“More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”
… well that’s reassuring.
Are those just artificially manufactured or are they are artificial substitutes with a different chemical composition from the real thing? In other words, is the Vitamin D in milk and supplements the same as the Vitamin D in manufactured by your body? Then I guess I don’t have a problem with it. The process of creating an identical substitute is no so much an issue – it’s the manufacture of a chemically different additive that I’m cautious about.
I would not suggest attempting to meet ALL of your hydration needs with caffeine-free diet soda, but a can once in a while - in my book, that’s one or two per week - probably won’t do any measurable harm.
And I also said we may not know the true correlation for 50 years. Isn’t proving that X does not cause cancer a much more difficult (and longer) process than proving that X does cause cancer?
I guess we can’t be 100% sure of anything in the universe. I guess that’s your point?
So all we have is thousands of years of empirical data regarding sugar. So we do know sugar causes tooth decay, and weight issues. Does it cause cancer? We don’t know 100% for sure – you do have me there.
Aspartame has been around since 1981. Does 28 years equal to thousands of years? If so, maybe that’s what everyone’s point is.
Science does not concern itself with disproving anything. If it cannot be proven that X causes cancer, the scientific postion is that X does not cause cancer. If you claim that aspartame causes cancer, it is not enough to shrug and say “we just don’t know”; the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence for your claim. In the meantime, aspartame does not cause cancer.
Is this semantics? It sounds like you’re mixing up religious debates with food.
Didn’t science disprove that the sun and other planets revolve around earth?
And why does your statement mean anything? Do we get to reincarnate and relive 100 lives to test your statement?
In 1934 one could say, “in the meantime, tobacco smoking does not cause cancer.” What’s so special and authoritative about saying, “In the meantime, [insert your claim]” ?
Dude, you’ve been around here long enough to know that if YOU make the claim, it’s up to YOU to provide cites for it – and not just google searches. (Especially since quite a few pointed out what rubbish it was.)
(And again, I’m grateful for the caffeine free, as I can’t have caffeine, dammit)
I think I see the issue now… I said, “Isn’t proving that X does not cause cancer a much more difficult (and longer) process than proving that X does cause cancer?”
When I say “proving” I’m not explicitly expecting a scientific laboratory to Prove (with a capital P) that X doesn’t cause cancer.
I’m talking about “prove” from a historical and empirical sense.
I’m reminded of the story that prehistoric people may have had no idea what causes babies to grow inside of women. It make have taken them a few thousand years to figure out that sex leads to babies 9 months later. The “proof” was not done by the Scientific Method as described by Francis Bacon… the proof was a long running observation.
I did not think I was making any strong claims! I used the word “may” several times.
I was echoing the common belief that food artificial food chemicals may cause issues. Didn’t think I needed cites for something that was implied. Sorry.
No, 28 years is not thousands of years, but aspertame has been exhaustively tested on laboratory animals specially bred for their propensity to get cancer. And you can add to that fact that a 12-ounce can of diet Coke has 130 mg of aspertame, while a 12-ounce can of regular coke has 40.5 grams of sugar. The dosage of sugar is 311 times that of the aspertame.
And again, sugar has not been tested for cancer causing properties. We assume it is safe, but there aren’t many control groups around, and it seems on the face of it that people with a lot of sugar in their diet are less healthy in general than people with less. Could sugar cause cancer? I don’t know, but neither do you, and I’m betting the aspertame is less dangerous.
No, they did not. They proved the Earth revolves around the Sun.
The method is the same. Empirical evidence is as good as any other. If they were wrong for several millenia, it was because they relied on superstition, the “common sense” of the day. As soon as they began to correlate observation with outcomes, the fight against ignorance began.
Just because a belief is common, does not mean is it correct. See cavemen and babies.
In the past 4-5 months that I’ve been trying to stick to a low-carb diet, I gradually came to the conclusion that the caffeine-free sugar-free Pepsi that I habitually drank was causing a problem. Perhaps it’s purely psychological but I couldn’t get serious about staying on a diet until I gave up the attitude that I could use food (and beverage) for gratification. I noticed that for some reason I would drink cf,sf, Pepsi exclusively of all other diet beverages given the choice; I think it may be the phosphate content, which is unique to colas. It seemed to be a (psychological?) addictive issue. So first I weaned myself off Pepsi, then I decided that the acid content of all sodas was too much, and made an effort to drink water. The theory being that I would drink water if I was truly thirsty enough and not just seeking a taste sensation. As part of reforming my diet, I’ve had to go by the principle of “if you crave it too much, it’s probably not good”.
After giving up soda, I did notice that until I started eating lots of fruit and vegetables and started avoiding excessive salt, I would get a dry mouth from insufficient potassium in my diet. Most sodas have lots of added potassium, which probably balances the high-sodium diet most Americans eat. I can’t even eat some of the very salty stuff I used to.
So at least personally, and YMMV, I would say about diet pop: “bad” for you? Not in itself; but perhaps part of an unhealthy set of eating habits.
You took the wrong lesson from my example. I’m trying to say that if a cavemen says, “in the meantime, sex does not cause babies”, it has no bearing on the truth. Saying “in the meantime” before the 1000 year eureka correlation has occurred accomplishes what?
New science knowledge “supplanting” old science knowledge can be said to “disprove” it. Seems like semantics to me. But I’m sure there’s a distinction of some type – does it matter here?
Well, you are mixing your examples, for one thing. The default “not true” in the absence of scientific proof is only wise if you are applying scientific rigor to all of your assumptions. If cavemen beliefs are governed by superstition, then no default position is correct.
But once we subscribe to the scientific method, we are more likely to be correct in assuming that “facts” not in evidence are always false until proven true. That is why I called you on your generalizations about artificial sweeteners and additives. There is no common wisdom that fits all additives. In the absence of evidence that they cause cancer, we are more often correct to assume they do not cause cancer.
You are correct, however, in concluding that we are never 100% sure about anything. That way lies religion.
Can anybody provide any reputable citations claiming that the artificial sweeteners used in diet soda is harmful in any way at levels of human-consumption? Does it cause an insulin response? Does it cause cancer? Will it “trick” your body somehow into making fat from a zero calorie substance?
I suspect the answer to all these questions is “no,” as it tends to be every time this thread rolls around.
The saccharine brain-tumor rats incident involved something like the equivalent of 200+ liters of soda per day for a person.
I do not know of any empirical data on sugar. I know we’ve had sugar for thousands of years and I know we’ve had cancer for thousands of years. How do you know sugar didn’t cause some of those cancers? We know one of it’s fermentation products becomes formaldehyde in your liver.
Except we haven’t, really: we’ve had sweet things like fruit, but pure sugar has been either completely unheard of or a very rare treat up until the last few centuries: honey was expensive, and refined sugar is very much a product of the early industrial revolution.
