alot more things other than irradiation that you aren't told about. You usually aren't told what method is used to pasteurize your milk, for example. Also, it is well known that fruits undergo irradiation, hey you seem to know about it! Irradiation is not dangerous and helps to preserve food (not just fruits) by killing microorganisms and inactivating enzymes which could have otherwise endangered your health. The same goes for BHT, BHA, vaccuum sealing, canning...
One must provide a definition of processed before they can determine what is "good or bad". Much of the processing done to food is there to make sure that our food is safe and does not endanger our health. Such is the case with water purification, milk pasteurization, fortification of grains and cereals, antioxidants added to boxes, etc. It is often not the processing that makes a food unhealthy, but the food itself is not the best choice. Potato chips are unhealthy whether they are fried at home or bought at the store. That amount of grease per serving is not good for your health either way, natural or not. Enriched grains are not natural but have saved developed nations from widespread vitamin and mineral deficiencies which have plagued our past. Fruits are good, and I don't think irradiation makes them unnatural, simply safer. Anyway, I could go on forever but that's my basic point.

<HR>
Click to view Mikey314159's profile Pro 99 posts since
May 14, 2004
87. Jun 20, 2005 9:52 AM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
quote:<HR>Originally posted by gebuh:
irradiation and preservatives are not added to protect our health- they're to increase shelf like and therefore profit. "fortifying" grains is done because the grains have been stripped of anything nutritious- whole grains don't need to be "fortified". irradiation to make fruit "safer"? huh? I didn't realize fruit had suddenly become so dangerous.

<HR>


Yes, fruit is dangerous if it becomes overinhabited with bacteria or ensymes causes degradation to occur at a faster rate than desired. We don't all have an apple orchard in our backyards, so this is a good alternative since it's not always possible to get the freshest fruit (at least not where I live). Considering that it's been proven to be safe, I see no problem with that.
Second, grains in white bread have not been "stripped of anything nutritious". The endosperm is still nutritious, but is lacking in what has been removed (bran, germ). This doesn't make it non-nutritious, just lacking in certain things. We must face the facts that many people eat white bread or cereal made with white flour. The fortification of grains has literally been a life saver for much of our population. Whole grains can be fortified. Fortification refers to the addition of nutrients either not present or the addition of nutrients to a level above what was present prior to processing. This can be used to balance the nutrient profile of the food and as I said before, prevent widespread nutrient deficiency. Of course, eating whole grains is better than enriched or fortified white bread, it must be accepted that many people eat white bread and many things are made with white flour, and enrichment makes them more nutrient dense.
Guest
88. Dec 21, 2007 4:24 PM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
well put gebah!! I couldn't agree with you more!! The cigarette and whitecoat lab workers is a great analysis. If my gut says no then I follow it. That is why it is there. If your guts say it's ok, then enjoy and when you keel over after 10 kilometers, it gives me a better finish!!LOL Great reply though gebah!!
quote:<HR>Originally posted by gebuh:
wow- so trusting. I'm not gonna debate the safety or lack thereof of splenda, but "scientific thought" and "double blind studies" are only as impartial as whoever's paying for it. you don't have to look very far to find guys in white lab coats who will say whatever you pay for. remember cigarette "safety" studies? how bout vioxx? there's all kinds of stuff out there about nutra sweet. food companies are getting a free ride because of this attitude. they can poison us with impunity- and then just throw out the words "studies have shown", yadda yadda yadda. its gotten to the point where unless something catastrohic and way obvious happens these people can do anything they want to our food.

personally, I think its better to err on the safe side, especially when it comes to stuff i can do without.



http://This message has been edited by gebuh (edited Jun-06-2005).
<HR>
Guest
89. Jun 21, 2005 12:50 AM in response to: Cashmason
Re: Splenda.. safe or not?
great comeback dg, 10 points for 2000!!
quote:<HR>Originally posted by dg2000r:
I'd hardly say chemo or morphine are safe! They are desperate solutions to extreme problems and would do you far more harm than good in any other circumstance.

I didn't say I wouldn't use any thing unnatural either - I was merely saying it's naive to believe people when they tell you these things are 100% safe, as very few things are.
<HR>