Diet Coke and weight cutting

lol. So you drank the redline first, then the water....but somehow your body filtered out the redline and rejected it?

Do you really believe our bodies work like that?

I didn't. so im not sure how it happened. I drank about 5 oz. of the redline, and threw up less than a mouthful of pure carbonated liquid.

Im usually terrible with throwing up anything and i'll dry heave for awhile after puking everything out. this time it was just a small amount, and after i felt much better. Idk
 
I drink it until about a week until weigh ins, I do not drink it everyday but drinking only water gets crappy and I like diet pop.
 
Some people experience bloating when using artificial sweeteners. If you do not, then you are fine.

edit: Ok, Sin & MM posted twice on the same day, to what do we owe the honor?

Wouldn't bloating help you diet down, since it would make you feel full and you would eat less?
 
delicious...

nature combines amino acid naturally in food, afaik. taking aspartame, which breaks down to phenylalanine, even if you aren't PKU, is a bad idea. just a bad, bad idea. aspartame has a very strange history.

I had to ship in gum from argentina because i couldn't find any gum that didn't contain aspartame. crazy stuff to study. the rabbit hole goes very deep here.

Plenty of people take single amino acids, like arginine for instance, with no bad effects.

90 different countries have approved it. The FDA say that it is "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved".

Some people have gone down the rabbit hole themselves I think...
 
Wouldn't bloating help you diet down, since it would make you feel full and you would eat less?

Bloating like water retention, not bloating like full in the gut.
 
Plenty of people take single amino acids, like arginine for instance, with no bad effects.

90 different countries have approved it. The FDA say that it is "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved".

Some people have gone down the rabbit hole themselves I think...

People also eat other people and dress up like dracula for halloween.

You can successfully digest and pass glue, it doesn't mean you should.

Just because you don't immediately get ill or feel bad, does not mean there are zero negative effects. I only spoke on one type of amino acid, which by most every account has virtually negligible effects in people that are not predisposed to PKU or other genetic problems.

For me, it's principle and philosophy. In no way will I take over the world and enslave mankind and force my beliefs onto anyone about diet or health. But you should know not to appeal to fda authority. fda has proven conflicts of interest on this topic and others like it. I'd be far more inclined to read and ponder a quote from a medical journal or experimentation notes. Furthermore, why only 90 countries?
 
Bloating like water retention, not bloating like full in the gut.

My point is, that the bloating in the gut is what keeps you from eating more.
I remember when I used to go to buffets, I would never drink soda with the meal so I could eat more.

So basically, why wouldn't the bloating help you diet so you don't eat as much?
I would just recommend cutting it out about a week before weigh ins like the other person mentioned.
 
My point is, that the bloating in the gut is what keeps you from eating more.
I remember when I used to go to buffets, I would never drink soda with the meal so I could eat more.

So basically, why wouldn't the bloating help you diet so you don't eat as much?
I would just recommend cutting it out about a week before weigh ins like the other person mentioned.

It causes some people to retain more water. I don't know what the hell else you're talking about.
 
People also eat other people and dress up like dracula for halloween.

You can successfully digest and pass glue, it doesn't mean you should.

Just because you don't immediately get ill or feel bad, does not mean there are zero negative effects. I only spoke on one type of amino acid, which by most every account has virtually negligible effects in people that are not predisposed to PKU or other genetic problems.

For me, it's principle and philosophy. In no way will I take over the world and enslave mankind and force my beliefs onto anyone about diet or health. But you should know not to appeal to fda authority. fda has proven conflicts of interest on this topic and others like it. I'd be far more inclined to read and ponder a quote from a medical journal or experimentation notes. Furthermore, why only 90 countries?

I'm glad you're not looking to enslave mankind. Hitler was bad enough.

How many countries are there?! 90 is most of the countries who actually have meaningful food and drug testing.

Please show me the evidence where the FDA have proven conflicts of interest on this matter.

It's not just the FDA, it's scores of health agencies and years of research show that it's perfectly safe. You can choose not to believe it. That's your choice but don't dress up your beliefs as facts or in pointless conspiracy theories. The scientific consensus is that it's a safe food additive. I'm intrigued to know why you think you know better.
 
It's not just the FDA, it's scores of health agencies and years of research show that it's perfectly safe. You can choose not to believe it. That's your choice but don't dress up your beliefs as facts or in pointless conspiracy theories. The scientific consensus is that it's a safe food additive. I'm intrigued to know why you think you know better.

Likely answer - broscience.

Always find this type of logic amusing - organizations that use a scientific methodology and fund studies by independent researchers sometimes still get it wrong. Therefore, this particular view I hold, which doesn't suffer from this problem as there was never any attempt to prove it scientifically, is right.

Sometimes they throw in the "everyone is different so the scientific research from XX organization is still wrong" statement for extra support of their view. Evidently research studies don't use a large enough sample size to be more correct on average than any person's individual, unsubstantiated opinion...
 
Last edited:
if i drink any type of soda, i'll pretty much throw up. my friend gave me some redline shit and i had been drinking only water all day, i tried redline energy drink, kept drinking water for 30 minutes afterward, and all of a sudden threw up, but i could feel a belly full of water stay while only the carbonated filth came out.

thats never happened, but its been awhile since i tried soda

you are one weak ass motherfucker tbh
 
I'm glad you're not looking to enslave mankind. Hitler was bad enough.

How many countries are there?! 90 is most of the countries who actually have meaningful food and drug testing.

Please show me the evidence where the FDA have proven conflicts of interest on this matter.

It's not just the FDA, it's scores of health agencies and years of research show that it's perfectly safe. You can choose not to believe it. That's your choice but don't dress up your beliefs as facts or in pointless conspiracy theories. The scientific consensus is that it's a safe food additive. I'm intrigued to know why you think you know better.

First, I already stated that it was principle and philosophy for me rejecting pharmacology as food. You probably couldn't comprehend that because you were sipping on tap water or diet coke.

Second, I'm sure you'll disappear once I research this for you lol. so typical that the "critic" can't use google. I understand its difficult to think clearly with your brain fog, I was trying to help you out so that you might do your own research. Nevertheless an owning is now required.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...A-Admits-to-Massive-Conflict-of-Interest.aspx

http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/04/the-fda-conflicts-of-interest-provenge-e-mails/

http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-huge-conflicts-of-interest-with-big-pharma/

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/drugs-medical/fda_lawsuit-00192.html#.UFNLFpLWdV8


The above 4 articles are a few examples out of many more showing that around every controversial approval their are rabid conflicts of interest. It simply is the rule rather than the exception. Its so well documented that the pharma/fda connection is known as the revolving door.

Here's a snippet detailing the history of aspartame and the fda:

Aspartame was discovered in 1965 by a chemist working for the pharmaceutical G. D. Searle & Company, James M. Schlatter. After a four year incubation period, it was announced to the world in 1969. It has remained controversial ever since this time. For over a decade, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) did not approve the use of this substance due to some studies that could be interpreted as demonstrating a link between aspartame consumption and cancer growth in laboratory rats. This would not be surprising, as according to one source, "The 1976 Groliers encyclopedia states cancer cannot live without phenylalanine. Phenylalanine makes up 50% of aspartame (source). More about the chemical make-up of aspartame will be discussed shortly, but to continue with the controversial history of aspartame, I will turn to the following passage from the TinWiki article on aspartame:

"The FDA convened a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) in 1980, consisting of independent advisers charged with examining the alleged relationship between aspartame and brain damage and cancer. The PBOI concluded that aspartame does not cause brain damage, however, it recommended against approving aspartame at that time, citing unanswered questions about cancer in laboratory rats found during safety testing.

"The Bressler Report (provided to and initiated by the FDA in 1977) compared all the available data against the manufacturer's FDA submission and found missing raw data, errors and discrepancies in available data, but the FDA chose to ignore Bressler's report. At that point in time, there was no requirement in place in FDA regulations to include brain research in the approval process, only cancer research.

"Donald Rumsfeld, who was at the time Searle's Chief Operating Officer, reapplied for FDA certification immediately after U.S. President Ronald Reagan took office. In 1981, the FDA approved aspartame for use in dry goods. In 1983, the FDA further approved aspartame for use in carbonated beverages (. . .) In 1996, the FDA removed all restrictions from aspartame allowing it to be used in all foods" (link).

At the mere name-drop of Donald Rumsfeld, there should be red flags immediately raised. Here is a powerful political insider who served as Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977 (and again from 2001 to 2006), who went back into the private sector in 1977 to serve a powerful position in this corporate pharmaceutical company, Searle. In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto, the chemical and agricultural giant, and Rumsfeld reportedly earned $12 million from the deal. The name-dropping of Monsanto should raise even more red flags here, but at the present moment the point to be made is that there is evidence of revolving door relationships going on here, one of the plaguing symptoms of our corrupt, money-driven government. On that point, we continue with the TinWiki article into more evidence of revolving door relationships:

"Some critics of aspartame have expressed concerns about its approval by the FDA. The head of the FDA who had refused to approve the use of aspartame due to studies showing a link to cancer in rats, Jere E. Goyan, was removed from his post the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1981. Reagan appointed Arthur Hull Hayes as FDA commissioner in April of 1981 and aspartame was approved as a food additive by the FDA later that year, against the PBOI's recommendation. In 1983, Hayes quit the FDA and joined Searle's PR firm, Burson-Marstellar, as a senior medical adviser. [emphasis added]

Revolving door relationships such as this are clear conflicts of interest. Readers of this web page might already be aware of the prolific nature of revolving door relationships in our political system, especially concerning the pharmaceutical industry, banking industry, and military-industrial complex. For big pharma, I document many revolving door relationships in this article concerning the safety of vaccines (link). As a side note, you will not hear about this in the mainstream media, who are also guilty of revolving door relationships and secret, closed-door meetings with the powers that be (generally, money-power-greed back-scratching and ass kissing).

Source: http://www.maatmedia.com/display_post.php?post_id=39

I know you probably cant reed gud because the worsd hurt yur biran, but please stay with me it only gets more interesting.

Italian researchers published a new study last week that showed aspartame -- widely used in soft drinks -- might cause leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats.

"This is the second study by the same lab showing that aspartame causes cancer in rats," Center for Science in the Public Interest executive director Michael Jacobson said in a telephone interview.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/26/us-cancer-aspartame-idUSN2532170220070626

The above quote is from one of many articles from real scientists, not the paid, conflict of interest type science that your poisoned mind readily agrees with and worships, but real scientists, doing real science. like not killing off the rats before anything bad happens to them from all the poison as our article above continues:

Morando Soffritti of the Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy and colleagues tested aspartame in rats, which they allowed to live until they died naturally.

Their study of more than 4,000 rats showed a lifetime of eating high doses of the sweetener raised the likelihood of several types of cancer.

"On the basis of the present findings, we believe that a review of the current regulations governing the use of aspartame cannot be delayed," Soffritti's team wrote in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which is published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

"This review is particularly urgent with regard to aspartame-containing beverages, heavily consumed by children."

FDA spokesman Michael Herndon said the agency had not yet reviewed the study.

"However, the conclusions from this second European Ramazzini Foundation are not consistent with those from the large number of studies on aspartame that have been evaluated by FDA, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies," Herndon said in an e-mail.

"Therefore, at this time, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."

LETTING RATS LIVE

Jacobson said researchers in previous studies all killed rats at the age of two years. Allowing the rats to live longer may have been a better way to assess the natural risk of cancer, he said.

The CSPI said the Acceptable Daily Intake of aspartame in the United States is 50 mg per kilogram of body weight, equivalent to a 50-pound (20 kg) child drinking 2.5 cans of diet soda a day, or a 150-pound (68 kilogram) adult drinking about 7.5 cans a day.

The Italian researchers found a cancer risk at the very highest doses -- double the U.S. Acceptable Daily Intake.

A spokesman for Coca-Cola was not immediately available for comment.

Merisant, which makes Equal, has this statement on its Web site: "The safety of aspartame has been confirmed by regulatory authorities in more than 100 countries, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, and the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food, as well as by experts with the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization and World Health Organization."

Jacobson said people should avoid the product for now.

"People shouldn't panic, but they should stop buying beverages and foods containing aspartame," he advised.

I'm going to stop now. But since I provided adequate measure to have clear suspicions and to promote the general avoidance of pharmacology as food, I would like to see your "research," that shows it is "perfectly safe."
 
Here's a source that claims out of all the independent research done on aspartame or related, nearly all of them found 1 or more problems.

Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 7 studies which did not find a problems, 6 of those studies were conducted by the FDA. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work for the aspartame industry immediately following approval (including the former FDA Commissioner), many consider these studies to be equivalent to industry-sponsored research.

Source: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/recent.html#1

Please read the entire article it is very interesting
 
Likely answer - broscience.

Always find this type of logic amusing - organizations that use a scientific methodology and fund studies by independent researchers sometimes still get it wrong. Therefore, this particular view I hold, which doesn't suffer from this problem as there was never any attempt to prove it scientifically, is right.

Sometimes they throw in the "everyone is different so the scientific research from XX organization is still wrong" statement for extra support of their view. Evidently research studies don't use a large enough sample size to be more correct on average than any person's individual, unsubstantiated opinion...

Always find this type of illogic amusing - whereby in war, food and water controls victory. biochemical warfare manufacturers create "food additives" and the fda and all their friends say its safe and gud fer u. And you buy it, hook, line and sinker. HAHAHA you deserve the death and disease and poison. I agree with these demons. You love it. You aren't worth saving or educating. You are slaves and cattle.

while you wear your pink and blue ribbons and cry your stupid tears, I'll be laughing with your tormentors. hahahahaha you are right, i made it all up. pass the diet coke, its GOOD FOR YOU HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
Always find this type of illogic amusing - whereby in war, food and water controls victory. biochemical warfare manufacturers create "food additives" and the fda and all their friends say its safe and gud fer u. And you buy it, hook, line and sinker. HAHAHA you deserve the death and disease and poison. I agree with these demons. You love it. You aren't worth saving or educating. You are slaves and cattle.

while you wear your pink and blue ribbons and cry your stupid tears, I'll be laughing with your tormentors. hahahahaha you are right, i made it all up. pass the diet coke, its GOOD FOR YOU HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You know there was aspartame in the Kool-Aid you drank, right?
 
You know there was aspartame in the Kool-Aid you drank, right?

Imbibe? lol son. i have aspartame intravenously injected. everyone knows that disease comes not from cause and effect, but a magical place called Ignorance.
 
I don't know anything about the scientific studies behind things. I do know that almost everything created by man in an attempt to out smart nature usually ends up bad down the line. Remember margarine? That crap was listed as great for us for years and with none of the negative effects of butter...came out much worse for us in the end and butter came out better for us in the long run.

Most things aren't so bad in modertation so just don't drink buckets of the stuff, save sodas for cheat days/reward days and look for the real sugar cane old school recipes that are floating around today. Can almost guarantee those will be better for you than diet/corn sugar varieties.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,651
Messages
55,432,212
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty
Back
Top