# Additives or Foods that SHOULD be banned



## BigDyl (Jul 9, 2006)

****Add to the list****

MSG (monosodium glutamate)
Hydrogenated Fats (Transfats)
HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup)


----------



## fufu (Jul 9, 2006)

Any beverages containing more than 10 grams of sugar!


----------



## GFR (Jul 9, 2006)

Good luck with that


----------



## Jodi (Jul 9, 2006)

http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/colors100-181.htm
http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/preservatives200-290.htm
http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/296-385.htm
http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/vege400-495.htm
http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/misa500-579.htm
http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/flavor620-637.htm
http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/misc900-1520.htm


----------



## fufu (Jul 9, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/colors100-181.htm
> http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/preservatives200-290.htm
> http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/296-385.htm
> http://nac.allergyforum.com/additives/vege400-495.htm
> ...



What is up with strict additive laws in Aussieland?



On a side note: I almost spelt law as lawl...lawl


----------



## MyK (Jul 9, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> What is up with strict additive laws in Aussieland?
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note: I almost spelt law as lawl...lawl




Criky!! I dunno mate! faridincome suppose!

I just lawled all over my desk! lawl


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 9, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> ****Add to the list****
> 
> MSG (monosodium glutamate)
> Hydrogenated Fats (Transfats)
> HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup)



I abslosutley agree with all of those.  But here' what I'd add:

-Chlorine  (drinking tap water)
-nitrate (used in sausages and sandwhich meat)
-any ingredient you can't pernounce (cuz it's a chemical)


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 9, 2006)

Almost forgot:

-diet drinks  (they use chemicals in place of sugar which is far worse)


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 10, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Almost forgot:
> 
> -diet drinks  (they use chemicals in place of sugar which is far worse)



How so?  Proof?


----------



## fufu (Jul 10, 2006)

MyK said:
			
		

> Criky!! I dunno mate! faridincome suppose!
> 
> I just lawled all over my desk! lawl



oi, righto then!

rawf


----------



## MyK (Jul 10, 2006)

what about lawlipops?? should they be bant??


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 10, 2006)

MyK said:
			
		

> what about lawlipops?? should they be bant??




You're bant.


----------



## assassin (Jul 10, 2006)

lol


----------



## fufu (Jul 10, 2006)

MyK said:
			
		

> what about lawlipops?? should they be bant??



I sure hope nawt!


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 10, 2006)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> How so?  Proof?




It's talked about on the other thread.  They use chemicals to make it sweet that's far more processed than sugar.


----------



## GFR (Jul 10, 2006)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> How so?  Proof?


----------



## fUnc17 (Jul 10, 2006)

chemical sweetener vs. real sugar, i'd rather have a little bit of the real stuff


----------



## cjrmack (Jul 10, 2006)

I am starting to think that way. I only use about 2 teaspooons a day anyway (one for my oatmeal, one for green tea). 

That shouldn't hurt too much.  May just use the Splenda I have left then stop.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 10, 2006)

Stevia   It's a natural sweetner!


----------



## fufu (Jul 10, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Stevia   It's a natural sweetner!



What are you thoughts on Splenda?


----------



## Pepper (Jul 10, 2006)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> How so? Proof?


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 10, 2006)

Uggg, why are there so many people on bodybuilding boards who make claims without backing them up.  When saying something is dangerous (like splenda) please have some evidence to back it up.  And by evidence I don't mean a link to some homeopathic vodoo witch doctor's web page.  Opinions and fabricated nonsense loosly based on studies from the 60s is not substantial.  

As for banning trans fats and HFCS...I say screw that.  If the fatties out there weren't eating that crap then I'd have nothing to cheat on when I went off my diet.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 10, 2006)

msunid83 said:
			
		

> Uggg, why are there so many people on bodybuilding boards who make claims without backing them up.  When saying something is dangerous (like splenda) please have some evidence to back it up.  And by evidence I don't mean a link to some homeopathic vodoo witch doctor's web page.  Opinions and fabricated nonsense loosly based on studies from the 60s is not substantial.
> 
> As for banning trans fats and HFCS...I say screw that.  If the fatties out there weren't eating that crap then I'd have nothing to cheat on when I went off my diet.




Your right, here's some stuff on Splenda (sweetner in diet sodas):

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm

http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/

Just think about it, its a man made chemical.


----------



## bigss75 (Jul 10, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Your right, here's some stuff on Splenda (sweetner in diet sodas):
> 
> http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm
> 
> ...



Read some other things Mercola sells/says and then say thats creditable.


----------



## blueboy75 (Jul 11, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Stevia  It's a natural sweetner!


 
Jodi, I did a quick search on Stevia - looks like a good safe alternative to artificial sweetner.  There are 3 forms of what I have seen so far; drops/powder/tabs - is one better than the other?


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 11, 2006)

911- that is exactly what I'm talking about.  Some dudes web site is not substantial evidence that splenda is bad for us.  You want to prove to the world that splenda is dangerous...then provide us with some actual studies published in peer reviewed journals that show that.  A lot of people in this world and on these boards need to learn a little about what science actually is.  Just because some wierdo (even if he is a "doctor") posts crap on the web...that doesn't make it factual.  Furthermore, telling me to "think about it" because its "a man made chemical" is not gonna suddenly open my eyes to your viewpoint nor is it anymore proof to your contention.  I take tons of man made chemicals and my grandmother does too.  The man made chemicals I take allow me to live a more comfortable life and the ones my grandmother takes allow her to live...period.  So your overgeneralization that man made chemicals are obviously bad for the body is bullshit.


----------



## Jodi (Jul 11, 2006)

blueboy75 said:
			
		

> Jodi, I did a quick search on Stevia - looks like a good safe alternative to artificial sweetner.  There are 3 forms of what I have seen so far; drops/powder/tabs - is one better than the other?


Liquid stevia is the only way to go IMO.  The others taste like shit but the liquid is very good


----------



## fufu (Jul 11, 2006)

I use a packet of splenda almost daily.


----------



## bigss75 (Jul 11, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Liquid stevia is the only way to go IMO.  The others taste like shit but the liquid is very good



Isn't stevia the stuff people trip on and stuff


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 11, 2006)

I just ordered some liquid stevia to put in my oats.  Just a small bottle as I've heard some people aren't too fond of the taste.  On the other hand I've noticed some rave about it.  I also like the fact that its natural (although that isn't my main incentive for buying it).  I just don't like adding the packets of splenda as they have the nutritive fillers in them and I haven't gotten a good reccommendation for liquid sucralose.  I also ordered some Da Vinci syrup (pancake flavor)...excited about that as well.


----------



## bigss75 (Jul 11, 2006)

Stevia: Not Ready For Prime Time
More Research Needed To Answer Safety Questions About ???Natural??? Sweetener

WASHINGTON - Stevia, a plant-based sweetener that has created a buzz in the health-food world, may pose risks to health and should not be allowed in the food supply until it???s proven safe, says the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Extracts of a South American shrub are hundreds of times sweeter than sugar but provide no calories, making stevia a potential natural alternative to such synthetic sweeteners as aspartame and saccharin. Stevia is currently sold as a dietary supplement in powder form at health food stores.

   ???Although there is no evidence of harm to people, laboratory studies of stevia have found potential cancer and reproductive-health problems. Stevia depressed sperm production in male rats and reduced the number and size of the offspring of female hamsters. Until those concerns are disproven, stevia should not be used by manufacturers in soft drinks, candy, or other foods,??? said David Schardt, associate nutritionist for CSPI.

   The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the past 10 years has rejected three food-additive petitions for stevia because its safety had not been adequately demonstrated. Canada also has not approved its use, and last year a scientific review panel for the European Community declared that stevia is unacceptable for use in food.

   In an article in the April issue of CSPI???s Nutrition Action Healthletter (NAH), Schardt notes that in the test tube a derivative of stevia can be converted into a mutagen. Such chemicals also sometimes cause cancer. ???Until we know whether this mutagen is formed in people, stevia cannot be considered safe,??? said Schardt.

   Several studies have also raised concerns about the effect of very large amounts of stevia on carbohydrate metabolism. And that troubles some toxicologists.

   ???I think we need to be very careful, indeed, as to whether stevia would present a problem for children. The take-home message is simply that we don???t know enough,??? said toxicologist Ryan Huxtable of the University of Arizona in Tucson. 

http://www.cspinet.org/new/stevia.html


----------



## cjrmack (Jul 11, 2006)

I think maybe sugar or honey may be the best best. I only need a little to sweeten my oatmeal and green tea so I think in those small amounts it is better than the other alternatives.


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 11, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> Stevia: Not Ready For Prime Time
> More Research Needed To Answer Safety Questions About ???Natural??? Sweetener
> 
> WASHINGTON - Stevia, a plant-based sweetener that has created a buzz in the health-food world, may pose risks to health and should not be allowed in the food supply until it???s proven safe, says the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Extracts of a South American shrub are hundreds of times sweeter than sugar but provide no calories, making stevia a potential natural alternative to such synthetic sweeteners as aspartame and saccharin. Stevia is currently sold as a dietary supplement in powder form at health food stores.
> ...




I would like to see those lab studies that show the negative effects of stevia.  I have not heard this business before.


----------



## cjrmack (Jul 11, 2006)

Has anyone ever used Molly McButter? I am just wondering how safe that is. I have never read anything adverse about it.


----------



## bigss75 (Jul 11, 2006)

msunid83 said:
			
		

> I would like to see those lab studies that show the negative effects of stevia.  I have not heard this business before.



Developmental toxicity of steviol, a metabolite of stevioside, in the hamster.

Wasuntarawat C, Temcharoen P, Toskulkao C, Mungkornkarn P, Suttajit M, Glinsukon T.

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

The developmental toxicity of steviol, a metabolite of stevioside, was studied in hamsters. Pregnant hamsters were intubated with steviol at dose levels of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 g/kg BW/day on days 6-10 of gestation. Steviol at doses of 0.75 and 1.0 g/kg BW/day were highly toxic to both dams and fetuses. Significant decrease of maternal body-weight gain during the experimental period (days 6-14) and high percentage of maternal mortality indicated the general toxicity of these two high doses. The number of live fetuses per litter and mean fetal weight also significantly decreased in the steviol-treated animals at doses of 0.75 and 1.0 g/kg BW day. The animals treated with an intermediate dose (0.50 g/kg BW/day) exhibited less signs of maternal and developmental toxicity than the two high doses (0.75 and 1.0 g/kg BW/day). One craniomeningocele was found in a fetus under the maternal toxic condition in steviol-treated at a dose of 0.75 g/kg BW/day. Neither the skeleton nor visceral development of the offspring was affected by steviol treatment except delayed ossification of the xiphoid (bifid) and long bones of the limbs and supernumerary thoracic ribs (14th ribs) tended to be increased at doses of 0.5 to 1.0 g/kg BW/day steviol. No dose-related teratogenesis was detected. From the result of the present study concerning maternal toxic condition and embryotoxicity, an oral dose of 0.25 g steviol/kg BW/day is regarded as having no observable effect. This steviol-treated dose is derived from stevioside 625 mg/kg BW/day which is approximately 80 times higher than the suggested acceptable daily intake of stevioside for humans (7.938 mg/kg BW/day).

PMID: 9598301 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


----------



## bigss75 (Jul 11, 2006)

I don't know much about stevia but I am more fearful of it then splenda or aspartame which have been approved by the fda


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jul 11, 2006)

msunid83 said:
			
		

> 911- that is exactly what I'm talking about.  Some dudes web site is not substantial evidence that splenda is bad for us.  You want to prove to the world that splenda is dangerous...then provide us with some actual studies published in peer reviewed journals that show that.  A lot of people in this world and on these boards need to learn a little about what science actually is.  Just because some wierdo (even if he is a "doctor") posts crap on the web...that doesn't make it factual.  Furthermore, telling me to "think about it" because its "a man made chemical" is not gonna suddenly open my eyes to your viewpoint nor is it anymore proof to your contention.  I take tons of man made chemicals and my grandmother does too.  The man made chemicals I take allow me to live a more comfortable life and the ones my grandmother takes allow her to live...period.  So your overgeneralization that man made chemicals are obviously bad for the body is bullshit.



so your comparing the man made chemicals your grandma takes to live to the man made chemicals in my soda???


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 11, 2006)

All the info I've got is from the book _Natural Cures_.  He goes into detail about how this stuff is bad for ya and has got tons of people (both experts and regular people) who agree.  Let me put it like this, everyone knows sugar is bad right?  It spikes your insuline, makes you fat, makes your bones less dense, and so on and so on.  Now with diet soda, they use a chemical which is more processed than sugar because it's 0 caleries and has a lower sugur content.  If it's better for your health why not use it for regular soda?


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 12, 2006)

JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> so your comparing the man made chemicals your grandma takes to live to the man made chemicals in my soda???



To illustrate the absurdity of the overgeneralization that man made chemicals are all bad for us...well...yes I am.  Is the contention different now?  Is it that all man made chemicals in food are obviously bad for us and not those in medicine?  Why would that be?  The FDA is concerned with both chemicals that go into Food and Drugs, so why shouldn't we also look at them similarly.  They both go in to our body...why does it matter that one is in food form and the other isn't?  If I suddenly started putting my grandma's medicine into her soda...would that then make it bad for her?...sense it is in fact a man made chemical..right?


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 12, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> All the info I've got is from the book _Natural Cures_.  He goes into detail about how this stuff is bad for ya and has got tons of people (both experts and regular people) who agree.  Let me put it like this, everyone knows sugar is bad right?  It spikes your insuline, makes you fat, makes your bones less dense, and so on and so on.  Now with diet soda, they use a chemical which is more processed than sugar because it's 0 caleries and has a lower sugur content.  If it's better for your health why not use it for regular soda?



You can't arive and any substantial conclusion based on an expert opinion.  Controlled studies show reality...any expert can fabricate any nonsense he or she wants.  A doctor for instance suddenly saying that everyone should eat a teaspoon of gasoline to rev up their metabolism and getting a bunch of experts to back him up doesn't make it true...does it?  While it is less absurd to claim an artificial sweetner is potentially harmful, the fact still remains that just because he says its true and has people who believe and support him that doesn't mean its true.  Putting in in a book and selling it is only more annoying.  

As for sugar...what type of sugar is bad for you?  I know people who take glucose (in the form of dextrose for example) PWO and they seem to be doing much better.  Many would disagree with this technique, but it seems to help many people.  Furthermore, sugar doesn't make you fat, excess of anything caloric makes you fat...that's it.

As for artificial sweetners being processed...

If you choose to stay away from processed things...go ahead.  But you can't just generalize that the more processed something is the worse it is for you.  In general this may be true, but there your statement isn't grounded on anything.  

A few more things wrong with what you say...

Artificial sweetners are processed than sugar since they have zero calories and has a lower sugar content?  So since something is more processed it has less calories then?  And furthermore it also has less sugar content?

Why not use them in regular cola?  Ummm because sugar tastes better than artificial sweetners.

I know this is a long post and I know you are passionate about what you read in this book and I'm not telling you to drink diet soda.  I'm just tired of people on every forum making claims that aren't based on any science or at the very least bad science.  Please don't post web pages to this guys book or anything,  if you want to search for some things to back up your claims can you at least search PubMed.  I would respect something off of there much more.


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jul 12, 2006)

msunid83 said:
			
		

> To illustrate the absurdity of the overgeneralization that man made chemicals are all bad for us...well...yes I am.  Is the contention different now?  Is it that all man made chemicals in food are obviously bad for us and not those in medicine?  Why would that be?  The FDA is concerned with both chemicals that go into Food and Drugs, so why shouldn't we also look at them similarly.  They both go in to our body...why does it matter that one is in food form and the other isn't?  If I suddenly started putting my grandma's medicine into her soda...would that then make it bad for her?...sense it is in fact a man made chemical..right?



ummmm.....are you joking here or are you really being serious? i think maybe you got off topic some where along the way and forgot what this thread was about. no one is questioning the importance of chemicals when it relates to the medical field. for you to try and make a corolation between the two is an absurdity in itself. yes i agree their is an overgeneralization that all chemicals in food are bad for us and yes people should try and understand the science more than jsut read stuff on some site but to look at the chemicals in food similarly to the ones in medicine i really dont comprehend that approach to your argument. back in the 40s 50s no one thought smoking was bad for you as time grew more research came out talking about the dangers of smoking and im sure their were plenty of people who dismissed it untill in the 70s 80 90s all cancer steadily grew to where it is today. chemicals in cigarettes do not directly cause the cancer but is the corolation between someone who smokes to cancer extremely high yes. fact is we dont know how chemicals affect us directly this is why statistics is vital to science. who knows what these chemicals in the foods we eat are doing to us. will their be new research done every day on it yes will we completely KNOW that these chemicals cause this or that NO.


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 12, 2006)

JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> ummmm.....are you joking here or are you really being serious? i think maybe you got off topic some where along the way and forgot what this thread was about. no one is questioning the importance of chemicals when it relates to the medical field. for you to try and make a corolation between the two is an absurdity in itself. yes i agree their is an overgeneralization that all chemicals in food are bad for us and yes people should try and understand the science more than jsut read stuff on some site but to look at the chemicals in food similarly to the ones in medicine i really dont comprehend that approach to your argument. back in the 40s 50s no one thought smoking was bad for you as time grew more research came out talking about the dangers of smoking and im sure their were plenty of people who dismissed it untill in the 70s 80 90s all cancer steadily grew to where it is today. chemicals in cigarettes do not directly cause the cancer but is the corolation between someone who smokes to cancer extremely high yes. fact is we dont know how chemicals affect us directly this is why statistics is vital to science. who knows what these chemicals in the foods we eat are doing to us. will their be new research done every day on it yes will we completely KNOW that these chemicals cause this or that NO.




I do understand what this thread is about and I feel my post was valid.  What is the difference between chemicals in food and chemicals in medicine?  You ignore the fact that we in the US and elsewhere are concerned with both and the effects of both.  Once again...am I comparing my grandmas meds and chemicals in soda?  Yes.  Our bodies can't tell whether a substance comes from food or a drug or whether that substance is man made or not.  I compare the two because you act like for some reason we shouldn't.  I disagree for the aforementioned reason and I believe it is a ligitimate point.  Furthermore, you misuse the word correlation when saying I'm trying to find a correlation between chemicals in medicine and food.  That doesn't make sense.  I am simply comparing them to show my original point has ground.

As for the rest of you post.  I don't really know if you are disagreeing with something I said or just making an additional comment.  Evidence does often come about later to show certain substances (like those found in cigarrettes) have a correlation with an occurance of health problems.  This happens with both medicines (Vioxx) and food (I believe there was a Red Dye of some type that was later found to be harmful, there are other examples).  I don't disagree with you there and I don't believe I said anything to the contrary.  As far as what we are talking about (artificial sweetners) I don't see much evidence to prove they are a considerable risk to humans if consumed, but, yeah, I suppose that could change.  I don't disagree with that either nor did I say anything to the contrary I feel.  You don't have to explain statistics to me nor the principles of science.  Nothing I said should have prompted you to either.  I never said we KNOW anything like that diet soda is bad for us. 

Once again I don't know if you were responding to something I said with the whole cigarette thing or just commenting, but I still disagree with you that it is  not okay to look at man made chemicals in food or drugs the same way.  Science can show either is poteintially harmful and our body can't tell the difference between the medium the chemical is delivered (drug or food).


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jul 12, 2006)

honestly im trying to understand your argument and i really cant understand how you can say your point is valid.

-What is the difference between chemicals in food and chemicals in medicine? 

????cmon dude...they are both called chemicals yes. chemicals is only a word humans use to label something. do they serve the same purpose? no this is why i dont understand your point. your saying we should look at chemicals in food the same way we should look a tthe chemicals in medicine?  both are man made in laboratories for completely different reasons.  

-Furthermore, you misuse the word correlation when saying I'm trying to find a correlation between chemicals in medicine and food and medicine. That doesn't make sense. I am simply comparing them to show my original point has ground.

your original point correct me if im wrong was that people should try and understand why these chemicals are so bad for us instead of just accepting it. which like i said i agree with but how is comparing chemicals in food to the chemicals in your medicine help you original argument at all? this is why i commented because  that doesnt make any sense to me and i dont understand ure logic behind it giving ure original statement any validity. comparing the chemicals in MEDICINCE which are man made to help humans for whatever reasons to the chemicals man made to  PRESERVE FOODor for artificial sweetners isnt saying anything. chemicals is a word. jsut a word. are the "chemicals" in food comparable to the "chemicals" in medicine...absolutely not. this is why choosing to use this argument to help validate your point doesnt actually say anything to help your piont at all your comparing two entirely different "chemicals."    

-As for the rest of you post. I don't really knowif you are disagreeing with something I said or just making an additional comment. 

i mention the cigarette correlations because in your earlier argument you disagree with looking at the many articles people have posted explaining why these atrifical chemicals are bad for us. if you agree with what im saying and understand how vital statistics are to science than i would think youd be more accepting of the probably thousands of research studies that center on the negative affects of chemicals in food. if you are looking for a concrete answer as to why chemicals in food have negative affects on humans you arent going to find it. 

-I still disagree with you that it is NOT okay to look at man made chemicals in FOOD or DRUGS the same way. 
i thought this is what your whole argument was based upon the comparing of ure medicine to food??????
-Once again...am I COMPARING my grandmas MEDS and CHEMICALS in SODA? YES.  I compare the two because you act like for some reason we shouldn't. 
-What is the DIFFERENCE between CHEMICALS in FOOD and CHEMICALS in MEDICINE?


----------



## mike456 (Jul 12, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> All the info I've got is from the book _Natural Cures_.  He goes into detail about how this stuff is bad for ya and has got tons of people (both experts and regular people) who agree.  Let me put it like this, everyone knows sugar is bad right?  It spikes your insuline, makes you fat, makes your bones less dense, and so on and so on.  Now with diet soda, they use a chemical which is more processed than sugar because it's 0 caleries and has a lower sugur content.  If it's better for your health why not use it for regular soda?


Are you kidding me?? That guy that wrote that is the biggest scam artist alive and deserves to be killed.


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 13, 2006)

JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> -What is the difference between chemicals in food and chemicals in medicine?
> 
> ????cmon dude...they are both called chemicals yes. chemicals is only a word humans use to label something. do they serve the same purpose? no this is why i dont understand your point. your saying we should look at chemicals in food the same way we should look a tthe chemicals in medicine?  both are man made in laboratories for completely different reasons.



For goodness sakes man I don't know how to say it any more clearer.  It doesn't matter what purpose a chemical is made for.  Why does it matter what the purpose is or the reason humans use the chemical?  All that matters it the end result.  There are agents found in food that could also be used in medicine.  The two types of chemicals aren't mutally exclusive and therefore CAN be looked at the same way...with studies.  Our body cannot tell whether a chemical is from MEDICINE or for FOOD.  If we took a bunch of lab rats and wanted to find if a chemical was toxic.  It wouldn't matter if the chemical came from a medicine or was used to sweeten food.  We would set up the study the same way by giving some doses to the rats.



			
				JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> your original point correct me if im wrong was that people should try and understand why these chemicals are so bad for us instead of just accepting it.



My origninal statements were simply that a man putting something in a book doesn't make it fact even if he is an expert

That only controlled studies from peer reviewed journals can show us substantial proof to support something like sweetners being dangerous.

And also that just because a chemical is man made that doesn't make it inherently bad for us.

I never said we should try to find why these chemicals are bad for us...I do think we should continue to investigate IF they are potentially bad for us.



			
				JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> Comparing the chemicals in MEDICINCE which are man made to help humans for whatever reasons to the chemicals man made to  PRESERVE FOODor for artificial sweetners isnt saying anything. chemicals is a word. jsut a word. are the "chemicals" in food comparable to the "chemicals" in medicine...absolutely not.



Once again yes they are.  To determine if they are bad for humans we would use similar methods with science.  There are chemicals that are used in both foods and medicines.   Preservatives for example.  And chemicals can have multiple purposes.  The purpose doesn't matter.  A man made chemical might be first used to preserve a food, but then someone finds out its also helpful at reducing blood pressure.  It doesn't matter what the purpose is...if we later find out it causes bladder cancer.  This chemical was once a food and then became both a food and a medicine.  They can be looked at the same way.  



			
				JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> i mention the cigarette correlations because in your earlier argument you disagree with looking at the many articles people have posted explaining why these atrifical chemicals are bad for us.



Such as.  Origninally that is why I posted my frustration.  All I see are web sites as I said...not studies.  I want peer reviewed studies not a "doctor" posting his opinion on a quacky web site.  And I don't deny that there are studies that show SOME artificial chemicals are bad for us.  I once again was just saying that overgeneralizing is wrong.



			
				JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> if you agree with what im saying and understand how vital statistics are to science than i would think youd be more accepting of the probably thousands of research studies that center on the negative affects of chemicals in food. if you are looking for a concrete answer as to why chemicals in food have negative affects on humans you arent going to find it.



I am accepting of studies that show evidence that artificial chems in food are bad.  I just don't like overgeneralizations once again.  And I never said I expect concrete answers.  I just said I prefer controlled studies.



			
				JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> -I still disagree with you that it is NOT okay to look at man made chemicals in FOOD or DRUGS the same way.
> i thought this is what your whole argument was based upon the comparing of ure medicine to food??????



No I DISAGREE with you that...It is not okay to look at chemicals in food and drugs the same way.  We use controlled studies to determine if both are potentially harmful


----------



## BigDyl (Jul 13, 2006)

So Stevia causes cancer, but aspartame is good for baby food?



Jodi?


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 13, 2006)

Ironically I have diet soda daily.  But my kids I would never give an artificial sweetener


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jul 13, 2006)

-I still disagree with you that it is NOT okay to look at man made chemicals in FOOD or DRUGS the same way. 
i thought this is what your whole argument was based upon the comparing of ure medicine to food??????


-Once again...am I COMPARING my grandmas MEDS and CHEMICALS in SODA? YES. I compare the two because you act like for some reason we shouldn't. 
-What is the DIFFERENCE between CHEMICALS in FOOD and CHEMICALS in MEDICINE?

the above is your words not mine. 


-There are chemicals that are used in both foods and medicines. Preservatives for example. And chemicals can have multiple purposes. 

maybe i misunderstood what the chemicals in your medicine do than.
i was under the impression that the chemicals in the medicine you take are specifically made for controlling or curing a distinct type of illness. than u can see why i wouldnt understand ure argument.


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 13, 2006)

JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> -Once again...am I COMPARING my grandmas MEDS and CHEMICALS in SODA? YES. I compare the two because you act like for some reason we shouldn't.
> -What is the DIFFERENCE between CHEMICALS in FOOD and CHEMICALS in MEDICINE?
> 
> the above is your words not mine.



What's you point.  You say that we shouldn't compare chemicals in food and chemicals in medicine with regards to looking at whether or not they are harmful.  I've said from the beginning that I disagree with that statement.  I reread my words over and over and it makes sense.



			
				JOHNYORK said:
			
		

> -There are chemicals that are used in both foods and medicines. Preservatives for example. And chemicals can have multiple purposes.
> 
> maybe i misunderstood what the chemicals in your medicine do than.
> i was under the impression that the chemicals in the medicine you take are specifically made for controlling or curing a distinct type of illness. than u can see why i wouldnt understand ure argument.



No i don't.  You still don't get it.  It doesn't matter what the intended purpose for the chemical is.  It doesn't matter why we made that chemical.  All that matters is whether or not it does what its supposed to and whether or not it is  potentially harmful.  From the beginning I've simply said that I disgaree with the statement that man made chemicals are inherently bad for us.  You seem to think that because a chemical is intended to treat an illness, that makes it okay, but when that chemical is intended to be added to food that means it could be bad for us.  For the millionth time...WHY?  You haven't directly answered this.  It doesn't matter what the purpose of the chemical is.  A chemical that is intended to help with a disease can later be found to be harmful.  A chemical that is intended to be used to sweeten food can later be found to be potentially harmful.  I am just saying that the fact that either are man made doesn't make them bad whether they are put in food, medicine, or both.  My argument is very simple.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jul 13, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> What are you thoughts on Splenda?



mmm-mmm bitch.

But seriously, [most] anything in moderation is ok.


----------



## Double D (Jul 13, 2006)

Donuts all together. God I hate them, I mean love them I mean dammit I want one right now!


----------



## fufu (Jul 13, 2006)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> mmm-mmm bitch.
> 
> But seriously, [most] anything in moderation is ok.



I've been starting to have 1-2 packets a day. I don't think that is too bad.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 13, 2006)

mike456 said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me?? That guy that wrote that is the biggest scam artist alive and deserves to be killed.




He *WAS *a scam artist a long ass time ago.  What he says makes a lot of sense though, and has tons of sources for his books.

As far as comparing chemicals and food and chemicals in medicine.  A chemical is a chemical, if you eat it it's bad for ya.  Yeah medicine can cure diseases but look at how many side effects come with it and how many people die each year as well.  American's spend the most on health care, medicine, and health prodects yet we're still the most sickest people in the world, and the fattest.  Ever wonder why people can eat a lot overseas and not get fat?  It's cuz there food isn't jacked with chemicals.


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jul 13, 2006)

-I still disagree with you that it is NOT okay to look at man made chemicals in FOOD or DRUGS the same way. 

YOU WROTE THIS (ABOVE).... NOT ME I JUST QOUTED IT. I THAN QOUTE YOU SAYING  THIS (BELOW)...

-Once again...am I COMPARING my grandmas MEDS and CHEMICALS in SODA? YES. I compare the two because you act like for some reason we shouldn't. 
-What is the DIFFERENCE between CHEMICALS in FOOD and CHEMICALS in MEDICINE?

B/C URE SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN THE BOTTOM TWO QOUTES. DOES ANYONE NO SEE THIS OR AM I RETARDED???



-You seem to think that because a chemical is intended to treat an illness, that makes it okay, but when that chemical is intended to be added to food that means it could be bad for us. For the millionth time...WHY? You haven't directly answered this.

lol yes i have in every post. hmm lets think why should the EVERY DAY person not include the same chemicals ure grandma DEPENDS on to LIVE in their EVERYDAY DIET? well hmmm maybe these chemicals arent too bad to begin with their. maybe their arent direct causes from consuming these chemicals and their isnt much research that directly shows how chemicals can be harmful for you. but will MOST if not ALL scientists or whoever is most qualified to answer this question say it is probly best to stay away from these chemicals in ure everyday diet? YES. probly because we dont truly understand the affects these chemicals have on us if too much is consumed. now lets try and think hard as to WHY we should not compare chemicals ure grandma DEPENDS ON  to live in her meds and the everyday person who consumes these chemicals in their diet....lol see my point. it OBVIOUS the good outweighs the bad when talking about someone who must DEPEND on these chemicals to live to someone who is trying to live the healthiest lifestyle they can (this is a forum for bodybuilding if you havent noticed) 

BOTTOM LINE IS... we do not understand completely the affects of chemicals consumed everyday in our diet.  many doctors scientists have published their thoughts on how these chemicals shouldnt be highly consumed in your everyday diet b/c we dont truly understand the affects they have on us or even if they have any negative affects at all.the consensus is that they do indeed have negative affects and it had been correlated with a wide variety of negative associations. this is a forum where people are highly concerned with what goes into their bodies and if anything has any sort of unhealthy aspects to it than thye would rather not have it. if these same people depended on these chemicals to live would they have em everyday...lol see my point. THIS IS WHY COMPARING THE TWO SITUATIONS IS RIDICULOUS  DOES NOT GIVE YOUR ARGUMENT ANY VALIDITY AT ALL.


----------



## msunid83 (Jul 14, 2006)

-I still disagree with you that it is NOT okay to look at man made chemicals in FOOD or DRUGS the same way.

YOU WROTE THIS (ABOVE).... NOT ME I JUST QOUTED IT. I THAN QOUTE YOU SAYING THIS (BELOW)...

-Once again...am I COMPARING my grandmas MEDS and CHEMICALS in SODA? YES. I compare the two because you act like for some reason we shouldn't.
-What is the DIFFERENCE between CHEMICALS in FOOD and CHEMICALS in MEDICINE?

My point remains the same in the above statements.  I am not saying two different things.  Here is the end of my statement...

"it is NOT okay to look at man made chemicals in FOOD or DRUGS the same way."

Okay this is the opposite of my point, but I say in the same sentence prior to this...

"I still disagree with you that"

That reverses it.  You know what I'm arguing. 

___________________________________

Once again...am I COMPARING my grandmas MEDS and CHEMICALS in SODA? YES. I compare the two because you act like for some reason we shouldn't.
-What is the DIFFERENCE between CHEMICALS in FOOD and CHEMICALS in MEDICINE? 

That above statement is no different.  I am comparing chems in meds and foods.  There is no difference.  I simply inquire what is the difference?  911 seems to agreee too although I still don't agree with that book he preaches about.  


As for the other stuff...I never said everyone should take my meds or my grandmas.  I think if ask you a few questions you might agree with me and maybe we can just round up this argument because we are going back and fourth and getting nowhere and I think we aren't on the same page at all.  I'm not calling you stupid.

First.  I simply want to make the point that man made chems aren't all bad for human consumption simply for the reason that they are man made.  Do you agree?

Second.  The best evidence that shows a chemical is good, bad, or neutral for human consumption is a controlled study.  Not just "expert opinions".  Do you agree?

Third.  It doesn't matter where a chemical (man made or otherwiese) is found.  Whether its in food, medicine, the air, anything.  All that matters is  (1) whether it works as it should (does is sweeten food or treat a disease) first and (2) whether it could be potentially harmful if consumed.  We cannot know for sure, but science can accumulate support that allows us to make more educated decisions on these two qualities.  Do you agree?

Thats all I'm saying.  Don't know what else you want, but I'm interested to see your answers.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jul 14, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> I've been starting to have 1-2 packets a day. I don't think that is too bad.



A DAY?!??! HOLY CRAP!!!

Just kidding. Tastes great in oatmeal with a bit of cinnamon and vanilla.


----------



## fufu (Jul 14, 2006)

lawl


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jul 14, 2006)

i guess this is giving me a headache aswell im bout tog o eat some cheetoes u could ahve some if u want...1


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jul 15, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> lawl



 if youve got it, try almond extract too. That makes some GOOD  oatmeal


----------



## fufu (Jul 15, 2006)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> if youve got it, try almond extract too. That makes some GOOD  oatmeal



Hmm, I will take a look.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jul 15, 2006)

just a little bit of each, too much and youll have to throw it out.


----------



## fufu (Jul 15, 2006)

I remember when I used to eat raw oats. Good times.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jul 15, 2006)

fufu said:
			
		

> I remember when I used to eat raw oats. Good times.



we all had our hardcore stage, Im sure. then we begin to realize we dont want to eat raw oats and 5 cans of tuna a day for the rest of our lives


----------

