• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    11 months ago

    1, it’s aspartame

    2, Mice aren’t humans, and routinely, things that happen in mice do not happen in humans. It is not at all indicative of anything and can really only be used as a hint better than nothing for looking into similar effects in humans.

    You don’t need to change your diet, and you certainly don’t need to replace it with sugar.

    • LetterboxPancake
      link
      fedilink
      Deutsch
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      *But drinking a glass of water from time to time won’t kill you either.

    • Holymoly@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      Removing all forms of added sugar would probably make everyone feel better. Even minimizing natural sugar intake.

      Sugar is terrible, there’s no doubt about it. Artificial or otherwise.

        • Brokkr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Your lemon curd is full of thickener (egg yolk) and sugar (honey) too.

          What thickener did they use? Soy lecithin? That’s the same thickener as found in your egg yolks.

          What sugar? Just regular sugar? That has a similar glycemic index as honey.

          Concentrated lemon juice is just lemon juice without the water. Was there also water in the recipe?

          Sounds like your stomach trouble was due to something else. I’m not saying the lemon curd you bought was good quality, but it probably wasn’t much different than what you make. And those scary ingredients are the same as the ones that you already use.

      • sock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        there’s little research to show sugar dangers to be more than correlation

        fat people eat a lot of sugar. fat people also eat a lot. eating a lot is how you get fat, drinking calories just happens to be a fast track to getting fat. diet soda happens to be physiologically like drinking water. fat people drink diet instead of sugar coke thats already 200-1000 calories of their day GONE with very very minimal change.

        then those fat people supplement the lost sugars with more food and they gain weight. then you get studies showing GUYS DIET SODA CAUSES WEIGHT GAIN (in fat people)

        but no its not the sugar its not the macros its YOU eating too much and you can eat less to lose weight that’s just simple science. body types, “nuance”, “bad metabolism”. none of that shits real it all stems from shitty dietary choices and lack of muscle.

        all of this to say unless theres medical issues or medical intervention your weight and body type is 100% in your control should you choose to take control

        • cocobean
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          How about all the research that shows sugar is addictive AF

          • Apollo
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Of course sugar is addictive as fuck - you would literally die without it.

          • sock@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            self control is a thing everything is addictive in some facet refined sugars just happens to trigger a stronger dopamine response than other things.

            but in the end of the day self control is necessary nobody can control you except you. so dont blame sugars addicitiveness for being overweight if you are. its solely an overeating issue.

            • cocobean
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I feel like you underestimate addiction. “Self control” is what’s needed to not start smoking; but it takes something stronger to quit smoking, I think – a more refined willpower than simple “self control”.

              And sure, it’s something a person could cultivate and train on their own with time and focus. But so are most other things. “Why aren’t you good at drawing? All you need to do is practice every day! it’s simple.”

              • sock@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                nicotine is chemically addictive sugar is not.

                im a stoner and can assure you the way to quit smoking something that isnt chemically addictive is cold turkey will-power babey. ive taken long breaks when needed with months of straight use 24/7 down to zero for months. its all mind over matter.

                im also shredded now because slight caloric deficit and healthy eating is also straight will power mind over matter to consistently eat a slight deficit and well for months. and i do a rigourous calisthenics strength routine consistently to supplement thus I’m quite ripped.

                shit even for my cut i completely quit eating added sugars cold turkey i didnt eat any aside from the occasional if i was given something for like 4 months. it was also pretty easy and made occasional sweets taste better and fruits/veggies were gas.

                people make shit up as excuses like “ohh im skinny fat its too late”, “i dont have time in between my laying down and netflix binge”. no body types dont exist. never have never will stop using excuses. if you want to be lazy accept the fact YOU ARE LAZY theres no other excuse than you being lazy. which is chill being lazy is fun sometimes (remember im a stoner) but don’t pretend its for some other reason its all on YOU.

                everyone thinks oh its too hard i cant do it. but no youre just lazy and weak willed and im not joking. you can do anything if you want to thats the beauty of life. things don’t come easy if you see someone doing crazy shit that’s probably a conglomeration of years of hard work and dedication. they probably started looking and thinking like you til they woke up.

                WAKE UP you dont need to be fat, your metabolism doesn’t need to suffer with age, your joints dont need to get worse. all of this happens from a lack of training and poor diet NOT age. age provides the time for your body to degrade you have to prevent that degration. I FUCKING HATE when people say your metabolism will slow down and youll get fat eventually. bitch no ill never be like you.

                also finally, i am a drug addict i know about addiction trust me. I’ve quit some shittier things it takes effort but in the end of the day still its on YOU to quit nobody can quit for you.

                • cocobean
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  nicotine is chemically addictive sugar is not.

                  I’m not sure what you mean by this. If you mean a sugar addiction is more like a gambling addiction than a nicotine addiction, I don’t think that’s the case; you can find studies that claim sugar addiction is “opiate-like”. There are also some sensational claims like “sugar is more addictive than cocaine”, though that seems like more of a stretch to me.

                  I’m glad to hear you are in great shape, and it’s clear you tie a lot of self worth to physical fitness. But I would caution you not to use that as an excuse to look down on others.

      • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        Absolutely nothing wrong with a diet high in fruit and veg, both of which contain significant amounts of sugar.

        • Chocrates@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You are correct, the caveat “added sugar” or added sweetener in this case is the important bit.

          Fructose doesn’t have the same health effects of sucrose for some reason and the sugar you eat in fruit and veg come with fiber which helps keep our blood sugar from spiking.

          I was shocked to learn that dates, which are basically candy, have a pretty reasonable glycemic index.

          • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Except that guy wrote:

            Even minimizing natural sugar intake.

            Which precludes fruit and a good deal of veg.

          • Silverseren@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Fructose doesn’t have the same health effects of sucrose for some reason

            That’s because fructolysis has a slightly different pathway and fate as compared to glycolysis, which results in far lower efficiency of conversion. Meaning glucose gets converted into more calories than fructose does.

            • Chocrates@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Fascinating! It is astounding to me how we know some of this stuff and how there is so much we have left to discover

        • Ataraxia
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fruits make me just as sick as any other source of sugar. Fruit is just candy in a natural wrapper.

      • StackedTurtles@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        There’s nothing inherently bad about sugar. It’s just energy. If you intake more energy than you burn it’s getting stored for future use (you get fat). The same goes for almost anything “unhealthy”. Manage your energy intake and almost nothing is unhealthy.

      • pelespiritOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        The biggest question in this thread, who would downvote this?

        • Ookami38
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Probably people who are a bit sketch about the “even natural sugars” bit, since that removes a TON of otherwise healthy food options. Minimize added sugar, sure.

    • Orbituary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not to mention that the gene pool of these lab mice is super small. Source: my brother is a PhD biochemist and lectured me often on this shit when I said, “hey, look at this study!”

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The small gene pool is done on purpose. The mice are supposed to be as close to clones as possible so that you can have control populations and be confident that the results weren’t affected by certain genes and mutations in the test population.

        The size of the gene pool isn’t really an issue though because they can be bred however it’s required for tests. They have quite a lot of control over the genetics of those lab mice.

        Testing for a cure for diabetes? They can produce mice that are almost guaranteed to develop diabetes that you can then try to cure.

      • Bohurt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Such a small groups are fine for initial investigation, they have enough of a size to be acceptable statistically for most of the performed studies. I don’t think they’d get approval from ethical committee overseeing animal experiments without initial study like this to conduct something on very high groups.

    • AkaBobHoward@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I am a relatively recent transplant from the red place, I can tell I ain’t in Kansas anymore, actual good information being up voted so cool.

      Aspartame is, because of all the claims against it, the single most studied food substance known, and it seems to somehow keep coming okay. There are a lot of studies with really bad methods that were a smear job attempt but science doing what it does they were labeled for what they are and disregarded. Is it possible to be allergic and a reaction to be anxiety sure, but that is not on the food.

    • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Guarantee the study also states that you have to consume an ungodly amount of it too…

      News reports grab on to stuff like this all the time. Like what they did with safrole.

        • Silverseren@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          There’s a daily recommended amount for mice? Or was that 15% of the recommended amount for humans, which would be massive for mice?

          • smooth_tea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s the equivalent of the human daily dose. So adjusted for body weight. Loosely translated, it would be 15% of the daily recommended dose for mice.

            • Silverseren@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              So 15% for a 60 kilogram human, on the lower end, would be the daily recommended amount for a 9 kilogram creature. A mouse weighs around 0.025 kilograms. So, that amount for the mice is for something 360 times larger.

              Obviously it’s more complicated than that with differing metabolisms and the like, but as a rough estimate, wow. That’s a lot.

              • smooth_tea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m baffled by your willingness to elaborate at length about this, but not read the article where this is explained. Misinforming everyone in the process.

                When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA’s recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.

          • Silverseren@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            Just in case you missed it, we discussed below that that’s the 15% daily recommended amount for a human. That they gave to the mice. A creature several hundred times smaller.

            So you were right in the first place.

            • smooth_tea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              No, it’s the equivalent dose.

              When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA’s recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.

            • papertowels@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Can you cite your sources? This excerpt from the published article suggests you’re wrong:

              The FDA recommended maximum DIV for aspartame for humans is 50 mg/kg (33). Based on allometric conversion utilizing pharmacokinetic and body surface area parameters (43), the mouse equivalent of the human DIV is 615 mg/kg/d. Therefore, the male mice received a daily aspartame dose equivalent to 14.0%, 7.0%, and 3.5% of the FDA recommended human DIV, and the females received a dose equivalent to 15.5%, 7.7%, and 3.9% of the human DIV.