Why can't I just get a straight answer on if this stuff is bad for you or not?
It's probably not. In the 80s some canadian lab rats were forcefed 10x a daily amount of diet coke or whatever sweetens it, and they got cancer i think
>>22162354you have been given a straight answer an hundred on an hundred times.
It's not good for you.You can digest a certain amount of sugar, sugar exists in natural foods.Excess sugar is bad for you.These sweeteners are fine if you're under your rdi of sugar, however because they are man made sugars your body absorbs them differently to obtaining sugar from food, so they're bad for you that way because you get a hit of sugar rapidly instead of slowly.Just think critically, why would a can of soda be good for you?
>>22162354>sweet thingsnot good for you.>artificial sweet thingsslop not good for you.
>>22162354Artificial process slop is always bad for you. Corporate shills will always have some silly ass argument that you should simply trust the food science but their goal is exclusively to make money and they only pretend to give a fuck about your health when they want you to buy shit.Fuck you, Splenda corp. I hope naming you requires your shills to show up.
>>22162370>why would a can of soda be good for youthe question is not “is it good for you”, it’s “is it bad for you”it is obviously not nutritious. but aspartame is probably the most researched food additive of all time. the consensus is it’s probably fine. certainly better than overdosing on sugar like billions of people do every day, and becoming an obese diabetic who won’t make it past 55
>>22162466>well it’s obviously better than an absurd counterexample >also industry studies prove the thing we want to sell you is perfectly safeFucking dude
On the subject of what is good for you or bad for you, I've always adhered to the belief that your body will let you know, if you listen to what it tells you.Different people have different bodies, different metabolisms, different genetics. Some people have issues with dairy, some have issues with wheat, some people are sensitive to salt or sugar. There really is no piece of advice you will find that is perfectly tailored to you. Additionally, there is a lot of misinformation out there. I've lived long enough to see eggs go from "healthy" to "unhealthy" and back to "healthy" again. When I was a kid people thought butter made you fat and the food pyramid suggested a carb heavy daily diet. Listen to your body, and, if necessary, in lieu of that I would suggest going with old, conventional wisdom. Everything in moderation.
just use raw sugar or honey
>>22162476>an absurd counterexampleit’s not though, and if I was exaggerating it’s only by a little bit. look up the recommended daily sugar limit, now think about how many people are constantly pounding sugary drinks and snacks
Artificial sweeteners are the trannies of food ingredients. Literally no reason for it and a mental illness to indulge in.
>>22162354Metabolic de-arrangement.Here, this is the Google Summary>Frequent use of artificial and non-nutritive sweeteners can trigger metabolic derangements by confusing the body's natural response to sweet tastes. While they have no calories, substitutes like aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin may disrupt blood sugar balance, alter gut bacteria, and increase the risk of insulin resistance.Basically your shit gets all fucked up dog. Your body is meant to metabolize sugar, particularly when you>tasteTHE>sweetTHINGSo, when you taste the>FAKE>SUGARyour shit gets all>FUCKED>UPbecause your body is>expecting the metabolites, amino acids, and fiber found in fruit
>>22162354It's safe and effective. Trust the science and eat as much as you want, don't listen to the dysgenic freaks with defective stomachs.
>absolutely zero testosterone, beta pussy foodsShan’t be me. It probably makes you fucking gay.
>>22162521you’re a retard. sugar is actually what lowers your testosterone.
>>22162354My wife’s boyfriend makes me eat this stuff because it’s better for me. What an awesome and respectful man.
>>22162354Not sure why you’d actively want to be a low test faggot but okay
>>22162516>can trigger>may disruptBeing as gay as you are can result in idiotic posts and may disrupt your genetic sequence, causing you to become a full retard.
>>22162354It should tell you something that people whose diet doesn't consist of fried bullshit and cheap menthols and sugary bellywash don't think about this crap at all.
>>22162556>when we see jynx and his family get into the pool with their shirts on>.jpg
>>22162354>skinnypersondietcoke.jpg
>>22162354I normally add this to my instant coffee. It’s quite tasty.
>>22162466Actually the question was "is it bad for you or not" which you can clearly see on the OP.Please don't put words in my mouth, I'll put my cock in yours.
*taps jpeg*
>>22162674same shit. I put an answer in your eyeballs, which is “not”, so you’re welcome
>>22162679Silence and consume your ass part time sweeteners soycuck
>>22162354Isn't stevia literally just a leaf?I fail to see how thats anywhere near as bad as some lab grown science chemicals
>>22162354What do you even use that for ???
>>22162763Stevia is used for abortion. But yes, it s just a "leaf", not bad with nature. "Science chemicals" are bad, white men create them with their superior intelligence, so it s racist and shit.
>>22162674Kek basedAbsolutely dick down this splenda slurping gayboy, OP.
>>22162354>Why can't I just get a straight answerBecause those additives exist at the intersection of corporate interests, reactionaries, fear mongering, and ad-driven irresponsible journalism so all sources are suspect. Also, any potential negative effect such as cancer risk would take years and years to find even a weak correlation in a non-controlled study of human consumption, so any information available is speculative.
>>22162435Fruits are sweet, midwit post
>>22162763Isn't ricinus just a seed?I fail to see how thats anywhere near as bad as some lab grown science chemicals.Time to grind some delicious ricinus seed over your food.Isn't hemlock literally just a flower? I fail to see how thats anywhere near as bad as some lab grown science chemicalsStop it with that "Nature good, man made bad" bullshit. Nature, the dirty old poison hag, has created a whole arsenal of poisons that no chemical factory can beat. Plants and fungi cannot flee, so to survive many over the course of evolution developed really potent poisons. Plants are your friends as long as you just wanna look at them. As soon as you try to eat them they are out to kill you.
>>22162357They finally figured out why the rats developed bladder cancer from being force-fed saccharine, and it was some protein that humans don't have. So as long as you're not a rat, saccharine is safe for you to consume (but it still has an awful bitter aftertaste).
>>22162988>So as long as you're not a ratit's like another shoah
>>22162923why can't you read better?
>>22162357>In the 80s some canadian lab rats were forcefedIn the 20s Canadian lab rats were also forced something else
>>22162965No
>>22162481>When I was a kid people thought butter made you fatIt still does.
