What is an empty calorie? A calorie is nothing more or less than a unit of energy. Energy that every human requires to live. If you’re suggesting that sugared soda is not highly nutritious, that’s something entirely different. You are correct; but then again, diet soda is entirely non-nutritious as well.
I think the point of the OP is keeping hydrated with diet caffeine free soda in place of water. Diet soda is hydrating. Sugared soda is hydrating plus calories. Some people will be much healthier without those calories. You could drink water or diet caffeine free soda and it is not likely to make much difference. Water may be somewhat better, but I wouldn’t worry unless the doctor says otherwise.
That’s generally what is meant by “empty calorie.” It’s a drink or food that is ONLY calories, and has no vitamins, minerals, protein, fiber or anything else. It’s JUST carbohydrates, and usually simple ones at that. Which isn’t automatically a bad thing, but it’s certainly better to get your calories WITH other things your body needs if you can help it.
That statement is completely meaningless biologically. Different substances are active and/or toxic over an extremely wide range of differing amounts. Simply comparing mass is not in any way useful. or meaningful.
I’m assuming you transposed that. Either way, it’s technically true but missing the point. The idea is not that that generically natural substances are all individually inherently safer, but that natural substances that humans are closely enough related animals have been exposed to for historically (or longer) periods are more likely to be safe than synthetic (or any other substance to which organisms have not had exposure to for a long time) substances, especially those that haven’t yet had significant testing, but even to some extent, those that have.
Yes the infamous Generally Recognized as Safe. GRAS isn’t about natural substances though, it applies to any substance, natural or synthetic, which humans have been using for a long period of time. Not everyone agrees with this standard, especially given the relatively short period of time they consider long enough.
That’s merely a semantical distinction. Any new theory which contradicts an aspect of the old theory disproves it when it is confirmed.
And in fact, ‘disproving’ is an integral part of the scientific method. A hypothesis is not considered vigorous unless it is disprovable.
This is just plain wrong. The de facto position of all of science is “we don’t know until proven one way or the other” or “we don’t know for sure”, not “not true until proven otherwise” or “true until proven otherwise”…
I have two substances. One, aspertame, has been exhaustively tested in mice, rats, and rabbits and in dosages up to 5,000 mg/kg of body weight no fatalities occurred. Just for reference that is as if an 80 kg person drank 3,100 12-ounce cans of aspertame sweetened soda.
The other substance is sugar. If you drank the same number of cans of sugar sweetened soda you would have consumed 120 kilograms of sugar. The LD 50 for sucrose administered orally in rats is 29,700 mg/kg of body weight. Extrapolate this out to a 80 kg person and you have an LD 50 for sucrose of just around 2.4 kilograms, or the equivalent of 60 cans of sweetened soda.
So, aspertame at 3,100 can dosage, no fatalities. Sugar at 60 can dosages, 50% fatal.
With the exception of ionizing radiation, there is a safe dosage of everything.
You’ve made a conceptual leap from “no evidence” is equal to “greater than 51% probabilities of being correct” that doesn’t make sense.
Also, are you familiar with Bayesian statistical analysis?
The flaw is that tests (even “exhaustive” tests) do not account for every possible negative outcome. One negative outcome is death. But there are infinite other negative issues that are not specifically monitored in the test. Maybe a substance causes memory loss, or early glaucoma, or a gene defect passed on to children. The children do not come out with something obvious like 3 arms but maybe something more subtle…such as a brain with lower IQ of 5 points.
To make a clinical trial feasible and affordable, you have to deliberately narrow down the specific list of “negatives” you’re looking for. You can’t include every negative because there’s not enough researchers and test subjects to even attempt it.
Ok, so fatalities was tested. How do you assess safety of untested negative outcomes? It seems like waiting it out for many years over millions of consumers is the only way.
How many times have drugs been pulled from the market after discovering negative side effects that wasn’t noticed in the approval trials?
My point is that aspertame is demonstrably safer than sugar. No calories, no tooth decay, and an LD 50 orders of magnitude below that of sugar. Sugar has never been tested for any of those other negative outcomes either. Aspertame was tested for a lot of things sugar wasn’t. If both substances came on the market today, sugar would be banned.
Ok, I forgot we (or just me) were having 2 different conversations. In my mind I was still comparing Aspertame to plain water.
I also think plain sugar is bad and try to avoid it. When I speak about sugar, I can only play devil’s advocate in a half-ass kind of way. I can’t defend sugar with any rigor.
And, historically, what has the average human lifespan been? As far as aspartame goes, we have been exposed to all of its metabolic products for as long as anything. It is after all, a dipeptide of natural amino acids plus methanol.
Infant mortality has had a higher effect on “average” lifespan than death at later ages. Looking at the median age is more useful. Much of this death had more to do with disease, violence, and malnutrition than toxic things. And those toxic things that people were dying from such as lead and mercury are pretty well known now.
You consider methanol to be a safe substance? lol
I consider methanol to be a natural substance. lol
If you read my previous posts, you will find it in fruits and alcoholic beverages. It is a product of fermentation and hydrolysis of methyl esters found in pectin. People have been eating fruits for thousands of years right?
Lumpy, I don’t know about anyone else, but I found your post useful. Thanks!