This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
Deal History includes data from multiple reputable stores, such as Best Buy, Target, and Walmart. The lowest price among stores for a given day is selected as the "Sale Price".
Sale Price does not include sale prices at Amazon unless a deal was posted by a community member.
The single study referenced here was done via in vitro high concentration exposure, which does not occur in the human diet. Unfortunately, the study does not offer any conclusive insight on shorter and lower exposure within a metabolic environment.
There are studies that show harm when in vitro cells are exposed for days at a time to water or salt at high concentrations too - which doesn't actually tell us that moderate or low concentrations of those things are bad either.
Having read the study, I also find it interesting that they claim taste receptors are were a factor in whether there were significant effects - with the taste blocker application also seemingly negating effects of the sweeteners. This makes me wonder why they didn't test sugar, which itself would trigger taste response then and should be compared.
Current global scientific consensus has not found the consumption of artificial sweeteners to be harmful. To suggest there is conclusive evidence of such is not accurate, but citing a single study indicates some reactionary messaging is present when people try to perpetuate fear of sweeteners.
Current science does not support the implication or claim that these ingredients have a negative impact on health. To suggest people who care about their health should care about these ingredients is just suggesting people should have fear or concern for something because they were told to, not because it is true.
So no, people should not be made to worry about sweeteners at this time. There is no scientific consensus against them whatsoever. Sweeteners are studied internationally by many independent research teams and markets. Aspartame itself is arguably the most studied food subject ever at this point - it has been shown to be safe in dietary form for many many decades.
Someone could come in here and say "there's bad stuff in this" and someone could post any flawed basis for their belief. And that's just not at all rational to be concerned by or planned around for your diet.
27 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I don't know about others, but I had a 25% coupon to clip for the first S&S order. I got it for $2.08. It'll be even lower once I hit my 5 order threshold.
I don't know about others, but I had a 25% coupon to clip for the first S&S order. I got it for $2.08. It'll be even lower once I hit my 5 order threshold.
no coupon for me, but i'm already at 15% in sub/save
I usually buy smuckers sugar free but those have increased to $4-5. Just ordered Walmart great value strawberry sugar free for $2.44 each. Only because I have Walmart+ 90 day trial and free shipping. For the longest time, I didn't eat much toast jam and peanut butter, but it's been my snack alternative or quick breakfast the past month or so. Plus i have multiple loaves of bread taking up space in freezer that needs to be eaten. The apricot smuckers sugar free is pretty good so hopefully this is comparable. That said, these sugar free preserves in general, texture wise aren't like regular ones but for no sugar and only 10 calories per serving it's good enough. I do use natural peanut butter in moderation, using only 1 tbsp at a time and just account for those 95 calories
New research has discovered that common artificial sweeteners can cause previously healthy gut bacteria to become diseased and invade the gut wall, potentially leading to serious health issues.
New research has discovered that common artificial sweeteners can cause previously healthy gut bacteria to become diseased and invade the gut wall, potentially leading to serious health issues.
The single study referenced here was done via in vitro high concentration exposure, which does not occur in the human diet. Unfortunately, the study does not offer any conclusive insight on shorter and lower exposure within a metabolic environment.
There are studies that show harm when in vitro cells are exposed for days at a time to water or salt at high concentrations too - which doesn't actually tell us that moderate or low concentrations of those things are bad either.
Having read the study, I also find it interesting that they claim taste receptors are were a factor in whether there were significant effects - with the taste blocker application also seemingly negating effects of the sweeteners. This makes me wonder why they didn't test sugar, which itself would trigger taste response then and should be compared.
Current global scientific consensus has not found the consumption of artificial sweeteners to be harmful. To suggest there is conclusive evidence of such is not accurate, but citing a single study indicates some reactionary messaging is present when people try to perpetuate fear of sweeteners.
The single study referenced here was done via in vitro high concentration exposure, which does not occur in the human diet. Unfortunately, the study does not offer any conclusive insight on shorter and lower exposure within a metabolic environment.
There are studies that show harm when in vitro cells are exposed for days at a time to water or salt at high concentrations too - which doesn't actually tell us that moderate or low concentrations of those things are bad either.
Having read the study, I also find it interesting that they claim taste receptors are were a factor in whether there were significant effects - with the taste blocker application also seemingly negating effects of the sweeteners. This makes me wonder why they didn't test sugar, which itself would trigger taste response then and should be compared.
Current global scientific consensus has not found the consumption of artificial sweeteners to be harmful. To suggest there is conclusive evidence of such is not accurate, but citing a single study indicates some reactionary messaging is present when people try to perpetuate fear of sweeteners.
I agree this one study is not the final or conclusive word on the subject. The title of the first linked article does say "potentially,,," But it also shouldn't just be dismissed either by any prudent person who has an interest in optimizing their health and reducing suffering from health ailments as they age. Many other people don't care at all about any of it and that's perfectly fine too. Everyone's got to live their life how they choose.
Last edited by namlook May 18, 2022 at 06:53 PM.
1
5
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I agree this one study is not the final or conclusive word on the subject. The title of the first linked article does say "potentially,,," But it also shouldn't just be dismissed either by any prudent person who has an interest in optimizing their health and reducing suffering from health ailments as they age. Many other people don't care at all about any of it and that's perfectly fine too. Everyone's got to live their life how they choose.
Current science does not support the implication or claim that these ingredients have a negative impact on health. To suggest people who care about their health should care about these ingredients is just suggesting people should have fear or concern for something because they were told to, not because it is true.
So no, people should not be made to worry about sweeteners at this time. There is no scientific consensus against them whatsoever. Sweeteners are studied internationally by many independent research teams and markets. Aspartame itself is arguably the most studied food subject ever at this point - it has been shown to be safe in dietary form for many many decades.
Someone could come in here and say "there's bad stuff in this" and someone could post any flawed basis for their belief. And that's just not at all rational to be concerned by or planned around for your diet.
Leave a Comment
Top Comments
There are studies that show harm when in vitro cells are exposed for days at a time to water or salt at high concentrations too - which doesn't actually tell us that moderate or low concentrations of those things are bad either.
Having read the study, I also find it interesting that they claim taste receptors are were a factor in whether there were significant effects - with the taste blocker application also seemingly negating effects of the sweeteners. This makes me wonder why they didn't test sugar, which itself would trigger taste response then and should be compared.
Current global scientific consensus has not found the consumption of artificial sweeteners to be harmful. To suggest there is conclusive evidence of such is not accurate, but citing a single study indicates some reactionary messaging is present when people try to perpetuate fear of sweeteners.
So no, people should not be made to worry about sweeteners at this time. There is no scientific consensus against them whatsoever. Sweeteners are studied internationally by many independent research teams and markets. Aspartame itself is arguably the most studied food subject ever at this point - it has been shown to be safe in dietary form for many many decades.
Someone could come in here and say "there's bad stuff in this" and someone could post any flawed basis for their belief. And that's just not at all rational to be concerned by or planned around for your diet.
27 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank bsdc
will still try at this price..
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
New research has discovered that common artificial sweeteners can cause previously healthy gut bacteria to become diseased and invade the gut wall, potentially leading to serious health issues.
Reference: "Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis" by Aparna Shil and Havovi Chichger, 15 May 2021, International Journal of Molecular Sciences.
Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis [mdpi.com]
New research has discovered that common artificial sweeteners can cause previously healthy gut bacteria to become diseased and invade the gut wall, potentially leading to serious health issues.
Reference: "Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis" by Aparna Shil and Havovi Chichger, 15 May 2021, International Journal of Molecular Sciences.
Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis [mdpi.com]
There are studies that show harm when in vitro cells are exposed for days at a time to water or salt at high concentrations too - which doesn't actually tell us that moderate or low concentrations of those things are bad either.
Having read the study, I also find it interesting that they claim taste receptors are were a factor in whether there were significant effects - with the taste blocker application also seemingly negating effects of the sweeteners. This makes me wonder why they didn't test sugar, which itself would trigger taste response then and should be compared.
Current global scientific consensus has not found the consumption of artificial sweeteners to be harmful. To suggest there is conclusive evidence of such is not accurate, but citing a single study indicates some reactionary messaging is present when people try to perpetuate fear of sweeteners.
There are studies that show harm when in vitro cells are exposed for days at a time to water or salt at high concentrations too - which doesn't actually tell us that moderate or low concentrations of those things are bad either.
Having read the study, I also find it interesting that they claim taste receptors are were a factor in whether there were significant effects - with the taste blocker application also seemingly negating effects of the sweeteners. This makes me wonder why they didn't test sugar, which itself would trigger taste response then and should be compared.
Current global scientific consensus has not found the consumption of artificial sweeteners to be harmful. To suggest there is conclusive evidence of such is not accurate, but citing a single study indicates some reactionary messaging is present when people try to perpetuate fear of sweeteners.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
So no, people should not be made to worry about sweeteners at this time. There is no scientific consensus against them whatsoever. Sweeteners are studied internationally by many independent research teams and markets. Aspartame itself is arguably the most studied food subject ever at this point - it has been shown to be safe in dietary form for many many decades.
Someone could come in here and say "there's bad stuff in this" and someone could post any flawed basis for their belief. And that's just not at all rational to be concerned by or planned around for your diet.
Leave a Comment