Artificial Sweeteners Part 1- a slow death! Please read if you use them

That's the same exact attitude that smokers have when they're in the prime of their life....... then all of a sudden if something serious happens, that whole "one life, one love" mentality is reduced to a pile of manure and they wish they had it ALL to do over again.

The fact is: NONE of us know when something will arise if we're subjecting our body to potential health risks. Am I saying: "dont eat junk food etc for the rest of your life" blah blah blah? No. Am I saying: "If you don't eat with perfect health in mind at ALL times, you're gonna die"? No. I'm saying to avoid chemicals b/c they can do some serious irreparable damage, and it can sneak up on you in a hurry. Do you seriously think this is ONLY related to family and I? No offense, but you're delusional if you think this a freak thing that ONLY happened to my family and I. Go back and read in the other post how the FDA handled aspartame issues.


If you want to take the chance that you'll skate through life unharmed, then that's your choice of course. Ask a cancer patient how much fun chemo is at ripe young 38? (I've seen it first hand; it's not pretty)..... or talk to a 45 year old who's forced to retire b/c his Parkinson's has become too extreme (seen that too and it's really sad)...... or ask a 55 year old who has Alzheimer's where she parked her car (at least she can hide her own easter eggs, so membership does have its benefits). You think any of those people thought it would happen to them? Your approach to life is very naive. Yes, you DO only have "one life"...... so make it count b/c there are NO do-overs once you've f'd it up.

The manner in which you're speaking is of a person who wants to coast through life without any responsibilities, so that if something DOES go wrong, they don't have to blame their own actions for it.

It's pretty easy to maintain YOUR mindset if you haven't experienced any serious health issues that could've been easily avoided. I was like you once too, but my ignorance got the best of me. That's the problem with America!... people are too damn ignorant in this country. That's why we're so sick and diseased!! We're a reactive society as a whole, instead of being proactive. We go about our merry way consuming crap that has health risks until something bad happens, and then we spend money and time trying to repair the damage, if it even IS fixable. All along it could've been prevented by being proactive and practicing at least decent health while avoiding things that potentially harm us. I used to think that people who talked about artificial sweeteners causing cancer etc were a bunch of sissy worry worts. I used to laugh at talk like that, partly b/c I believed the system TOO f'n much and believed that "Well, the product is legal; it's in everything, it's offered everywhere, so it can't be as bad for us as some of these quacks are making it out to be." I laugh at myself now for being that narrow minded and viewing life through rose colored glasses.

I wish you the best of luck in your approach. And by the way.... your reasoning of the "possibility of getting hit by a truck tomorrow" is not an excuse to avoid responsibility, ignore health, and eat as much crap as you want. The probability of serious health issues arising from being hit by a bus, a falling coconut, lightening, mugging, etc are astronomically low compared to the health risks associated to artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup, processed foods, pesticides, fast foods, antibiotic filled foods etc. Don't forget, the fat slob couch potato (on top of his health risks) still has the equal probability of getting hit by lightening of slipping and cracking his head....... ALTHOUGH, being a fat slob, he probably has a higher chance of an accident compared to someone who is fit and in shape who has better responsive reflexes & coordination with sharper mental acuity.

 

As of 1995, when the FDA was quoted as saying they stopped accepting adverse reaction reports on aspartame, over 75% of the adverse reactions reported to the FDA Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS) were due to aspartame.

You're right; it's only MY family.... what was I thinking!! Actually, I was the one who made ALL those calls to ARMS. Maybe you should re-read the bold statement a few hundred times until it kicks in, and then get back to me.

Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored (independent) studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame (6 of the 7 who claimed no problems were FDA sponsored. Go figure). Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame.

No offense, but I'll trust an independent study over "your assessment" or an industry sponsored study any day of the weak. I guess the 83 "independent studies" finding problems lack merit, where as the 74 "industry sponsored studies" finding zero problems is completely trusting. You must work for the "industry". It saddens me that when YOU put 2 + 2 together you get 5. With a science background, I'd think you'd be better at math TBH.

Is your advice the same as the "industry study" scientists from above? Now youre all of a sudden reducing the entire argument to "one drink a day"? How convenient for you. Do you have a log of ALL the people who reported adverse reactions to ARMS to know just how many drinks they did or didn't have? Would you like blood work from my step daughter showing proteins in her urine? (for those who don't know, that deals with renal issues). Would that suffice for starters? How about my blood work showing elevated liver and kidney enzymes? It's well documented that aspartame elevates liver enzymes.

BUT AGAIN, you are COMPLETELY IGNORING the intestinal problems that sucralose causes that are entirely independent from hepatic and renal functions!!!! WHY ARE YOU NOT ADDRESSING THIS HEALTH RISK????????

NO RESPONSE ABOUT THE DEHYDRATION ASPECT EITHER HUH? It's probably wiser that you concede that aspect.

Sooooo, hepatic and renal functions aside, we know that sucralose effects your digestive system by 50%...... and we also know that it can dehydrate your body leading to cardiovascular disease and poor health.... but I guess these really aren't much to worry about.

 

Aspartame is a neurotoxin whose by-products can bind to specific receptors within the brain and nervous system. Because of this, Aspartame appears to cause slow, silent damage, especially in the brain and nervous system, in those unfortunate enough to not have immediate reactions to it. For such people, it may take one year, 5 years, 10 years, or 40 years, but it seems to cause some reversible and some irreversible changes in health over long-term use. This is why it's well known that aspartame is linked to severe depression.

 

For anyone who wants to read the "supposed" aspartame conspiracy in entirety, pull up a seat:
The multi-billion dollar aspartame industry would like you believe that "aspartame kills" is an "urban legend" and that you'd have to drink 100 cans of diet soda a day to be harmed by aspartame. This is just simply not true. Their main claim is that the 3 components of aspartame are found in many natural foods and are therefore safe. This is kind of like saying carbon monoxide is safe because all it contains is carbon & oxygen, the same components of carbon dioxide. Methanol (wood alcohol), which makes up 10% of aspartame and is highly toxic (adult minimum lethal dose is 2 teaspoons), is also found in some fruits & vegetables like tomatoes.

However, methanol is never found in natural foods without ethanol & pectin, its "antidotes" if you will (detailed facts below). Ethanol & pectin prevent methanol from being metabolized into formaldehyde (embalming fluid) & formic acid (same chemical as fire ant venom), both deadly toxins. An ethanol drip is even the standard emergency room treatment for methanol poisoning. Aspartame contains no ethanol or pectin, therefore the methanol is converted to formaldehyde and formic acid.

Phenylalanine and aspartic acid, the other 2 components of aspartame, are amino acids found in natural foods but always as part of long chains of many different amino acids to form complex protein molecules that take humans 12 hours to gradually break down & assimilate. According to the doctors, when consumed by themselves these 2 amino acids require no digestion and quickly enter the brain & central nervous system at abnormally high levels, overstimulating brain cells to death and causing many other health problems.

"Pro" aspartame people point to industry sponsored short term tests, ignoring independant tests. They point to "reliable" health sites, organizations, foundations etc. that are sponsored, funded & fed "facts" by companies that profit from aspartame. And of course, the FDA approved it so "it must be safe", neglecting to mention that the FDA denied aspartame approval for over 8 years until the newly appointed FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes overruled the final scientic review panel, approved aspartame, and then went to work for G.D. Searle's (initial owner of aspartame) public relations firm at $1,000 a day. Hayes has refused all interviews to discuss his actions. The FDA also urged Congress to prosecute G.D. Searle for "specific false statements or concealed facts" stemming from Searle's testing of aspartame. However, the 2 government lawyers assigned to the case decided against prosecuting G.D. Searle and then joined G.D. Searle's law firm! Gotta love the corruption in this country!!

 

I said Pharma as a whole is a problem. Just b/c there are some companies that do good, that doesn't mean the industry as a collective is all of a sudden respectable.

ALSO..... I've never said a word about the chemical drugs not helping society WHEN THEY ARE IN NEED OF THEM, like diabetes etc. Those victems don't really have a choice. What I am against are chemicals and man-made crap when it's not being used to treat illness or disease (like artificial sweeteners) or when it's effects are covered up (like Vioxx) and consumers are mislead to where the drugs can cause more harm than good. There's a big distinction between the 2.

Also, when it costs SO MUCH to get a drug to market, I'd have a hard time believing that morals and ethics become a priority. I'm ecstatic that companies like yours exist that help to maintain some semblance of moral balance.

 

I tell you what.....then why don't you tell me what's causing all the world wide documented health reactions to aspartame. If none of the reasons (that you're arguing against), then maybe your "BA in biochem" self can enlighten us what in aspartame actually IS the culprit. Please, by all means, the floor is yours. If you want to oppose the well documented side effects of aspartame, then that is truly what would be laughable.

 

Yes, it does show a lack of understanding of cause and effect on your part.


With your biochem background, would you please explain to us the key simple factors to producing ethanol?.... and does ethanol have a dehydrating affect on the body?

 

So you disagree that: 1. the body produces cholesterol during chronic dehydratation as a means of protecting its cells' health from losing water during the process of osmosis...... OR 2. Blood pressure rises in an effort to force blood, water, nutrients through this waxy cholesterol coating into the cells..... OR 3. Chronic High blood pressure as a result of chronic dehydration causes heart problems. ?????

who said I was even talking about the soda itself?? There are other factors that you aren't considering. I'll address them after you tell me about ethanol. LOL

 

To clarify...... Are you saying that amino acids don't have different affects on the body depending on what other amino acids are or aren't with them?

 

My humblest apologies!!! The nerve of me to believe that someone other than yourself has the ability to retain knowledge!

Sorry to deflate your pompous arrogance, but intelligence isn't limited to only you. I can speak for hours on end about this stuff with not so much as a computer in sight.

Since you continue to avoid my question about ethanol and continue to falsely assume that I'm relating it (and dehydration) directly to the diet soda's properties, then I'll just go ahead and address the issue. This "issue" relates to sucralose effecting intestinal flora. And we're suddenly "not moving onto it". You've been stalling about elaborating on it.


I'm not sure if you knew this, but humans have intestinal candida yeast. Considering sucralose effects our intestinal flora by 50% as a Duke study concluded, then would you please Google candida yeast overgrowth (candidiasis or systemic candidiasis) and see what you come up with in relation to ethanol or acetaldehyde.... and then tell us how chronic dehydration can result. I've known the answers (in depth about candidiasis) for years, but I don't feel like spending the time creating a long post when you can simply GOOGLE it.
If you'd like to copy and paste ALL the serious health risks associated with intestinal candidiasis, then you're more than welcome to.

 

NO. The insides of me were fine and I was in phenomenal health prior; it wasn't until after drinking this stuff for a while that my insides experienced problems. My underlying cause was systemic candidiasis. Sucralose effects intestinal flora which can cause candidiasis. End of story. I quit drinking the stuff, addressed the issues involved, and my health cleared up (my nervous system and mental acuity do not feel the same and my digestive system is more sensitive than it was prior but I think that has more to do with some mild permanent damage). If there was something else wrong internally, then I'd still be sick, wouldn't I..... b/c I would've been treating the wrong problem.

sorry buddy...... but when I WAS in this scenario where I WAS in need of some serious help, modern medicine and pharmaceutical drugs couldn't offer s#!t for me, so please preach to someone else. Trying to treat my step daughter for epilepsy also shut down her pancreas and made her a diabetic for life. But her insulin injections help her diabetes so I guess we're 1 for 3. Am I saying that all medicine is bad? Heck no. But it doesn't change the fact that nearly 800,000 people in the US die annually from conventional medicine mistakes (which includes pharmaceutical drugs). Statistically wise, that's about as equal of a health risk as being an obese, smoking alcoholic who likes to asphyxiate while masturbating. Personally, I'd rather subject myself to good health so I don't put myself in the position to become another statistic.

I know it must be a tough thing to stomach knowing you work in an industry that's responsible for a death every 5 minutes from properly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs...... and is the 4th leading cause of death behind heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Anything that spews from a chemists mouth I take with a grain of salt due to how often you guys are wrong or intentionally misleading (or mislead). For all the good that drugs "can" do, there are just as many negative examples. The US is the runaway leader of pharmaceutical drug consumption. Has that changed our health as a nation? F no! We're one of the most diseased and health-problematic countries in the world!! You'd think we'd be MORE healthy with being the world leader in spending money on health care, research, and development, etc, but the opposite couldn't be more true.

*Our life expectancy ranks 42nd in the world..... where as 20 years ago we were 11th.
*Global cancer rate is expected to double to possibly 15 million by 2020. Lot of good the "advancements" of modern medicine are doing here!!!
*Every 70 seconds a person in the US develops Alzheimer's and is now estimated that roughly 1/8 baby boomers alive today will develop it.
*Every 9 minutes a person in the US now develops Parkinson's.
*Autism increased 54% from 2005-2009. From once being 1/5000 is now down to 1/100. (a claimed 50% of these have gastrointestinal disorders)
*Autoimmune disorders are at a whopping 23 million (or 1/13)
*Intestinal disorders are skyrocketing
--It's a nice coincidence that, as more and more man-made crap is introduced to the world, the higher the rates of disease and illness become.

Now you're trying to draw a health risk similarity between "good size doses of natural supplements" to pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs? Cry me a river will ya!!! Now who's the one being dramatic and hypocritical?!!

According to the US National Poison Data System, there was not a SINGLE death in 2008 caused by nutritional supplements!! That means zero deaths from multi-vitamins; zero deaths from any of the B vitamins; zero deaths from vitamins A, C, D, or E; and zero deaths from any other vitamin.

Additionally, there were no deaths whatsoever from herbal products. This means no deaths at all from blue cohosh, echinacea, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, kava kava, St. John’s wort, valerian, yohimbe, Asian medicines, ayurvedic medicines, or any other botanical. There were zero deaths from creatine, blue-green algae, glucosamine, chondroitin, melatonin, or any homeopathic remedies.

Furthermore, there were zero deaths from any dietary mineral supplement. This means there were no fatalities from calcium, magnesium, chromium, zinc, colloidal silver, selenium, iron, or multimineral supplements.

FYI: (and I Googled this) 61 poison centers provide coast-to-coast data for the U.S. National Poison Data System, which is then reviewed by 29 medical and clinical toxicologists.

According to the NPDS, alternative medicine treatments resulted in only 38 major reactions in 2008 (zero deaths). This needs to be asterisked with the fact that TOO many people don't know what the heck they're doing and don't receive the proper education from the people who should be providing it (like the medical community and our government). On the other hand, acetaminophen alone resulted in 511 major reactions and 43 deaths.

Despite this, the corrupt FDA sends out purposefully misleading messages warning us that vitamins etc can be toxic and consumers should beware OOOGY BOOOOGY BOOOGY!!!! Like you say, anything in excess can be toxic. However, vitamins at the recommended dosage and of proper quality are not a health risk. On the other hand, pharmaceutical drugs at proper dosage still kill a person every 5 minutes..... but the FDA doesn't warn s#!t about this to us!! Then we get the scrupulous pharmaceutical companies paying off "experts", officials, organization members, and other quacks to throw scare tactics at the public like: "MSM has shown to cause sterility in worms." To which I say: "Go f#@k yourselves!!" Any time a quality health supplement is recognized (like MSM), they blast the hell out of it b/c they don't want the public to know that there are ACTUALLY <get this> alternatives to pharmaceutical drugs for health treatments. I know..... tough concept to grasp.

By the way, my wife's chemo treatments were seeing little effect until she listened to me and sought natural methods. Her oncologist told her that "whatever she's doing on the side, to keep doing it b/c her mer markers were dropping heavily". And now she's cancer free.

 

I know a lot of you guys prefer to live in the moment since you "never know when you're going to kick the bucket".

Personally, I'd rather attempt to live healthy and active life at least through my 70's before it starts getting bad. You know- the fun stuff like: peeing w/o the use of a bag, pooping outside of my boxers rather than in em, remembering the names of the current Miami players (maybe even my family's), visiting strip clubs, playing golf, watching football, taking vacations (that don't entail visiting a hospital in another state), being able to get my pecker up w/o a pump.... and then having the ability to use it, and NOT being cooped up in some nursing home where I'm eating a jello snackpack for lunch and dinner while listening to my nurse painfully describe how "exciting" tonight's shuffleboard competition will be now that Team B's star player fell from his wheel chair and broke a hip.

Choosing to prioritize the flavor of something b/c it "tastes good in the moment" doesn't seem like a fair trade off for potentially enduring cancer, neurological disorders, brain impairment, autoimmune disease, digestive disease, or cardiovascular disease. No offense to anyone, but the only sources of pleasure in life don't solely come from foods or beverages that are bad for us. TBH, the first problem society has is associating pleasure with food and using it as the motivating factor behind what we decide to eat. The purpose behind food is nutrition and sustaining proper health, not pleasure.

AbideN, you used an example of what you felt would be ironic about being healthy (the healthy guy getting hit by a mack truck vs the fat slob)..... also mentioned the "one live so enjoy it" philosophy...... and a handful of people share your sentiments. The true irony lay in the fact that: if 6 of you live your life in this manner, then the probability is that at least 1 of you 6 will most likely experience serious health issues as a result and end up regretting many choices you made until then. Now that's irony. It's like what was said to a group of soldiers heading off to Vietnam. "I want you boys to look around you. 10 of you boys are going over there, but only 7 of you are coming back."

 

Easy.... the same way many people are making a stand for health: limit exposure to chemicals, avoid exposure to heavy metals (stop using products that have aluminum in them like deodorants), avoid foods with pesticides (since there is an alternative), learn to want water instead of soda/other sweetened beverages since it's one of the most important aspects of health, avoid hydrogenated oils, stop or limit processed or enhanced foods (since there is a choice), switch from white rice to brown or wild, switch to 100% whole wheat bread, switch to whole cheeses, switch pasta to whole wheat pasta, limit or avoid bleached flour, eat a lot of raw foods (veggies, fruits, nuts), eat a cup of organic yogurt a day to help maintain a healthy digestive system, switch to organic dairy, avoid or limit meat chicken & pork that are pumped full of hormones/antibiotics, don't eat large predatory fish that are full of mercury, not be a smoker, limit alcohol consumption, limit high fructose corn syrup, limit the use fast foods, limit the use of candy&chips, try and get at least 7 hours of sleep/night- 8 if you can, take digestive enzymes with meals to better help break down foods, take a quality multi-vitamin/mineral, take a powdered greens drink, take a quality antioxidant if you're not getting enough raw fruits and veggies, take an EFA essential fatty acid supplement, get enough quality fiber, get enough iron & calcium. There might be some more things, but this is just stuff off the top of my head. If it's affordable there are a few extra health supplements that are beneficial.

 

that doesn't make it a reason to compound your problems. The human body is a remarkable thing. It's like a new engine. If you give it what it needs to function properly and maintain it, then TYPICALLY it's going to last a long time without problems or frequent mechanic trips. Yes, there might be the occasional lemon from time to time that cant be avoided, but for the most part it will be reliable and problem free.

If you ignore the engine's well-being, don't change the oil, give it regular gas when it needs premium etc, then sooner or later it's going to die on you...... and the longer the time passes, the higher the probability it becomes. Same for your body!!!! If you give it what it needs to function properly, maintain it, prevent giving it low quality fuel, clean it out from time to time, and avoid pouring sugar in the gas tank, then it too is designed to last a long time (and at a much more efficient and optimal level).

Your body is also extremely resilient IF you allow it to be; however most Americans don't. There might be the occasional lemon from time to time, but that fails mightily in comparison to the problems that WILL arise when you ignore your body's needs for health. It DOES have specific needs, and if you're NOT getting it those needs, then problems WILL arise. Nutrients perform specific roles, and if you're not getting ALL the nutrients your body needs for each role, then a problem WILL arise.

The options to maintain a healthy body are there. It's your choice whether or not you want to take advantage of them. It's also your choice whether or not you want to be diseased. Yes, there are lemons from time to time, but people shouldn't go through life making excuses for everything b/c they feel that they might end up being a lemon regardless. The higher probability is that they're not a lemon, but poor health choices will end up making them one.

 

1 death every 5 minutes from PROPERLY prescribed pharmaceutical drugs. I added the other numbers in b/c you were preaching to me about how I might need a doctor's help to save my life one day, so I felt it was only appropriate to throw out the number of unnecessary deaths that the medical/pharmaceutical industry are responsible for annually.

yes. I do think that the reliance on synthetic pharmaceutical drugs that are being popped like Skittles IS reducing our life expectancy and creating unnecessary health problems BECAUSE the public is being intentionally brainwashed into thinking that synthetic drugs are the end all cure and only treatment options.

That is the REAL question. And the REAL answer is-- If modern medicine:
1. Practiced preventative health care (including properly educating patients and advocating natural ways) rather than reactive "treatment care" based on slinging pharmaceutical drugs.
2. Used pharmaceutical drugs "only when necessary" and as a backup to natural methods (which they won't b/c there's significantly less profit involved)
3. Used surgery as a last attempt effort rather than seeing it as a huge dollar sign.......
then our world ranking would drop dramatically!!! Our "modern medicine" approach currently has us 41st. Give me a break. If it got any lower we'd be a 3rd world country!

It's not even close to naive. Maybe ignorance on your part, but not naive on mine. Is our modern medicine (or these "life saving pharmaceutical drugs") slowing cancer rates? NO. That's the point. Read into it what you want. And, exactly- a world full of air, water, and soil pollution are a huge cause. So how do you make a distinction between chemically polluted soil and polluting the body with chemical drugs? Pollution is pollution. The massive amounts of chemicals being poured into our bodies via synthetic drugs is pollution as well. So yes, IMO, modern medicine practices and big pharma are contributing to the cause. Never said they were the main cause, just contributing.

I'd like you to go around nationally and tell teachers and schools that autism is not rapidly increasing.... and see how they look at you. Awareness is increasing, yes, but that doesn't detract from the fact that autism rates are significantly higher AND climbing. Watch and see over the next few decades the correlation that's shown between autism (or all neurological disorders) and chemical/drug/heavy metal exposures.

Really?
A new study conducted by Autism Speaks' Autism Treatment Network (ATN) shows that GI symptoms occur in nearly half of children with ASD, and the prevalence increases as children get older.
Results of the study, and three others conducted by the ATN, will be presented Sunday, May 2 at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) annual meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
An estimated one in 110 U.S. children has autism, a group of complex developmental brain disorders that affect behavior, social skills and communication.
The ATN, which includes 14 treatment and research centers in the United States and Canada, enrolls patients ages 2-18 years with a diagnosis of autism, Asperger's syndrome or pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified.
In this study, researchers sought to determine how frequently parents of children enrolled in the network reported GI symptoms and what factors might be associated with these symptoms. Families filled out a battery of questionnaires, including a GI symptom inventory tailored to the needs of nonverbal children, a behavior checklist, sleep questionnaire and quality of life survey.
Data from 1,185 children showed that 45 percent had GI symptoms at the time of enrollment, with abdominal pain, constipation and diarrhea reported most commonly. Reports of symptoms were more common in older children (39 percent of children under 5 years of age vs. 51 percent of children 7 and older).

Ummmm...... What were you saying now?

I mentioned previously about autism and intestinal problems b/c chemicals, pesticides, & mercury are known causes of GI problems..... and coincidentally are related to neurological disorders. SO, if a pregnant mother is exposed to mercury, pesticides, and excessive chemicals, then there is a higher probability that her child will develop GI problems along with the neurological disorder. It poses a stronger case for these "so called" dangers when a child has 2 related symptoms rather than just 1.... and makes the correlation a little harder to argue.

For someone who's talked incessantly about evidence etc...... then show me the evidence. Your statement is complete hogwash. There are fewer holes in Ray Liotta's face. Under a controlled experiment, a natural supplement under normal usage will NOT increase liver enzymes in any similarity to sucralose. Yeah, if you want to feed someone a pound of each I'm sure they'll both show elevated levels, but that's not very realistic.

you can blame our corrupt modern medicine practices for that who try to squeeze every penny out of a patient or insurance company even though a patient is terminal and the physician KNOWS that the treatment will be ENTIRELY ineffective. You can also thank the Big Pharma for their contribution as well..... and by contribution I mean kickbacks paid to physicians etc to push these drugs even though the physicians knows they won't be effective when their patients are already dying.

Yes, it will translate to humans...... only humans won't use it for just 12 weeks straight..... they'll use it for years straight.


I'm done arguing on this subject, we're just going around in circles. I'm not trying to diminish your opinion on natural based supplements, or living a healthy lifestyle without chemicals, more power to you. but I'm not going to sit around while you make these outlandish claims that diet soda is going to slowly kill everyone here just because you and your wife had an adverse reaction to it, especially when some of your claims (notice I said some, not all) are not based on real scientific data.[/QUOTE]

Better to just agree to disagree on everything and leave it at that.

 

"these things" should keep you in proper internal health, including a healthy cardiovascular system..... b/c a healthy CVS is more likely to mean having a pecker that can achieve erection. A poor CVS is more likely to have a non-working willie.
Similarly, erectile disfunction is a strong predictor that you will die from heart disease.

nope.... b/c that would mean canned goods..... and that means too many preservatives.

To be honest. The key is to "trick" your brain into liking healthy foods (using positive reinforcement) b/c there is a psychological reward involved if it's done properly.... while negatively reinforcing yourself when you eat things you're not supposed to. If you practice it for a few months, you'll actually begin to enjoy all these healthy foods and develop an aversion towards all the crappy foods that taste good to you now. Once the crap stuff is out of your system for a few weeks, you begin to lose interest in it. Now, if I were to bite into a Snickers or eat a huge spoonful of Ben & Jerry's, it wouldn't do a thing for me.

Ironically, I enjoy eating the poorer tasting healthy foods even more than I did the yummy tasting crap b/c an hour later I feel better, and psychologically I feel MUCH better knowing that I actually am eating this stuff and have the willpower to control my diet rather than allowing my diet to control me....... and then I reward myself for eating well so that I reinforce the behavior. You can classically condition yourself to eat well just as you can classically condition a dog to come running when you ring a bell. If you feel you can't control something as simple as your diet, then what CAN you really control? It's all in the mind. Being able to control something as simple as a your diet is very empowering!! It's also extremely motivational.

 

unless you've already been experiencing health issues from some predetermined genetic problem, then you can control whether or not you become diseased, or at least to a very high degree. I'm not talking about preventing disease once you're past your 70's. I'm talking about preventing disease when you're young and should be disease free. You can ignore me all you want, but I know what I'm talking about in regards to this stuff. Right now, as a male, you should live to at least 70, strictly probability speaking. People that practice good health are active and strong into their 70's, not on their death beds. You make it seem like disease during the prime of our life is inevitable for everyone, but it's not. Outside of a small margin of error, your health lay in your hands.

 

For the most part, if you take care of your heart, then your heart will take care of you. Simple enough.

Wrap your wiener and you 99.9% won't get an STD.

Give your body the proper nutrients (including vitamins, minerals, and water) it needs to function correctly and your cells will stay healthy/healthier and less likely to become problematic or cancerous...... Don't give your cells what they need and they'll respond by not functioning correctly.

Keep your insides clean rather than polluted/full of toxins, then you're MUCH less likely to develop cancer.

Easiest way to picture it is: to think of a grocery store in terms of how it would look if this were 400 years ago..... b/c what would be in THAT "grocery store" much more resembles what you should be eating before man-made, enhanced, and altered crap got involved. There wouldn't be an entire isle of crappy breakfast cereal for starters. The majority of items NOT present in this hypothetical store are things that should also NOT be present in your diet b/c nature didn't intend them to be.

 

If anyone would like to read the actual report, here it is (although it is quite lengthy). http://www.dorway.com/bressler.txt

 

I also find it quite ironic and oddly coincidental that, at the time of Aspartame's release, Searle & Co's (makers of Aspartame) business was divided among three principal areas: pharmaceuticals, medical instru-ments, and optical products, hospital, and laboratory products.

Why do some people (not mentioning names) believe that these chemicals pose little health risks while en route to being eliminated by the liver or kidneys etc despite OVERWHELMING PROOF AND DOCUMENTED CASES? This is not a naturally ocurring form of formaldehyde. Dr. James Bowen explained that the methyl alcohol of aspartame is arranged in such a fashion that it is “500 to 5,000 times more active in producing toxicity” than the methyl alcohol that is commonly found in alcoholic beverages. When will people learn that, despite the fact that "natural" and "man-made" may "appear" structured the same on paper, it does not mean they have the same effects on the body?!! Not to mention they may have entirely different effects on the body depending on what else accompanies them.

Case in point: Rice. Rice in it's "alone" state is a carbohydrate and provides the body with energy. When you consume rice with beans, their combined amino acids form a complete protein, which now makes it a building block for new tissue and repair. Same rice...... 2 different effects on the body.

How about "natural" Vitamin B12 verse it's synthetic form, cyanocobalamin? Natural Vitamin B12 has extremely low toxicity and, even taken it in enormous doses, appears not to be harmful to healthy individuals. However, the common synthetic form does NOT occur in nature, but is used in many pharmaceuticals and supplements, and as a food additive, due to its stability and lower cost. In the body it is converted to the physiological forms, methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin, leaving behind the cyanide, albeit in minimal concentration. Therefore, it doesn't shock me that Cyanocobalamin's list of reactions include: rash; hives; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue; calf pain, swelling, or tenderness; chest pain; feeling of swelling throughout the entire body; fever, chills, or persistent sore throat; irregular heartbeat; muscle weakness or cramping; shortness of breath; unusual bruising or bleeding.


I'll re-emphasize an earlier point: Scientists, chemists, etc will most likely NEVER be able to effectively (if ever) harness and account for the "Human Element"..... b/c if you currently were capable of doing so, you "know-it-alls" would be successfully cloning humans.

 

In case you're not being 100% sarcastic......
Maybe you should ask the general public who drink useless sweetened liquids instead of body required water despite the cost being the same...... and while you have you have their attention, you can also ask them why they prefer a big juicy "heart attack waiting to happen" triple cheeseburger with upped-sized fries when a big salad full of nutrients is available at the same price. Or I bet you might find your answer if you spoke to the CEO of a major supermarket and asked him/her why they have SOOOO many processed, sweetened, enhanced, etc products on their shelves when healthy alternatives are available. I bet he or she would respond: "Because they like and prefer the taste of it. If the people keep buying it, we'll keep stocking it".

For many Americans who were raised on this crap, the healthy alternative is an "acquired taste" for them..... plain and simple. If you give water and a salad to a person who is accustomed to eating: Corn Pops for breakfast; McDonalds and a sweetened drink for lunch; Rice a Roni, Mac n Cheese, and a fried pork chop for dinner........ then I'd love to see how many people DON'T respond "What the ef is this crap!? Give me my cheeseburger back!" <even if it means having to pay for the Value Meal despite the salad being free>