Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Nutrition, Products & Supplements Info => Topic started by: boonstack on October 26, 2008, 09:02:52 AM
-
HOW can you drink this shit? Cola, dr. pepper, its like sugar water. Soft drinks HAVE to be the top 3 worst junk ever.
-
it's the worst atrocity ever committed against man by any company, absolute garbage.
-
HOW can you drink this shit? Cola, dr. pepper, its like sugar water. Soft drinks HAVE to be the top 3 worst junk ever.
They taste good but unless you drink diet soda they are complete waste of empty cals/sugar
-
They taste good but unless you drink diet soda they are complete waste of empty cals/sugar
More and more studies are out speaking against Diet sodas. They aren't much better, if at all, than regular sodas.
Stay away from any soda.
-
because it taste good? :D
-
i drink that stuff
i had a some yesterday along with beers samuel adams
-
i drink that stuff
i had a some yesterday along with beers samuel adams
Sam Adams FTW!!!!
-
yes good stuff
we were hitting the bars and a buddy of mine were buying me that stuff all night
-
when your thirsty, mountain dew rocks!
-
I drink diet. I've ben doing that for five years. You get used to the taste. No sugar, no guilt.
-
what does it have instead of sugar ? something even more dangerous i bet !
-
More and more studies are out speaking against Diet sodas. They aren't much better, if at all, than regular sodas.
Stay away from any soda.
hahah
zero calories + caffiene
diet soda is great
and if you dotn want the caffiene then get caffiene free or get things like diet rootbeer
-
+1 for diet soda
has zero effect on any results you are trying to get/maintain
-
+1 for diet soda
has zero effect on any results you are trying to get/maintain
it will help you gte lean !
negative calories ! (caffeiene content)
most "diet pills" are justa bunch of sources of caffiene
diet soda tastes good, and has caffeien... its a fat loss drink..
-
Why would you drink soft drinks?
It is just as pointless as eating cookies.
-
i never liked soft drinks
we call soft drinks "pop" in pittsburgh
E
-
I drink water
and beer and wine of course
-
It tastes good so i drink it
-
Soft drinks HAVE to be the top 3 worst junk ever.
Yes.
Just beating out the Holocaust and the genocide in Rwanda for the top spot.
(http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/Youre-Awseome/1/Win-Retard_Prize.jpg)
-
soda even diet soda is probably the number one thing making americans fat.
-
More and more studies are out speaking against Diet sodas. They aren't much better, if at all, than regular sodas.
Stay away from any soda.
Myth. Lie.
Diet Soda has no ill effects whatsoever according the the American Cancer Society, National Institute of Health, American Medical Association, Albert Einstein School of Medicine. I could go on, but you get the point.
STOP BELIEVING MYTHS AND LIES. Also, please learn to read between the lines of a study and how to ascertain the concrete points if indeed there are any.
-
soda even diet soda is probably the number one thing making americans fat.
Lie Myth.
Diet soda has ZERO CALORIES! ZERO!
You cannot get magically fat from ingesting zero calories. It would be equivalent to saying breathing air makes you fat.
-
Lie Myth.
Diet soda has ZERO CALORIES! ZERO!
You cannot get magically fat from ingesting zero calories. It would be equivalent to saying breathing air makes you fat.
it's the chemicals man ;D
-
it's the chemicals man ;D
Again,
There is ZERO evidence of anything being even remotely harmful.
-
Aspartame, Brain Cancer & the FDA Approval Process - 60 minutes
-
the truth about aspartame - Dr Russell Blaylock
-
Again,
There is ZERO evidence of anything being even remotely harmful.
Ignorant statement.
-
True Adonis, nice to see you bringing reality back to getbig, 0 calories cannot make you fat, how hard is that to understand. You are a genius among non geniuses here TA.
jt
-
Common Questions About Diet and Cancer
Developed by the American Cancer Society 2006 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee and approved by the American Cancer Society National Board of Directors on May 19, 2006.
This section is taken from the Complete Guide—Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention.
Because people are interested in the relationship that specific foods, nutrients, or lifestyle factors have to specific cancers, research on health behaviors and cancer risk is often reported on the news. No one study, however, provides the last word on any subject, and single news reports may put too much emphasis on what appear to be contradictory or conflicting results. In brief news stories, reporters cannot always put new research findings in their proper context. Therefore, it is rarely, if ever, advisable to change diet or activity levels based on a single study or news report. The following questions and answers address common concerns about diet and physical activity in relation to cancer.
Alcohol
Does alcohol increase cancer risk?
Yes. Alcohol raises the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx (throat), larynx (voice box), esophagus, liver, and breast, and probably of the colon and rectum. People who drink alcohol should limit their intake to no more than 2 drinks per day for men and 1 drink per day for women. A drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits. The combination of alcohol and tobacco increases the risk of some cancers far more than the effect of either drinking or smoking alone. Regular intake of even a few drinks per week is linked to a higher of breast cancer in women, especially in women who do not get enough folate. Women at high risk of breast cancer may want to consider not drinking any alcohol.
Antioxidants
What are antioxidants, and what do they have to do with cancer?
The body seems to use certain nutrients in vegetables and fruits to protect against damage to tissues that happens constantly as a result of normal metabolism (oxidation). Because such damage is linked with increased cancer risk, the so-called antioxidant nutrients are thought to protect against cancer. Antioxidants include vitamin C, vitamin E, carotenoids, and many other phytochemicals (chemicals from plants). Studies suggest that people who eat more vegetables and fruits, which are rich sources of antioxidants, may have a lower risk for some types of cancer. Clinical studies of antioxidant supplements are currently under way but have not yet proven to reduce cancer risk from vitamin or mineral supplements (also see entries for: beta-carotene, lycopene, vitamin E, supplements). To reduce cancer risk, the best advice at present is to get your antioxidants through food sources, rather than supplements.
Aspartame
Does aspartame cause cancer?
Aspartame is a low-calorie artificial sweetener that is about 200 times sweeter than sugar. Current evidence does not show any link between aspartame use and increased cancer risk. People with the genetic disorder known as phenylketonuria should avoid foods and drinks that contain aspartame.
Beta-carotene
Does beta-carotene reduce cancer risk?
Because beta-carotene, an antioxidant chemically related to vitamin A, is found in vegetables and fruits, and because eating vegetables and fruits is linked with a reduced risk of cancer, it seemed to make sense that taking high doses of beta-carotene supplements might reduce cancer risk. But the results of 3 major clinical trials show this is not the case. In 2 studies in which people were given high doses of beta-carotene supplements in an attempt to prevent lung cancer and other cancers, the supplements were found to increase the risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers, and a third found neither benefit nor harm from them. Therefore, eating vegetables and fruits that contain beta-carotene may be helpful, but high-dose beta-carotene supplements should be avoided.
Bioengineered foods
What are bioengineered foods, and are they safe?
Bioengineered foods are made by adding genes from other plants or organisms to make a plant more resistant to pests and slow spoilage. Some genes improve flavor, nutrient composition, or make the food easier to transport. In theory, these added genes might create substances that could cause harmful reactions among sensitized or allergic individuals. But there is no evidence at this time that the substances found in bioengineered foods now on the market are harmful or that they would either increase or decrease cancer risk because of the added genes.
Calcium
Is calcium related to cancer?
Several studies have suggested that foods high in calcium might help reduce the risk for colorectal cancer, and that using calcium supplements modestly reduces the formation of colorectal adenomas (polyps). But there is also evidence that a high calcium intake, mainly through supplements, is linked with increased risk for prostate cancer, especially for prostate cancers that are more aggressive. In light of this, both men and women should try to get the recommended levels of calcium, mainly from food sources. Recommended intake levels of calcium are 1,000 mg/day for people ages 19 to 50 years and 1,200 mg/day for people older than 50. Dairy products are excellent sources of calcium, as are some leafy vegetables and greens. People who get much of their calcium from dairy products should select low-fat or non-fat choices to reduce their intake of saturated fat.
Cholesterol
Does cholesterol in the diet increase cancer risk?
Cholesterol in the diet comes only from foods with animal sources -- meat, dairy products, eggs, and animal fats such as butter or lard. Although some of these foods (for example, processed and red meats) are linked with higher risk of certain cancers, at this time there is little evidence that this increased risk is specifically related to cholesterol. Lowering blood cholesterol reduces heart disease risk, but there is no evidence that lowering blood cholesterol affects cancer risk.
Coffee
Does drinking coffee cause cancer?
Caffeine may worsen symptoms of fibrocystic breast lumps (a type of benign breast disease) in some women, but there is no evidence that it increases the risk of breast cancer or other types of cancer. The link between coffee and cancer of the pancreas, which got a lot of attention in the past, has not been confirmed by recent studies. There does not appear to be any link between coffee drinking and cancer risk.
Fat
Will eating less fat lower cancer risk?
There is little evidence that the total amount of fat a person eats affects cancer risk. But diets high in fat tend to be high in calories and may contribute to obesity, which in turn is linked with an increased risk of several types of cancer. There is evidence that certain types of fats, such as saturated fats, may increase cancer risk. There is little evidence that other types of fat (omega-3 fatty acids, found mainly in fish), monounsaturated fatty acids (found in olive and canola oils), or other polyunsaturated fats reduce cancer risk.
Fiber
What is dietary fiber, and can it prevent cancer?
Dietary fiber includes a wide variety of plant carbohydrates that humans cannot digest. Specific categories of fiber are "soluble" (like oat bran) or "insoluble" (like wheat bran and cellulose). Soluble fiber helps to reduce blood cholesterol, which lowers the risk of coronary heart disease. Good sources of fiber are beans, vegetables, whole grains, and fruits. Links between fiber and cancer risk are weak, but eating these foods is still recommended. These foods contain other nutrients that may help reduce cancer risk and have other health benefits.
Fish
Does eating fish protect against cancer?
Fish is a rich source of omega-3 fatty acids. Studies in animals have found that these fatty acids suppress cancer formation or slow down cancer growth, but there is limited evidence of a possible benefit in humans.
While eating fish rich in omega-3 fatty acids is linked with a reduced risk of heart disease, some types of fish (large predatory fish such as swordfish, tilefish, shark, and king mackerel) may contain high levels of mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and other environmental pollutants. Women who are pregnant, breast-feeding, or planning to become pregnant, and young children should not eat these fish. People should vary the types of fish they eat to reduce the chance of exposure to toxins.
Research has not yet shown whether taking omega-3 or fish oil supplements produces the same possible benefits as eating fish. .
Fluorides
Do fluorides cause cancer?
Extensive research has looked at the effects of fluorides given as dental treatments or added to toothpaste, public water supplies, or foods on cancer risk. Fluorides have not been found to increase cancer risk.
Folate
What is folate, and can it prevent cancer?
Folate is a B vitamin found in many vegetables, beans, fruits, whole grains, and fortified breakfast cereals. Since 1998, all grain products in the United States have been fortified with folate. Too little folate may increase the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, and breast, especially in people who drink alcoholic beverages. Current evidence suggests that to reduce cancer risk, folate is best obtained by eating vegetables, fruits, and enriched grain products.
Food additives
Do food additives cause cancer?
Many substances are added to foods to preserve them and to enhance color, flavor, and texture. New additives must be cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before entering the food supply. Rigorous testing in animals to look for any effects on cancer is done as part of this process. Additives are usually present in very small quantities in food, and no convincing evidence has shown that any additive at these levels causes human cancers.
Garlic
Can garlic prevent cancer?
The health benefits of the allium compounds contained in garlic and other vegetables in the onion family have been publicized widely. Garlic is currently under study for its ability to reduce cancer risk. There is not enough evidence at this time to support a specific role for this vegetable in cancer prevention.
Genetics
If our genes determine cancer risk, how can diet help prevent cancer?
Damage to the genes that control cell growth can be either inherited or acquired during life. Certain types of mutations or genetic damage can increase the risk of cancer. Nutrients in the diet can protect DNA from being damaged. Physical activity, weight control, and diet might delay or prevent the development of cancer in people with an increased genetic risk for cancer. The interaction between diet and genetic factors is an important and complex topic, and a great deal of research is under way in this area.
Irradiated foods
Do irradiated foods cause cancer?
No. Radiation is used more often to kill harmful organisms on foods in order to extend their "shelf life." Radiation does not stay in the foods after treatment, and eating irradiated foods does not appear to increase cancer risk.
Lycopene
Will lycopene reduce cancer risk?
Lycopene is the red-orange carotene pigment found mainly in tomatoes and tomato-based foods and to a lesser extent in pink grapefruit and watermelon. Several studies have reported that intake of tomato products reduces the risk of some cancers, but whether lycopene is the nutrient responsible is uncertain. Even if lycopene in foods is linked with lower risk for cancer, it can't be concluded that high doses taken as supplements would be either more effective or safe.
Meat: cooking and preserving
Should I avoid processed meats?
Some studies have linked eating large amounts of processed meat to increased risk of colorectal and stomach cancers. This connection may or may not be due to nitrites, which are added to many luncheon meats, hams, and hot dogs to maintain color and to prevent bacterial growth. Eating processed meats and meats preserved by methods involving smoke or salt increases exposure to potential cancer-causing agents and should be reduced as much as possible.
-
How does cooking meat affect cancer risk?
Adequate cooking is required to kill harmful germs in meat. But some research suggests that frying, broiling, or grilling meats at very high temperatures forms chemicals that might increase cancer risk. Although these chemicals can damage DNA and cause cancer in animals, it is not clear how much they (as opposed to other substances in meat) may contribute to the increased colorectal cancer risk seen in people who eat large amounts of meat in some studies. Techniques such as braising, steaming, poaching, stewing, and microwaving meats produce fewer of these chemicals.
Obesity
Does being overweight increase cancer risk?
Yes. Being overweight or obese is linked with an increased risk of cancers of the breast (among women after menopause), colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, and possibly other sites as well. Although research on whether losing weight reduces cancer risk is limited, some research suggests that weight loss does reduce the risk of breast cancer. Because of other proven health benefits, people who are overweight are encouraged to lose weight. Avoiding excessive weight gain in adulthood is important not only to reduce cancer risk but also to reduce the risk of other chronic diseases.
Olive oil
Does olive oil affect cancer risk?
Intake of olive oil is linked with a reduced risk of heart disease, but is most likely neutral with respect to cancer risk. Although olive oil is a healthy alternative to butter and margarine, it is still a dense source of calories and should be used in moderation.
Organic foods
Are foods labeled "organic" more effective in lowering cancer risk?
The term organic is popularly used to designate plant foods grown without pesticides and genetic modifications. At this time, no research exists to demonstrate whether such foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk than are similar foods produced by other farming methods.
Pesticides and herbicides
Do pesticides in foods cause cancer?
Pesticides and herbicides can be toxic when used improperly in industrial, agricultural, or other occupational settings. Although vegetables and fruits sometimes contain low levels of these chemicals, overwhelming scientific evidence supports the overall health benefits and cancer-protective effects of eating vegetables and fruits. At present there is no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer, but fruits and vegetables should be washed thoroughly before eating.
Physical activity
Will increasing physical activity lower cancer risk?
Yes. People who engage in moderate to vigorous levels of physical activity are at a lower risk of developing colon and breast cancer than those who do not. Risk is lowered whether or not the activity affects the person's weight. Data for a direct effect on the risk of developing other cancers is more limited. Even so, obesity and being overweight have been linked to many types of cancer, and physical activity is a key factor in reaching or staying at a healthy body weight. In addition, physical activity has helpful effects against heart disease and diabetes.
Phytochemicals
What are phytochemicals, and do they reduce cancer risk?
The term phytochemicals refers to a wide variety of compounds made by plants. Some of these compounds protect plants against insects or perform other important functions. Some have either antioxidant or hormone-like actions both in plants and in the people who eat them. Because consuming vegetables and fruits reduces cancer risk, researchers are looking for specific compounds responsible for the helpful effects. At this time, no evidence has shown that phytochemicals taken as supplements are as good for you as the vegetables, fruits, beans, and grains from which they are extracted.
Saccharin
Does saccharin cause cancer?
No. In rats, high doses of the artificial sweetener saccharin can cause bladder stones to form that can lead to bladder cancer. But saccharin does not cause bladder stones to form in humans. Saccharin has been removed from the list of established human carcinogens by the US National Toxicology Program.
Salt
Do high levels of salt in the diet increase cancer risk?
Studies in other countries link diets that contain large amounts of foods preserved by salting and pickling with an increased risk of stomach, nasopharyngeal, and throat cancer. No evidence suggests that moderate levels of salt used in cooking or in flavoring foods affect cancer risk.
Selenium
What is selenium, and can it reduce cancer risk?
Selenium is a mineral that contributes to the body's antioxidant defense mechanisms. Animal studies suggest that selenium protects against cancer. One study has shown that selenium supplements might reduce the risk of lung, colon, and prostate cancer in humans. But repeated and well-controlled studies are needed to confirm whether selenium is helpful in preventing these cancers. High-dose selenium supplements are not recommended, as there is only a narrow margin between safe and toxic doses. The maximum dose in a supplement should not exceed 200 micrograms (this is 2/10th of a milligram) per day.
Soy products
Can soy-based foods reduce cancer risk?
Soy-derived foods are an excellent source of protein and a good alternative to meat. Soy contains several phytochemicals, some of which have weak estrogen activity and appear to protect against hormone-dependent cancers in animal studies. At this time there is little data showing that soy supplements can help reduce cancer risk. High doses of soy could possibly increase the risk of estrogen-responsive cancers, such as breast or endometrial cancer.
Women with breast cancer should take in only moderate amounts of soy foods as part of a healthy, plant-based diet. They should not ingest very high levels of soy in their diet or take concentrated sources of soy such as soy-containing pills or powders, or supplements containing high amounts of isoflavones.
Sugar
Does sugar increase cancer risk?
Sugar increases calorie intake without providing any of the nutrients that reduce cancer risk. By promoting obesity and elevating insulin levels, high sugar intake may indirectly increase cancer risk. White (refined) sugar is no different from brown (unrefined) sugar or honey with regard to their effects on body weight or insulin. Limiting foods such as cakes, candy, cookies, sweetened cereals, and high-sugar beverages such as soda can help reduce sugar intake.
Supplements
Can nutritional supplements lower cancer risk?
There is strong evidence that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and other plant-based foods may reduce the risk of cancer. But there is no proof at this time that supplements can reduce cancer risk. Some high-dose supplements may actually increase cancer risk.
Can I get the nutritional effects of vegetables and fruits in a pill?
No. Many healthful compounds are found in vegetables and fruits, and these compounds most likely work in together to produce their helpful effects. There are also likely to be important compounds in whole foods that are not included in supplements, even though these compounds have not been identified. The small amount of dried powder in the pills that are sold as being equivalent to vegetables and fruits often contains only a small fraction of the levels contained in the whole foods.
Food is the best source of vitamins and minerals. Supplements, however, may be helpful for some people, such as pregnant women, women of childbearing age, and people whose dietary intakes are restricted by allergies, food intolerances, or other problems. If a supplement is taken, the best choice is a balanced multivitamin/mineral supplement containing no more than 100% of the "Daily Value" of most nutrients.
Tea
Can drinking tea reduce cancer risk?
Some researchers have suggested that tea might protect against cancer because of its antioxidant content. In animal studies, some teas (including green tea) have been shown to reduce cancer risk, but findings from human population studies are mixed. At this time, tea has not been proven to reduce cancer risk in humans.
Trans-saturated fats
Do trans-saturated fats increase cancer risk?
Trans-saturated fats are made when oils such as margarines or shortenings are hydrogenated to make them solid at room temperature. Recent evidence shows that trans-fats raise blood cholesterol levels. Their relationship to cancer risk has not been determined, but people are advised to eat as few trans-fats as possible.
Vegetables and fruits
Will eating vegetables and fruits lower cancer risk?
In most of the studies looking at large groups of people, eating more vegetables and fruits has been linked to a lower risk of lung, oral, esophageal, stomach, and colon cancer. Because we don't know which of the many compounds in these foods are most helpful, the best advice is to eat 5 or more servings of an assortment of colorful vegetables and fruits each day. (This means at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables when added together, for instance, 4 servings of vegetables plus 1 serving of fruit.
What are cruciferous vegetables, and are they important in cancer prevention?
Cruciferous vegetables belong to the cabbage family and include broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, and kale. These vegetables contain certain compounds thought to reduce the risk for colorectal cancer. The best evidence suggests that eating a wide variety of vegetables, including cruciferous and other vegetables, reduces cancer risk.
Is there a difference in nutritional values among fresh, frozen, and canned vegetables and fruits?
Yes, but they can all be good choices. Fresh foods are usually thought to have the most nutritional value. But frozen foods can often be more nutritious than fresh foods because they are often picked ripe and quickly frozen (whereas fresh foods may lose some of their nutrients in the time between harvesting and eating). Canning is more likely to reduce the heat-sensitive and water-soluble nutrients because of the high heat that must be used. Be aware that some fruits are packed in heavy syrup, and some canned vegetables are high in sodium (salt). Choose vegetables and fruits in a variety of forms, and pay attention to the label information.
Does cooking affect the nutritional value of vegetables?
Boiling vegetables, especially for long periods, can leach out their content of water-soluble (B and C) vitamins. Microwaving and steaming are the best ways to preserve these nutrients in vegetables.
Should I be juicing my vegetables and fruits?
Juicing can add variety to the diet and can be a good way to consume vegetables and fruits, especially if chewing or swallowing is a problem. Juicing also helps the body absorb of some of the nutrients in vegetables and fruits. But juices may be less filling than whole vegetables and fruits and often contain less fiber. Fruit juice in particular can account for quite a few calories if large amounts are drunk. Commercially juiced products should be 100% vegetable or fruit juices. They should also be pasteurized to kill harmful germs.
Vegetarian diets
Do vegetarian diets reduce cancer risk?
Vegetarian diets include many healthful features. They tend to be low in saturated fats and high in fiber, vitamins, and phytochemicals. It is not possible to conclude at this time, however, that a vegetarian diet has any special benefits for the prevention of cancer. Diets including lean meats in small to moderate amounts can also be healthful. Strict vegetarian diets that avoid all animal products, including milk and eggs, should be supplemented with vitamin B12, zinc, and iron (especially for children and women after menopause).
Vitamin A
Does vitamin A lower cancer risk?
Vitamin A (retinol) is obtained from foods in 2 ways: it can be pre-formed from animal food sources (retinol) and made from beta-carotene in plant-based foods. Vitamin A is needed to maintain healthy tissues. Vitamin A supplements, whether in the form of beta-carotene or retinol, have not been shown to lower cancer risk, and high-dose supplements may, in fact, increase the risk for lung cancer in current and former smokers. And retinol can cause serious p roblems if too much is taken.
Vitamin C
Does vitamin C lower cancer risk?
Vitamin C is found in many vegetables and fruits, especially oranges, grapefruits, and peppers. Many studies have linked intake of foods rich in vitamin C to a reduced risk for cancer. But the few studies in which vitamin C has been given as a supplement have not shown a reduced risk for cancer.
Vitamin D
Does vitamin D lower cancer risk?
There is a growing body of evidence from studies that observie large groups of people (not yet tested in clinical trials) that vitamin D may have helpful effects on some types of cancer, including cancers of the colon, prostate, and breast. Vitamin D is obtained through skin exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation and through diet, particularly products fortified with vitamin D such as milk and cereals, and supplements. But many Americans do not get enough vitamin D.
The current national recommended levels of intake of vitamin D (200 to 600 IU per day) may not be enough to meet needs, especially among those with little sun exposure, the elderly, people with dark skin, and breastfed babies who only take in breast milk. More research is needed to define the best levels of intake and blood levels of vitamin D for cancer risk reduction, but recommended intake is likely to fall between 200 and 2,000 IU, depending on age and other factors. To reduce the health risks linked with UV radiation exposure while getting the most potential benefit from vitamin D, a balanced diet, supplementation, and limiting sun exposure to small amounts are the preferred methods of obtaining vitamin D.
Vitamin E
Does vitamin E lower cancer risk?
Alpha-tocopherol is the most active form of vitamin E and is a powerful antioxidant. In one study, male smokers who took alpha-tocopherol had a lower risk of prostate cancer compared with those who took a placebo. But several other studies have not found the same link. While studies now under way will help clarify this, the promise of alpha-tocopherol for reducing cancer risk appears to be dimming.
Water and other fluids
How much water and other fluids should I drink?
Drinking water and other liquids may reduce the risk of bladder cancer, as water dilutes the concentration of cancer-causing agents in the urine and shortens the time in which they are in contact with the bladder lining. Drinking at least 8 cups of liquid a day is usually recommended, and some studies show that even more may be helpful.
Revised: 03/19/2008
-
Soda-Cancer Link Revealed as Myth
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 05 January 2006 09:32 am ET
Despite what many may have heard, drinking soda does not increase the risk of developing esophageal cancer. In fact it might protect against it, a new study finds.
Cases of cancer affecting the esophagus, the muscular tube linking the mouth and stomach, in the United States have more than tripled since the 1970s. And in the past 50 years, Americans have increased their annual consumption of carbonated soft drinks nearly five-fold, from 10.8 gallons in 1946 to a whopping 42.2 gallons in 2000.
The two trends are strongly correlated and in 2004, Indian researchers suggested they might be linked. But as any scientist will tell you, apparent correlations do not necessarily mean connections.
The idea of a link between drinking too much soda and developing cancer is rooted on biological logic, however. Carbonated soft drinks are known to cause gastric distension that might affect the lower part of the esophagus. They have also been associated with nighttime heartburn, a known risk factor for a type of esophageal cancer known as esophageal carcinoma.
The new study is the first to actually test the hypothesis.
Susan Mayne, a cancer epidemiologist at the Yale University School of medicine, and colleagues studied 1,095 cancer patients and compared them to 687 healthy control subjects. They conducted full dietary interviews and compiled data on how much regular and diet soda each subject drank.
The researchers found that soda drinkers were actually less likely to develop esophageal carcinoma. Furthermore, when the researchers separated subjects who drank mostly regular soda versus diet soda, they found that the latter group had a 53 percent lower risk of developing the cancer.
The researchers warned against chugging diet soda as a ward against cancer, however, since it carries its own health risks, such as damaging tooth enamel.
The study was detailed in the Jan. 4 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
-
information overload >:( whats the point? you have a tendency to do this
listen to those videos I posted
-
information overload >:( whats the point? you have a tendency to do this
listen to those videos I posted
Your videos are complete myth and garbage and not credible whatsoever. They contain ZERO science and fact. Nothing is peer reviewed or even remotely credible.
Here is some more info:
Artificial sweetener cleared of cancer link
Major study finds people who drink lots of diet soda don't face higher risk
updated 6:48 p.m. ET, Thurs., May. 11, 2006
WASHINGTON - A huge federal study in people — not rats — takes the fizz out of arguments that the diet soda sweetener aspartame might raise the risk of cancer.
No increased risk was seen even among people who gulped down many artificially sweetened drinks a day, said researchers who studied the diets of more than half a million older Americans.
A consumer group praised the study, done by reputable researchers independent of any funding or ties to industry groups.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
"It goes a fair way toward allaying concerns about aspartame," said Michael Jacobson, head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which had urged the government to review the sweetener's safety after a troubling rat study last year.
Findings were reported Tuesday at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Aspartame came on the market 25 years ago and is found in thousands of products — sodas, chewing gum, dairy products and even many medicines. NutraSweet and Equal are popular brands.
Research in the 1970s linked a different sweetener, saccharin, to bladder cancer in lab rats. Although the mechanism by which this occurred does not apply to people and no human risk was ever documented, worries about sugar substitutes in general have persisted.
They worsened after Italian researchers last year reported results of the largest animal study ever done on aspartame, involving 1,800 lab rats. Females developed more lymphomas and leukemias on aspartame than those not fed the sweetener.
Large government study
The new study, by scientists at the National Cancer Institute, involved 340,045 men and 226,945 women, ages 50 to 69, participating in a research project by the National Institutes of Health and AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons.
From surveys they filled out in 1995 and 1996 detailing food and beverage consumption, researchers calculated how much aspartame they consumed, especially from sodas or from adding the sweetener to coffee or tea.
Over the next five years, 2,106 developed blood-related cancers such as lymphoma or leukemia, and 376 developed brain tumors. No link was found to aspartame consumption for these cancers in general or for specific types, said Unhee Lim, who reported the study's findings.
Results 'very reassuring'
The dietary information was collected before the cancers developed, removing the possibility of "memory bias" — faulty recollection influenced by knowing you have a disease.
"It's very reassuring. It's a large study with a lot of power," said Richard Adamson, a senior science consultant to the American Beverage Association, the leading industry group.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest still warns about one potential hazard of aspartame use: thinking that calories "saved" from using a sugar substitute justify "spending" more on unhealthy foods.
"Drinking a diet soda at lunch does not mean it's okay to have a larger dessert at dinner," the group's Web site warns.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
the truth about aspartame - Dr Russell Blaylock
ROFLMAO Russle Blaylock.
You DO know that his income is made from selling his online newsletter from www.drudgereport.com, newsmax.com and other conservative sites wear it is very easy to blind the visitors of those sites into fear. How do I know this? I can give you a free password to The Blaylock Report if you like.
He is a well known conservative fear monger and totally light on the science. C
-
ROFLMAO Russle Blaylock.
You DO know that his income is made from selling his online newsletter from www.drudgereport.com, newsmax and other conservative sites wear it is very easy to blind the visitors of those sites into fear. How do I know this? I can give you a free password to The Blaylock Report if you like.
He is a well known conservative fear monger and totally light on the science. C
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
-
lol no thanks on the free pass
I would rather consume regular sugar than artificial sweeteners
-
TA,
And you know I wouldn't lie... Aspartame is neurotoxic to around 10% people. I can't take too much of it without getting all messed up and moody as hell. The amount of people it actually affects is pretty minimal but if you know any diet soda drinkers with moods all over the place, have them cut the aspartame for two weeks and you'd be amazed at how much their mood evens out. This would only apply to people not taking anything else for moods.
I don't have PubMed access here to look it up. If I remember, and you're interested, I'll try copying the articles sometime when in the hospital.
-
Again,
There is ZERO evidence of anything being even remotely harmful.
yes, all the artidicial chemicals we now use and ingest have no effect on health, the dramatic increase in cancer and other diseases since we started using and consuming all these chemicals have no connection. keep deluding yourself into believing ingesting chemicals like aspartame or splenda has no negative health effects
-
TA,
And you know I wouldn't lie... Aspartame is neurotoxic to around 10% people. I can't take too much of it without getting all messed up and moody as hell. The amount of people it actually affects is pretty minimal but if you know any diet soda drinkers with moods all over the place, have them cut the aspartame for two weeks and you'd be amazed at how much their mood evens out. This would only apply to people not taking anything else for moods.
I don't have PubMed access here to look it up. If I remember, and you're interested, I'll try copying the articles sometime when in the hospital.
it doesnt matter if its neurotoxic to 10% of people or 0%, its an unnatural chemical that should not and is not intended to be consumed by any living being.
when i drink any artificial sweetener i notice flushing of the skin.
-
yes, all the artidicial chemicals we now use and ingest have no effect on health, the dramatic increase in cancer and other diseases since we started using and consuming all these chemicals have no connection. keep deluding yourself into believing ingesting chemicals like aspartame or splenda has no negative health effects
Find me ONE peer reviewed study or article that proves your claim. They don`t exist. STOP SPREADING DISINFORMATION!
-
it doesnt matter if its neurotoxic to 10% of people or 0%, its an unnatural chemical that should not and is not intended to be consumed by any living being.
when i drink any artificial sweetener i notice flushing of the skin.
All of the "chemicals" in a diet soda can be found or made in the body.
-
No Cancer, Seizure, Obesity, Birth Defect Risk Seen in Aspartame Studies
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Sept. 11, 2007 – An expert panel says it's confident there's no health risk from aspartame -- the artificial sweetener used in thousands of food products.
"We conclude aspartame is very safe," panel coordinator Bernadene Magnuson, PhD, assistant professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Maryland, said at a news conference.
Aspartame is found in the low-calorie sweetener Equal and in many other sugar-free products under the brand name NutraSweet. It is the second best-selling nonsugar sweetener in the world.
Just last June, an Italian research group led by Morando Soffritti, MD, issued a warning that aspartame causes cancer in rats. As it did when the Soffritti group issued its first report, the CSPI petitioned the FDA to investigate aspartame. The FDA has declined to act.
Now the Burdock panel has reviewed every existing animal and human study of aspartame -- including a detailed analysis of the Italian group's findings. It finds many flaws in the Soffritti group's work.
"The [Soffritti] study had numerous methodological and interpretation errors," Magnuson said. "It provided no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic."
Jacobson admits the study had flaws but says it raised nagging questions the panel dismissed, but did not answer.
Over the years, there have been suggestions that aspartame might cause brain tumors, brain damage, birth defects, headaches, and impaired cognitive function. The panel found no convincing evidence linking aspartame to these or other human health issues.
"The panel concludes aspartame is a well-characterized, high-intensity sweetener, thoroughly studied, with a long history of safe use in the food supply," Magnuson said. "We found no effect on cancer or neuronal function. Overall, we thought aspartame could reduce the caloric content of a wide variety of foods."
The panel's 100-page report appears in the September issue of Critical Reviews in Toxicology.
-
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
Good info here TA and shows how basic food is the deal.
how goes your training?
Howard
-
Find me ONE peer reviewed study or article that proves your claim. They don`t exist. STOP SPREADING DISINFORMATION!
i understand your point, but i dont need to provide any sources to 'prove' my claim.
aspartame/splenda is not the end all be all when it comes to damaging the health of people today and causing the dramatic increase in cancers and other diseases.
there are SO MANY reasons, and it all boils down unnatural/artificial things.
household cleaners
ingredients in food like artificial sweeteners, msg, pesticides,GMO foods, etc.
shampoo, soap, toothpaste, tap water.
OTC drugs
unnecessary prescription drugs
pollution
etc.
it is ALL these unnatural artificial chemicals people are exposed to and expose themselves to in todays worldthat leads to our ridiculous and unnecessarily high rates of diseases as well as deterioration of health and quality of life.
you want to be healthy and greatly reduce your risk of disease? stay away from chemicals. live a natural lifestyle, use natural products and consume natural products.
period.
you can live a life full of chemicals for all you want but i prefer to be healthy.
-
Good info here TA and shows how basic food is the deal.
how goes your training?
Howard
Yah. Its one myth that I wish would die. It has spread so long (since 1998 as you can see) that it has been ingrained in a lot of people`s heads and the facts have been totally left out. People always have a natural proclivity to choose fear and danger over reason and factual evidence. This is evolutionary in nature actually for survival. Human fear will always win out even in the face of bold and reliable factual evidence as fear is attuned to preservation and the avoidance of danger.
Watch here, even after I can prove that their fears are based on lies and non-facts and myths, they will still go on believing that diet sodas are harmful. It is so ingrained that it takes not only a mountain of evidence (even compared to their mole-hill of lies), and nearly a miracle for them to be set straight. I find this human behavioral phenomenon intriguing.
My training goes well by the way!
-
The nutri sweet myth stared years ago when a girl who has PKU a brain swelling disease from consumption of the ammino acid phenly alynine (sp?)
Nutri sweet or aspartame is a combo of 3 amino acid that make a sweeter aporx 2000 x greater the tabel sugar so you don't need much to have something taste sweet. One of the amino acids in nutri sweet is the branch chained AA phenyl alynine. Unless you have PKU it causes no dangers so TA is correct here.
-
Try Coffee and Green Tea both Great.
-
Yah. Its one myth that I wish would die. It has spread so long (since 1998 as you can see) that it has been ingrained in a lot of people`s heads and the facts have been totally left out. People always have a natural proclivity to choose fear and danger over reason and factual evidence. This is evolutionary in nature actually for survival. Human fear will always win out even in the face of bold and reliable factual evidence as fear is attuned to preservation and the avoidance of danger.
Watch here, even after I can prove that their fears are based on lies and non-facts and myths, they will still go on believing that diet sodas are harmful. It is so ingrained that it takes not only a mountain of evidence (even compared to their mole-hill of lies), and nearly a miracle for them to be set straight. I find this human behavioral phenomenon intriguing.
My training goes well by the way!
I know I tell my cllasses about this myth every yr. Read my last post which summed up your posted info.
You know TA we got into it here at get big in the past over some pretty dumb stuff that got out of hand.
You seem to be a really intelligent guy and stay lean year round.
I need to be leaner, but what can I say hehe.
Good luck, Howard in ga
-
i understand your point, but i dont need to provide any sources to 'prove' my claim.
aspartame/splenda is not the end all be all when it comes to damaging the health of people today and causing the dramatic increase in cancers and other diseases.
there are SO MANY reasons, and it all boils down unnatural/artificial things.
household cleaners
ingredients in food like artificial sweeteners, msg, pesticides,GMO foods, etc.
shampoo, soap, toothpaste, tap water.
OTC drugs
unnecessary prescription drugs
pollution
etc.
it is ALL these unnatural artificial chemicals people are exposed to and expose themselves to in todays worldthat leads to our ridiculous and unnecessarily high rates of diseases as well as deterioration of health and quality of life.
you want to be healthy and greatly reduce your risk of disease? stay away from chemicals. live a natural lifestyle, use natural products and consume natural products.
period.
you can live a life full of chemicals for all you want but i prefer to be healthy.
You do realize that tobacco is all natural. ;D
Seriously, there are MANY MANY harmful things in nature that can and will favor the genes that cause cancer. Cancer works like this. You are born with the genetic information that can lead to cancerous cells it is not something you just catch. It is already in your DNA. Triggering it is what we want to avoid. Nothing "causes" cancer per`se but certain things can trigger the latent DNA, both natural and unnatural. There are many nature made elements that cause cancer.
Many dogs develop cancer due to solely genetics. Same with people. It is unavoidable in some cases.
Obesity is probably one of THE NUMBER ONE CAUSES of triggering cancer. Most people on this site are obese so they should be concerned. You can eat all natural all you want, but if you get obese in doing so, you are at A HUGE RISK OF CANCER!
-
To get leaner try eating clean for 3mths.Way too much eating crap goes on in BB. ::)
-
Went to PubMed and found that most of the peer reviewed articles had no concrete problems with aspartame. The only 'bad' studies were with knockout mice and talking about Leptin or substance Y.
For the general population, Aspartame represents no risk. That being said, there's too much incidental information and bad personal experiences for it to be in my diet.
-
# What causes obesity?
Experts have concluded that the chief causes of obesity are a sedentary lifestyle and overconsumption of high-calorie food (4):
* Sedentary lifestyle—Researchers have found a strong correlation between lack of physical activity and obesity (4, 5).
* Diet—A diet high in calories and/or fat appears to be an important factor in obesity (6).
# What have scientists learned about the relationship between obesity and cancer?
In 2001, experts concluded that cancers of the colon, breast (postmenopausal), endometrium (the lining of the uterus), kidney, and esophagus are associated with obesity. Some studies have also reported links between obesity and cancers of the gallbladder, ovaries, and pancreas (4).
Obesity and physical inactivity may account for 25 to 30 percent of several major cancers—colon, breast (postmenopausal), endometrial, kidney, and cancer of the esophagus (4).
Preventing weight gain can reduce the risk of many cancers. Experts recommend that people establish habits of healthy eating and physical activity early in life to prevent overweight and obesity. Those who are already overweight or obese are advised to avoid additional weight gain, and to lose weight through a low-calorie diet and exercise. Even a weight loss of only 5 to 10 percent of total weight can provide health benefits (4).
# How many people get cancer by being overweight or obese? How many die?
In 2002, about 41,000 new cases of cancer in the United States were estimated to be due to obesity. This means that about 3.2 percent of all new cancers are linked to obesity (7).
A recent report estimated that, in the United States, 14 percent of deaths from cancer in men and 20 percent of deaths in women were due to overweight and obesity (8).
# Does obesity increase the risk of breast cancer?
The effect of obesity on breast cancer risk depends on a woman’s menopausal status. Before menopause, obese women have a lower risk of developing breast cancer than do women of a healthy weight (4, 9, 10, 11, 12). However, after menopause, obese women have 1.5 times the risk of women of a healthy weight (9, 10, 13, 14).
Obese women are also at increased risk of dying from breast cancer after menopause compared with lean women (4, 11, 15, 16). Scientists estimate that about 11,000 to 18,000 deaths per year from breast cancer in U.S. women over age 50 might be avoided if women could maintain a BMI under 25 throughout their adult lives (16).
Obesity seems to increase the risk of breast cancer only among postmenopausal women who do not use menopausal hormones. Among women who use menopausal hormones, there is no significant difference in breast cancer risk between obese women and women of a healthy weight (4, 9, 11, 17).
Both the increased risk of developing breast cancer and dying from it after menopause are believed to be due to increased levels of estrogen in obese women (18). Before menopause, the ovaries are the primary source of estrogen. However, estrogen is also produced in fat tissue and, after menopause, when the ovaries stop producing hormones, fat tissue becomes the most important estrogen source (14). Estrogen levels in postmenopausal women are 50 to 100 percent higher among heavy versus lean women (11). Estrogen-sensitive tissues are therefore exposed to more estrogen stimulation in heavy women, leading to a more rapid growth of estrogen-responsive breast tumors.
Another factor related to the higher breast cancer death rates in obese women is that breast cancer is more likely to be detected at a later stage in obese women than in lean women. This is because the detection of a breast tumor is more difficult in obese versus lean women (12).
Studies of obesity and breast cancer in minority women in the United States have been limited. There is some evidence that, among African American women, the risk associated with obesity may be absent or less than that of other populations (19, 20, 21). However, a recent report showed that African American women who have a high BMI are more likely to have an advanced stage of breast cancer at diagnosis (22). Another report showed that obese Hispanic white women were twice as likely to develop breast cancer as non-obese Hispanics, but the researchers did not detect a difference in risk for obese Hispanic women before and after menopause (23).
Weight gain during adulthood has been found to be the most consistent and strongest predictor of breast cancer risk in studies in which it has been examined (4, 10, 11, 24).
The distribution of body fat may also affect breast cancer risk. Women with a large amount of abdominal fat have a greater breast cancer risk than those whose fat is distributed over the hips, buttocks, and lower extremities (13, 25, 26). Results from studies on the effect of abdominal fat are much less consistent than studies on weight gain or BMI.
# Does obesity increase the risk of cancer of the uterus?
Obesity has been consistently associated with uterine (endometrial) cancer. Obese women have two to four times greater risk of developing the disease than do women of a healthy weight, regardless of menopausal status (4, 27, 28, 29, 30). Increased risk has also been demonstrated among overweight women (28, 30). Obesity has been estimated to account for about 40 percent of endometrial cancer cases in affluent societies (31).
It is unclear why obesity is a risk factor for endometrial cancer; however, it has been suggested that lifetime exposure to hormones and high levels of estrogen and insulin in obese women may be contributing factors (4, 27, 28, 29, 32).
# Does obesity increase the risk of colon cancer?
Colon cancer occurs more frequently in people who are obese than in those of a healthy weight (4, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37). An increased risk of colon cancer has been consistently reported for men with high BMIs (34, 37, 38). The relationship between BMI and risk in women, however, has been found to be weaker (4, 34, 38) or absent (39).
Unlike for breast and endometrial cancer, estrogen appears to be protective for colon cancer for women overall (40). However, obesity and estrogen status also interact in influencing colon cancer risk. Women with a high BMI who are either premenopausal or postmenopausal and taking estrogens have an increased risk of colon cancer similar to that found for men with a high BMI. In contrast, women with a high BMI who are postmenopausal and not taking estrogens do not have an increased risk of colon cancer (41).
There is some evidence that abdominal obesity may be more important in colon cancer risk (37, 38). In men, a high BMI tends to be associated with abdominal fat. In women, fat is more likely to be distributed in the hips, thighs, and buttocks. Thus, two measures of abdominal fat, waist-to-hip ratio or waist circumference, may be better predictors of colon cancer risk. Few studies have yet compared waist-to-hip ratios to colon cancer risk in women, however. One study that did find an increased risk of colon cancer among women with high waist-to-hip ratios found that the association was present only among inactive women, suggesting that high levels of physical activity may counteract the effects of increased abdominal fat (42).
A number of mechanisms have been proposed for the adverse effect of obesity on colon cancer risk. One of the major hypotheses is that high levels of insulin or insulin-related growth factors in obese people may promote tumor development (4, 43, 44).
# Does obesity increase the risk of kidney cancer?
Studies have consistently found a link between a type of kidney cancer (renal cell carcinoma) and obesity in women (4, 30, 45, 46, 47, 48), with some studies finding risk among obese women to be two to four times the risk of women of a healthy weight.
Results of studies including men have been more variable, ranging from an association similar to that seen in women (30, 46, 49), to a weak association (48, 50, 51), to no association at all (45). A meta-analysis (where several studies are combined into a single report), which found an equal association of risk among men and women, estimated the kidney cancer risk to be 36 percent higher for an overweight person and 84 percent higher for an obese person compared to those with a healthy weight (52).
The mechanisms by which obesity may increase renal cell cancer risk are not well understood. An increased exposure to sex steroids, estrogen and androgen, is one possible mechanism (4).
# Does obesity increase the risk of cancer of the esophagus or stomach?
Overweight and obese individuals are two times more likely than healthy weight people to develop a type of esophageal cancer called esophageal adenocarcinoma (4, 53, 54, 55, 56). A smaller increase in risk has been found for gastric cardia cancer, a type of stomach cancer that begins in the area of the stomach next to the esophagus (54, 55, 56, 57). Most studies have not observed increases in risk with obesity in another type of esophageal cancer, squamous cell cancer. An increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma has also been associated with weight gain, smoking, and being younger than age 59 (54, 57).
The mechanisms by which obesity increases risk of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia are not well understood. One of the leading mechanisms proposed has been that increases in gastric reflux due to obesity may increase risk. However, in the few studies that have examined this issue, risk associated with BMI was similar for those with and without gastric reflux (56).
# Does obesity increase the risk of prostate cancer?
Of the more than 35 studies on prostate cancer risk, most conclude that there is no association with obesity (4, 44, 58, 59, 60). Some report that obese men are at higher risk than men of healthy weight, particularly for more aggressive tumors (61, 62, 63). One study found an increased risk among men with high waist-to-hip ratios, suggesting that abdominal fat may be a more appropriate measure of body size in relation to prostate cancer (64).
Studies examining BMI and prostate cancer mortality have had conflicting results (8, 65, 66).
Despite the lack of association between obesity and prostate cancer incidence, a number of studies have examined potential biological factors that are related to obesity, such as insulin-related growth factors, leptin, and other hormones. Results of these studies are inconsistent, but generally, risk has been linked to men with higher levels of leptin (67), insulin (68), and IGF–1 (insulin-like growth factor-1) (69).
# Is there any evidence that obesity is linked to cancer of the gallbladder, ovaries, or pancreas?
An increased risk of gallbladder cancer has been found to be associated with obesity, particularly among women (70, 71, 72). This may be due to the higher frequency of gallstones in obese individuals, as gallstones are considered a strong risk factor for gallbladder cancer. However, there is not enough evidence to draw firm conclusions.
It is unclear whether obesity affects ovarian cancer risk. Some studies report an increased risk among obese women (73, 74, 75), whereas others have found no association (76, 77). A recent report found an increased risk in women who were overweight or obese in adolescence or young adulthood; no increased risk was found in older obese women (78).
Studies evaluating the relationship between obesity and pancreatic cancer have been inconsistent (79, 80, 81, 82). One recent study found that obesity increases the risk of pancreatic cancer only among those who are not physically active (80). A recent meta-analysis reported that obese people may have a 19 percent higher risk of pancreatic cancer than those with a healthy BMI. The results, however, were not conclusive (83).
-
TA would you rather consume artificial sweeteners than sugar?
-
TA would you rather consume artificial sweeteners than sugar?
i would. splenda tastes much better than sugar if you use equal amounts. its sweetness absoutely kills sugar.
-
TA would you rather consume artificial sweeteners than sugar?
Depends on two things:
My calorie amount and the type of food.
I will NEVER drink regular soda as it is pointless and a waste of calories. I drink a lot of diet sodas and if I drink 6-12 a day, I certainly would not want to waste the calories drinking regular. I will stick with zero version.
When I cook, I NEVER use artificial sweeteners as they do not bake well or taste as good. The quality is just not there and it can throw off the taste of something completely. Also, they do not bake well at all. I NEVER use them in cooking.
Now if I am eating something that doesn`t really require cooking, such as a grapefruit, I will use a little splenda as it is not necessary to have sugar in that instance. I figure I will save the calories.
Now, If I am not watching my calories, It really does not matter which I will use.
I will NEVER waste calories on regular soda though. That is just silly.
-
i would. splenda tastes much better than sugar if you use equal amounts. its sweetness absoutely kills sugar.
Horrible for cooking. I would NEVER use it when making a recipe of anything.
-
iol Psychiatry. 1993 Jul 1-15;34(1-2):13-7. Links
Comment in:
Biol Psychiatry. 1994 Aug 1;36(3):206-7.
Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population.
Walton RG, Hudak R, Green-Waite RJ.
Department of Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Youngstown.
This study was designed to ascertain whether individuals with mood disorders are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of aspartame. Although the protocol required the recruitment of 40 patients with unipolar depression and a similar number of individuals without a psychiatric history, the project was halted by the Institutional Review Board after a total of 13 individuals had completed the study because of the severity of reactions within the group of patients with a history of depression. In a crossover design, subjects received aspartame 30 mg/kg/day or placebo for 7 days. Despite the small n, there was a significant difference between aspartame and placebo in number and severity of symptoms for patients with a history of depression, whereas for individuals without such a history there was not. We conclude that individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener and its use in this population should be discouraged.
-
Horrible for cooking. I would NEVER use it when making a recipe of anything.
never tried cooking with it, just using a whole shit load of it on oatmeal. i also used it on popcorn once before too and that was hellla good.
-
iol Psychiatry. 1993 Jul 1-15;34(1-2):13-7. Links
Comment in:
Biol Psychiatry. 1994 Aug 1;36(3):206-7.
Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population.
Walton RG, Hudak R, Green-Waite RJ.
Department of Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Youngstown.
This study was designed to ascertain whether individuals with mood disorders are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of aspartame. Although the protocol required the recruitment of 40 patients with unipolar depression and a similar number of individuals without a psychiatric history, the project was halted by the Institutional Review Board after a total of 13 individuals had completed the study because of the severity of reactions within the group of patients with a history of depression. In a crossover design, subjects received aspartame 30 mg/kg/day or placebo for 7 days. Despite the small n, there was a significant difference between aspartame and placebo in number and severity of symptoms for patients with a history of depression, whereas for individuals without such a history there was not. We conclude that individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener and its use in this population should be discouraged.
FDA's Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of aspartame is 50 mg per kilogram of body weight or about 3,750 mg (21 cans of diet soda) for an adult weighing 75 kilograms (165 lb). ADI is the amount of substance (e.g., food additive) like aspartame that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk to a person on the basis of all the known facts at the time of the evaluation.
-
For reference.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA
From The National Cancer Institute:
Aspartame and Cancer: Questions and Answers
Key Points
* A study of about half a million people, published in 2006, compared people who drank aspartame-containing beverages with those who did not. Results of the study showed that increasing levels of consumption were not associated with any risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or brain cancers in men or women. (Question 2)
* Researchers examined the relationship between aspartame intake and 1,888 lymphomas or leukemias and 315 malignant brain cancers among the participants of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study from 1995 until 2000. Development of these cancers was not associated with estimated aspartame consumption, refuting a recent animal study with positive findings for lymphomas and leukemias and also contradicting claims regarding brain cancer risk. (Questions 3 and 8)
1. Why was an aspartame study initiated?
Researchers* from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiated this research because an earlier study showed that female rats fed the artificial sweetener aspartame developed more lymphomas and leukemias than rats that received no aspartame in their feed (Soffritti et al. 2005; Soffritti et al. 2006). The risk of cancer in that study grew with the increased amount of aspartame given to the rats. Some of the dosages may have been relevant to human intake (as low as 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, which would be equivalent to a 165- pound person consuming about eight cans of diet soda).
Other questions regarding the safety of aspartame were raised by a 1996 report (Olney et al. 1996) suggesting that an increase in the number of people with brain tumors between 1975 and 1992 might be associated with the introduction and use of this sweetener in the United States. However, this report was later criticized by the scientific community for committing "ecological fallacy" (Ross 1998). Ecological fallacy refers to making a wrong conclusion about cause and effect in one person based on collection of data from a group of people; i.e., relating two things that happen at the same time, such as aspartame use and an increase in the number of brain cancer cases seen in a population, without examining whether individuals who consume aspartame also develop brain cancer.
2. What did the researchers find in this current study?
Researchers examined the consumption of aspartame-containing beverages among the participants of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study and reported that, in a comparison of people who drank aspartame-containing beverages with those who did not, increasing levels of consumption were not associated with an increased risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or brain cancers in men or women.
An increase in cancer risk was not found for the main subtypes of lymphoid cancers (Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma), non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes (including small lymphocytic lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, immunoblastic lymphoma and lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukemia), or non-lymphoid leukemias.
3. How was the study done?
NCI researchers examined data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study to investigate questions about aspartame and risk for lymphoma, leukemia, and brain cancers. The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study is an observational study where people provide information on a questionnaire about their recent intake of various foods and then are followed up for subsequent development of cancer. Specifically, about half a million AARP members (285,079 men and 188,905 women) who were 50 to 71 years old and living in eight study areas across the U.S. were given a questionnaire in 1995 and 1996. The participants were followed until the end of 2000 by linkage of their records with cancer registries that track the occurrence of new cancers.
The questionnaire inquired about consumption frequency and diet drink-type preference for three potentially aspartame-containing beverages (soda, fruit drinks, and iced tea), as well as aspartame added to coffee and hot tea. The researchers then computed daily consumption of aspartame, taking into account aspartame content, portion size, and consumption frequency of each beverage. The estimated aspartame intake was next compared with the occurrence of 1,888 lymphomas or leukemias and 315 malignant brain cancers to see if there was any correlation between intake and cancer.
4. What is the significance of the current study?
As the largest study of diet and cancer to date in the U.S., the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study allowed researchers to examine even relatively rare cancers and their subtypes. The information on people's food consumption was collected at the beginning of the study and before anyone was diagnosed with cancer. This particular study design makes the findings more reliable because it reduces the chance that cancer patients remember their beverage consumption differently or report any changes after diagnosis.
Although this is how epidemiologic studies typically determine the relationship between diet and diseases, aspartame estimated this way may or may not reflect lifetime consumption. Also, most diet beverage consumers in the study drank moderate amounts of aspartame, ranging from none to 3400 mg daily -- and on average 200 mg daily -- which is a little over a can of diet soda. While this moderate consumption is reflective of the average consumption in the U.S., these findings limit any conclusions about cancer risk in people who consume very high amounts of aspartame.
5. Does the general population drink as much diet soda as the study participants?
The participants of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study were recruited from six states and two metropolitan areas around the U.S. that have highly reliable cancer registry data. Thus, the study participants are a good sample of older adults in the U.S. The study questionnaire included questions to identify consumers of diet beverages and aspartame users for coffee and hot tea, which is information rarely available in most large population studies. The average aspartame consumption among diet beverage consumers in the study was about 200 mg per day, which is similar to a survey of U.S. consumers done by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
6. Were there differences in the relationship between aspartame and cancer by racial group, ethnicity, age, or gender?
Researchers examined the relationship between aspartame and lymphoma, leukemia, and malignant brain cancers by different races and age groups and also in men and women separately, and found no difference from the overall finding. However, it should be noted that the study included older adults who were mostly whites.
7. Do animal studies of aspartame show the same results as human studies?
The NIH-AARP study findings match those of previous animal studies by the FDA and coincide with the conclusion of an earlier study on childhood brain cancers (Gurney et al. 1997).
Shortly before this most recent study of aspartame and cancer was published, the European Food Safety Authority reviewed the recent animal data and urged caution when interpreting results (The European Food Safety Authority 2006): "The increased incidence of lymphomas/leukemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, given the high background incidence of chronic inflammatory changes in the lungs and the lack of a positive dose-response relationship."
8. What are some facts about aspartame?
* Aspartame, distributed under several trade names (e.g., NutraSweet® and Equal®), was approved in 1981 by the FDA after numerous tests showed that it did not cause cancer or other adverse effects in laboratory animals (Council on Scientific Affairs 1985; Flamm 1997; Koestner 1997).
* In the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, aspartame consumption ranged from 0 to 3400 mg per day (about 19 cans of soda at the high end; however, the upper limit is not absolute because investigators asked multiple-choice questions on frequency and the highest option was "6-plus times a day"). There are 180 mg of aspartame in a 12 ounce can of diet soda.
* The highest aspartame category in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study was "600 mg and above per day," or about three or more cans of diet soda; researchers also examined higher categories (more than 1200 mg per day or 2000 mg per day, which is equivalent to approximately seven to 11 cans of soft drinks daily) with fewer people and found similar results of no elevated risk.
* FDA's Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of aspartame is 50 mg per kilogram of body weight or about 3,750 mg (21 cans of diet soda) for an adult weighing 75 kilograms (165 lb). ADI is the amount of substance (e.g., food additive) like aspartame that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk to a person on the basis of all the known facts at the time of the evaluation.
* The average aspartame consumption among diet beverage consumers in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study was 200 mg per day, or about 7 percent of the ADI, which is the same as a survey of U.S. consumers done by the FDA.
* An animal study that fed 0, 4, 20, 100, 500, 2500, and 5000 mg per kilogram of body weight of aspartame to rats saw lymphoma/leukemia increase in female rats, starting from about twice the risk with 20 mg per kilogram of body weight (a person weighing 75 kilograms or 165 lbs, consuming 1500 mg aspartame, or about 8 cans of diet soda) compared with a control group that was not fed aspartame.
###
For more information about cancer, please visit the NCI Web site at http://www.cancer.gov or call NCI's Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237).
More information about aspartame can be found in the FDA Statement on Aspartame, which is available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpaspart.html. Information about the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP Diet and Health Study can be found at http://dietandhealth.cancer.gov/.
* Lim U., Subar A.F., Mouw T., Hartge P., Morton L.M., Stolzenberg-Solomon R., Campbell D., Hollenbeck A.R., & Schatzkin A. Consumption of aspartame-containing beverages and incidence of hematopoietic and brain malignancies. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006. Vol. 15.
References
Council on Scientific Affairs (1985) Aspartame. Review of safety issues. JAMA 254, 400-402.
Flamm W.G. (1997) "Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame?" J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 56, 105-106.
Gurney J.G., Pogoda J.M., Holly E.A., Hecht S.S., & Preston-Martin S. (1997) Aspartame consumption in relation to childhood brain tumor risk: results from a case-control study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 89, 1072-1074.
Koestner A. (1997) "Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame?" J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 56, 107-109.
Olney J.W., Farber N.B., Spitznagel E., & Robins L.N. (1996) Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame? J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 55, 1115-1123.
Ross J.A. (1998) Brain tumors and artificial sweeteners? A lesson on not getting soured on epidemiology. Medical and Pediatric Oncology 30, 7-8.
Soffritti M., Belpoggi F., Esposti D.D., & Lambertini L. (2005) Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats. Eur J Oncology 10, 107-116.
Soffritti M., Belpoggi F., Esposti D.D., Lambertini L., Tibaldi E., & Rigano A. (2006) First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to sprague-dawley rats. Environ. Health Perspect. 114, 379-385.
The European Food Safety Authority (2006) Opinion of the Scientific Panel AFC related to a new long-term carcinogenicity study on aspartame. The EFSA Journal 356, 1-44.
-
Depends on two things:
My calorie amount and the type of food.
I will NEVER drink regular soda as it is pointless and a waste of calories. I drink a lot of diet sodas and if I drink 6-12 a day, I certainly would not want to waste the calories drinking regular. I will stick with zero version.
When I cook, I NEVER use artificial sweeteners as they do not bake well or taste as good. The quality is just not there and it can throw off the taste of something completely. Also, they do not bake well at all. I NEVER use them in cooking.
Now if I am eating something that doesn`t really require cooking, such as a grapefruit, I will use a little splenda as it is not necessary to have sugar in that instance. I figure I will save the calories.
Now, If I am not watching my calories, It really does not matter which I will use.
I will NEVER waste calories on regular soda though. That is just silly.
"Why not use real sugar?" - CarolineGresh April 29, 2007 on juicycop2's use of splenda on kiwi and strawberry..... Yes i never forget a quote :)
-
"Why not use real sugar?" - CarolineGresh April 29, 2007 on juicycop2's use of splenda on kiwi and strawberry..... Yes i never forget a quote :)
See Above :)
Now if I am eating something that doesn`t really require cooking, such as a grapefruit, I will use a little splenda as it is not necessary to have sugar in that instance. I figure I will save the calories.
Now, If I am not watching my calories, It really does not matter which I will use.
-
See Above :)
Now if I am eating something that doesn`t really require cooking, such as a grapefruit, I will use a little splenda as it is not necessary to have sugar in that instance. I figure I will save the calories.
Now, If I am not watching my calories, It really does not matter which I will use.
Dooble.... What are your thoughts on the meeps moops and mumbles?
-
Dooble.... What are your thoughts on the meeps moops and mumbles?
I had an epiphany tonight. I am tired of Dooble Pt 2 and will now be on Instant Messenger. hhahhah
Dooble 2 Pwned my life for 6 days now.
-
I had an epiphany tonight. I am tired of Dooble Pt 2 and will now be on Instant Messenger. hhahhah
Dooble 2 Pwned my life for 6 days now.
Yes... i think im through with computer games now for the most part.
-
soda even diet soda is probably the number one thing making americans fat.
sorry but that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard :-\
it's like saying water makes you fat ???
-
soda even diet soda is probably the number one thing making americans fat.
COMPLETE BS. youre welcome.
-
there has to be a catch. diet soda is shit too, full of artificial mystery crap. just drink water, you fat shits ;D
diet soda just makes the porkers feel better, kinda like 'ultra light' cigarettes and weight watchers diet chocolate fudge ice cream bars. haha if you want to eat healthy, eat natural foods. if you are weak and just want to tell yourself your doing good, grab the diet soda instead of the regular soda. haha no different than saying 'i dont need to run/work out/exercise, ill just 'power walk' holding 2 pound pink dumbells to the end of the street, call it a day, and tell myself i did good' hahahahahhahahahahahahah hahahahahahaahahah
-
HOW can you drink this shit? Cola, dr. pepper, its like sugar water. Soft drinks HAVE to be the top 3 worst junk ever.
Bah! Doom does not drink soft drinks. Ever!
-
there has to be a catch. diet soda is shit too, full of artificial mystery crap. just drink water, you fat shits ;D
diet soda just makes the porkers feel better, kinda like 'ultra light' cigarettes and weight watchers diet chocolate fudge ice cream bars. haha if you want to eat healthy, eat natural foods. if you are weak and just want to tell yourself your doing good, grab the diet soda instead of the regular soda. haha no different than saying 'i dont need to run/work out/exercise, ill just 'power walk' holding 2 pound pink dumbells to the end of the street, call it a day, and tell myself i did good' hahahahahhahahahahahahah hahahahahahaahahah
desperate attempt to correct what you fucked up on....diet soda ..makes you fat...I'll remember that chief ::)
and who are you calling FAT >:(
-
I switched over to milk, green tea, and an occasional gatorade.
-
there has to be a catch. diet soda is shit too, full of artificial mystery crap. just drink water, you fat shits ;D
diet soda just makes the porkers feel better, kinda like 'ultra light' cigarettes and weight watchers diet chocolate fudge ice cream bars. haha if you want to eat healthy, eat natural foods. if you are weak and just want to tell yourself your doing good, grab the diet soda instead of the regular soda. haha no different than saying 'i dont need to run/work out/exercise, ill just 'power walk' holding 2 pound pink dumbells to the end of the street, call it a day, and tell myself i did good' hahahahahhahahahahahahah hahahahahahaahahah
Good Post. Quoted for Truth.
-
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/4-surprising-signs-you-ll-live-a-long-time-290919/
E
-
Depends on two things:
My calorie amount and the type of food.
I will NEVER drink regular soda as it is pointless and a waste of calories. I drink a lot of diet sodas and if I drink 6-12 a day, I certainly would not want to waste the calories drinking regular. I will stick with zero version.
When I cook, I NEVER use artificial sweeteners as they do not bake well or taste as good. The quality is just not there and it can throw off the taste of something completely. Also, they do not bake well at all. I NEVER use them in cooking.
Now if I am eating something that doesn`t really require cooking, such as a grapefruit, I will use a little splenda as it is not necessary to have sugar in that instance. I figure I will save the calories.
Now, If I am not watching my calories, It really does not matter which I will use.
I will NEVER waste calories on regular soda though. That is just silly.
yea, wouldnt wanna waste those calories, they are hard to come by. ::)
-
yea, wouldnt wanna waste those calories, they are hard to come by. ::)
I think what he means is that instead of drinking sticky, sugary, horrible tasting sodas, he could just as well eat a delicious meal or drink a glass of fine wine. The former would be a waste of part of the daily calories he can consume on a certain rate of weight change.
-
I like to drink diet sodas, not because they taste so good, but because they raise my appetite. Especially on the pig out days of my cutting diet, I don't want to force myself too much in getting all those meals down.
-
There are times I don't like to drink my vodka straight up so soda is needed.
-
I drink diet. I've ben doing that for five years. You get used to the taste. No sugar, no guilt.
I'll take sugar over aspartame anyday ..
however : there's aspartamein regular soda too ...
they putitin everything because it inhibits your pituitary aka acces gate toyour higher salf/other dimensions/back-forward in time
-
I'll take sugar over aspartame anyday ..
however : there's aspartamein regular soda too ...
they putitin everything because it inhibits your pituitary aka acces gate toyour higher salf/other dimensions/back-forward in time
???
-
???
even if it's not on the label ....;)
monsanto .. google it ;)
-
I'll take sugar over aspartame anyday ..
however : there's aspartamein regular soda too ...
they putitin everything because it inhibits your pituitary aka acces gate toyour higher salf/other dimensions/back-forward in time
even if this kookie idea is true, who cares, why would you want to go back forward in time, other dimensions, and a higher self? This must be in all food since one one can time travel and goto other dimensions...
-
Pepsi Max. 3 cases a week nugga!