Artificial Sweetener or Sugar?

[Madmick]

ad nauseum[/I] here and other places. I am almost certain that I have previously contributed on this topic here on Sherdog.

That thread here:
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=271340

 

[Chad Hamilton]

Rjkd....To answer your question. Being an athlete and being in the business I am in, (sports supplement distribution) I believe aminos are good for Chad. Now I know that may sound general to most but thats part of my being an evolved form of life, and even I chuckle at that statement because I know how it souonds to the masses, however at the same time I chuckle because it feels so good. I think glutamine and aminos are ok, even though your point is correct.
Aspartame is a f'ed up amino, inbred crossbreed amino, thats why it's f'ed up.

Terumu....Although I have a few hours left before I graduate college, (don't know when that will take place) I'm a student of metaphysics...on a collegiate level for 4 + total years. However on a spiritual level, my entire life. Heres a little background for this is the only general way I can explain some of my reasonings to you.
I grew up with my Tibetan grandmother, who fled with others as a little girl to India and eventually Hawaii, then the mainland. What I understand about nature is beyond what most do...to say the least. Most westerners can't begin to wrap their suppressed minds around what I know as truth. I'm not including you in this group directly because I've never met you...however your words and emotions behind them, (and yes I can understand emotion beyond a keyboard, its not hard) say you're a scientist and we know science can sometimes clash with nature. Im quite sure you'll make a great cancer cell researcher. I appreciate your insight on issues for it helps myself to grow.

I hope that gives some satisfaction.

 

[Espo]

Chad, if you get time can you explain more in depth about your beliefs concerning nature? It sounds like it can be interesting.

 

[Chad Hamilton]

That would perhaps take quite some time.

 

[Saint Of The K]

This is the reason the FDA is so stringent in the USA today, and Europe is (by comparison) making guinea pigs out of their citizens.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Good one. Thanx for the laugh...
Actually it's not that much laughable, since you seem to be a pretty informed & educated guy... that only makes me think that the less knowledgeable guys are in for a rude awakening...

No, really, do NOT trust the FDA, especially about aspartame/nutrasweet. Have you read the stories about how it was introduiced in the US market (the story with Rumsfeld) ?
Scary to say the least...

 

[Sinister]

Aspartame is a f'ed up amino, inbred crossbreed amino, thats why it's f'ed up.

Chad, if you ever lose a bet to me I'm going to have you in yuor debut in the Octagon on Television or PPV, wear a shirt that says "I love Aspartame with all the creamy goodness of my inner-parts!"

 

[eljamaiquino]

sugar tastes better and it's natural. Honey is also good

If you want to go that way, sugar is refined. You don't find table sugar in nature. Honey is the only natural sweetener. Sugar is a substance that is extracted and refined from existing foods, so its no more natural than Splenda or whatever other sweetener...

 

[Chad Hamilton]

not when its raw cane sugar...turbinado.

 

[Chad Hamilton]

Chad, if you ever lose a bet to me I'm going to have you in yuor debut in the Octagon on Television or PPV, wear a shirt that says "I love Aspartame with all the creamy goodness of my inner-parts!"

Dammit King.

 

[eljamaiquino]

not when its raw cane sugar...turbinado.

You mean the stuff that is made when the cane is crushed, distilled, and then evaporated?
So they've taken the natural source, crushed it to get the juice, then removed the fiber and the water?

Sounds processed to me. They don't bleach it like white sugar, but its still processed. Try chewing some sugar cane and see how sweet that is.I did that all the time as a kid. That's the raw product.

If they use machines on it, its processed.

 

[supersudo]

Take vitamin concentrates, for example. most vitamins can be produced synthetically at a tiny fraction of the cost of natural extraction (vitamin E is one of few exceptions, here). The chemical structure, formula, and conformation are identical to those of the natural form. In the body, there is no difference in how the two forms behave. And why would there be? They are identical.

i'm gonna have to disagree here.. they have the same chemical structure but they are NOT identical.. it's a matter of arrangement like "S T A R" and "R A T S"... i read several studies about synthetic beta-carotene actually increasing the risk of lung cancer in smokers.. and natural beta-carotene i'll assume does not.. simply bcuz it's "natural" :wink:

links:
http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/synthetic_beta_carotene_does_not_work.htm

http://www.thenutritionreporter.com/Synth_beta.html

http://www.nicovite.com/BetaCarotenehtm.html

 

[Tommy Seoul]

Rjkd....To answer your question. Being an athlete and being in the business I am in, (sports supplement distribution) I believe aminos are good for Chad. Now I know that may sound general to most but thats part of my being an evolved form of life, and even I chuckle at that statement because I know how it souonds to the masses, however at the same time I chuckle because it feels so good. I think glutamine and aminos are ok, even though your point is correct.
Aspartame is a f'ed up amino, inbred crossbreed amino, thats why it's f'ed up.

Terumu....Although I have a few hours left before I graduate college, (don't know when that will take place) I'm a student of metaphysics...on a collegiate level for 4 + total years. However on a spiritual level, my entire life. Heres a little background for this is the only general way I can explain some of my reasonings to you.
I grew up with my Tibetan grandmother, who fled with others as a little girl to India and eventually Hawaii, then the mainland. What I understand about nature is beyond what most do...to say the least. Most westerners can't begin to wrap their suppressed minds around what I know as truth. I'm not including you in this group directly because I've never met you...however your words and emotions behind them, (and yes I can understand emotion beyond a keyboard, its not hard) say you're a scientist and we know science can sometimes clash with nature. Im quite sure you'll make a great cancer cell researcher. I appreciate your insight on issues for it helps myself to grow.

I hope that gives some satisfaction.

Sounds like a cult.

 

[Terumo]

i'm gonna have to disagree here.. they have the same chemical structure but they are NOT identical.. it's a matter of arrangement like "S T A R" and "R A T S"... i read several studies about synthetic beta-carotene actually increasing the risk of lung cancer in smokers.. and natural beta-carotene i'll assume does not.. simply bcuz it's "natural" :wink:

links:
http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/synthetic_beta_carotene_does_not_work.htm

http://www.thenutritionreporter.com/Synth_beta.html

http://www.nicovite.com/BetaCarotenehtm.html

We are not in disagreement, supersudo. As you can see, I said that synthetic vitamins that are the same in formula, chirality, and conformation are identical to their natural counterparts. As I noted, there are exceptions; however, they are few and far between. B-carotene, in its natural and synthetic forms, has been linked to a few carcinogenic, pro-oxidant properties. It is not just the synthetic form. However, the synthetic form of B-carotene does differ slightly from the natural form. Synthesis of this molecule leads to the production of a single isomer; whereas, the natural form is a conglomerate of isomers (three conformations, if I remember correctly). As I said previously, if a synthetic molecule is completely identical to the natural form, it is identical in biophysiological function as well. However, laboratory synthesis does not always accurately mimic the natural form of a compound. Hence, the properties will likely differ.

 

[Terumo]

...Terumu....Although I have a few hours left before I graduate college, (don't know when that will take place) I'm a student of metaphysics...on a collegiate level for 4 + total years.

Just for the record, I don't care if you have yet to graduate kindergarten. I do not hold any precedent (on an Internet forum, at least) concerning a person's opinion based upon level of education.

...However on a spiritual level, my entire life. Heres a little background for this is the only general way I can explain some of my reasonings to you.
I grew up with my Tibetan grandmother, who fled with others as a little girl to India and eventually Hawaii, then the mainland. What I understand about nature is beyond what most do...to say the least. Most westerners can't begin to wrap their suppressed minds around what I know as truth. I'm not including you in this group directly because I've never met you...however your words and emotions behind them, (and yes I can understand emotion beyond a keyboard, its not hard) say you're a scientist and we know science can sometimes clash with nature. Im quite sure you'll make a great cancer cell researcher. I appreciate your insight on issues for it helps myself to grow.

I hope that gives some satisfaction.

I understand what you are saying, and I have met (and befriended) several people from a similar background. In fact, I respect your diverse background, and I feel that we all learn from discourse among others who derive from varying backgrounds/beliefs. However, I find fault in the fact that seem to be (BIG emphasis on "SEEM to be") conjuncting the ideas of "truth" and "belief." Truth is a very relative concept. I accept things that have been hypothesized and proven to a rational degree to be "truthful." However, I welcome someone to disprove these things that I hold "truthful" with appropriate logic and defense of that logic. It is a concept known as Occam's Razor: Since the idea of "truth" is constantly changing, we are best-off accepting the most logically defended prospect as that which is true.

By your definition of spiritual truth, you can simply take an opinion and state that it is truthful. Bypass the steps of looking for adequate defense, or even a premise for the initial idea. To me, it just doesn't work that way. However, as I said before, you are not a complete anomaly to me. I just strongly disagree that you can disprove scientific principles with beliefs or feelings. (At least, this is how I am interpreting your posts--could be wrong.)

 

[Madmick]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Good one. Thanx for the laugh...
Actually it's not that much laughable, since you seem to be a pretty informed & educated guy... that only makes me think that the less knowledgeable guys are in for a rude awakening...

No, really, do NOT trust the FDA, especially about aspartame/nutrasweet. Have you read the stories about how it was introduiced in the US market (the story with Rumsfeld) ?
Scary to say the least...

This is SO not breaking news around here.

Read the stickies.

My statement, in general, is true.

 

[Sinister]

I understand what you are saying, and I have met (and befriended) several people from a similar background. In fact, I respect your diverse background, and I feel that we all learn from discourse among others who derive from varying backgrounds/beliefs. However, I find fault in the fact that seem to be (BIG emphasis on "SEEM to be") conjuncting the ideas of "truth" and "belief." Truth is a very relative concept. I accept things that have been hypothesized and proven to a rational degree to be "truthful." However, I welcome someone to disprove these things that I hold "truthful" with appropriate logic and defense of that logic. It is a concept known as Occam's Razor: Since the idea of "truth" is constantly changing, we are best-off accepting the most logically defended prospect as that which is true.

By your definition of spiritual truth, you can simply take an opinion and state that it is truthful. Bypass the steps of looking for adequate defense, or even a premise for the initial idea. To me, it just doesn't work that way. However, as I said before, you are not a complete anomaly to me. I just strongly disagree that you can disprove scientific principles with beliefs or feelings. (At least, this is how I am interpreting your posts--could be wrong.)

What I find ironic about the whole "science" versus whatever you want to call it argument is that neither side usually sees the answer because of the human need to be correct to an absolute, which I think is our one great fault when using either science or religion, and typically is what results in Wars that are not based on land or resources, but instead on one side's perception of "truth" being Universally accepted. This notion spreads like a disease through all schools of thought be they scientific or philosophical. Someone once told me reality and truth are both in the eye of the beholder, what is real and true to you is real and true...to you. I've met enough people in hardcore denial about a great many things to have seen this theory proven more than once. Where even when evidence as concrete as the rise of the sun is right before their face, and they simply cannot and will not accept it, and if they try hard enough, they can find a rational reason to do this that cannot be argued by anyone who attempts to disprove the facts in-question...as opposed to helping the person find the proverbial door in the mental/spritual wall that is responsible for their refusal to accept reality.

All that being said, what I find is that usually schools of science and schools of spirituality are typically seperated over the most mundane bullshit, and arguments of semantics and circumstance. The one revealer of all truth I'm sorry to say is neither...from my experience regardless of testing of theories under controlled conditions (science), and regardless of observational knowledge based largely on perception (spirituality), neither provides static answers for people, ones they can trust completely and count on. The one thing that does is something neither side controls, and that's time. Time allows for scientific theory to be proven or disproven through natural means, and non-forced methods of discovery (like how more than half the theories we have now from science were stumbled upon in experiments that had nothing to do with the subjects in-question), or through changes in stages of humanity that allow for general thought and emotion to change from experience (like how we've begun the move from an Industrial-based society to an information-based society, and how we went from an Agricultural-based society to an Industrial-based society).

Something I said to a co-worker who loves to get into these topics with me is that I feel science and spirituality best-work together. Problem is the people involved are usually so Hell-bent on proving each-other wrong they cannot see beyond their own personal accomplishments or learnings to understand they each usually have the exact same goals to reach in an alotted period of time. So what does it matter the methodology? As long as the goal is achieved to some degree each is correct. And if you can get the two to work together on an issue, let's say a person's health...then that person would get every aspect of care, the technical aspect and the perceived aspect. So in summation, I think the "proving" of this and that is an exercise ultimately in futility unless it's something that warrants being discarded entirely because it's actually hurting people, and I typically tell people who read too many exploits of the "disprovers" to take warning. A person almost never plants a flag and declares a war, crusades either for or against something without an agenda that usually has nothing to do with the subject. So always question why these things are taking place. Why is it these people want you to think this and those people want you to think that so desperately that they'd be willing to hate and slander each-other to do so. If you ask that question and get an answer that doesn't really jive, then someone's yanking your chain and you should just disregard all of them.

 

[Terumo]

What I find ironic about the whole "science" versus whatever you want to call it argument is that neither side usually sees the answer because of the human need to be correct to an absolute, which I think is our one great fault when using either science or religion, and typically is what results in Wars that are not based on land or resources, but instead on one side's perception of "truth" being Universally accepted. This notion spreads like a disease through all schools of thought be they scientific or philosophical. Someone once told me reality and truth are both in the eye of the beholder, what is real and true to you is real and true...to you. I've met enough people in hardcore denial about a great many things to have seen this theory proven more than once. Where even when evidence as concrete as the rise of the sun is right before their face, and they simply cannot and will not accept it, and if they try hard enough, they can find a rational reason to do this that cannot be argued by anyone who attempts to disprove the facts in-question...as opposed to helping the person find the proverbial door in the mental/spritual wall that is responsible for their refusal to accept reality.

All that being said, what I find is that usually schools of science and schools of spirituality are typically seperated over the most mundane bullshit, and arguments of semantics and circumstance. The one revealer of all truth I'm sorry to say is neither...from my experience regardless of testing of theories under controlled conditions (science), and regardless of observational knowledge based largely on perception (spirituality), neither provides static answers for people, ones they can trust completely and count on. The one thing that does is something neither side controls, and that's time. Time allows for scientific theory to be proven or disproven through natural means, and non-forced methods of discovery (like how more than half the theories we have now from science were stumbled upon in experiments that had nothing to do with the subjects in-question), or through changes in stages of humanity that allow for general thought and emotion to change from experience (like how we've begun the move from an Industrial-based society to an information-based society, and how we went from an Agricultural-based society to an Industrial-based society).

Something I said to a co-worker who loves to get into these topics with me is that I feel science and spirituality best-work together. Problem is the people involved are usually so Hell-bent on proving each-other wrong they cannot see beyond their own personal accomplishments or learnings to understand they each usually have the exact same goals to reach in an alotted period of time. So what does it matter the methodology? As long as the goal is achieved to some degree each is correct. And if you can get the two to work together on an issue, let's say a person's health...then that person would get every aspect of care, the technical aspect and the perceived aspect. So in summation, I think the "proving" of this and that is an exercise ultimately in futility unless it's something that warrants being discarded entirely because it's actually hurting people, and I typically tell people who read too many exploits of the "disprovers" to take warning. A person almost never plants a flag and declares a war, crusades either for or against something without an agenda that usually has nothing to do with the subject. So always question why these things are taking place. Why is it these people want you to think this and those people want you to think that so desperately that they'd be willing to hate and slander each-other to do so. If you ask that question and get an answer that doesn't really jive, then someone's yanking your chain and you should just disregard all of them.

For the most part, I agree. In fact, I don't even consider what I believe to be completely rooted in science. To me, adequate defense of beliefs is done with reason and logic. However, if someone chooses to take a "spiritual" approach to a subject like aspartame, chances are greater than not that that person is looking for an excuse to make groundless claims. There are, of course, areas of thought that transcend science; those are fields in which this type of reasoning is much more valid.

Essentially, neither science nor spirituality is capable of explaining everything (at least not yet). The most logical approach is to implement each for its appropriate field. I won't try to use science to argue ethics and morality. Likewise, don't use spirituality as a means of explaining metabolism of artificial sweeteners. No field is all-encompassing; however, they certainly have areas of applicability.

 

[finnegan]

This thread needs E-Prime to make sense. E-prime, for those not exposed to it, fixes many problems in the English language by removing the verb "to be" from the language. The verb "to be" can cause a lot of trouble when it comes to arguments and reasoning. Western philosophy, especially Aristotlean philosophy, conserns itself with finding the "nature" of things, as if a perfect quintessential example of anything existed that we must judge how similar any one thing seems like it. Posting in E-Prime does a few things for a conversation besides making it appear more intelligent. It eliminates Aristotlean philosophy, and forces the poster to state not only what the verb/noun in question actually does functionally, but what instrument measures that functionality and identifies the observer.
Example: "Natural foods are safer than artificial foods."
E-Prime: "To me, natural foods seem safer based on my research."
______
Nothing is true; Everything is Permitted.

 

[finnegan]

The words "Amatuer Fighter" under his name make him an advanced being on Sherdog at least.

 

[Rjkd12]

The words "Amatuer Fighter" under his name make him an advanced being on Sherdog at least.

Haha. Yeah, I agree, especially in a nutrition forum that is currently arguing about aspartame. I"m a certified bastard from the FBBC webpage, so that means you should listen to me about how to throw a right cross. Additionally I have a degree in kinesiology so when I talk about religion you better get pen and paper.