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.
May 19, 2022 01:05 AM
26,413 Posts
Joined May 2006
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users.
We will agree to disagree that just because there isn't a consensus on something that no one should have a healthy level of concern and proceed with caution as they see fit. There's no need to consume artificial sweeteners to live a healthy and happy life so if people choose not to consume them when there are some red flags that have not been thoroughly studied does not represent irrational behavior.
There's also no need to consume SlickDeals. And given how much this site has been PROVEN to cause severe cases of walletus emptius for many thousands of individuals, I would suggest serious caution with this product that has been known to cause harm in the state of California and probably elsewhere!
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank GreySquirrel365
Quote
from namlook
:
We will agree to disagree that just because there isn't a consensus on something that no one should have a healthy level of concern and proceed with caution as they see fit. There's no need to consume artificial sweeteners to live a healthy and happy life so if people choose not to consume them when there are some red flags that have not been thoroughly studied does not represent irrational behavior.
If you're someone who already eats a super healthy diet, are active, and a healthy weight then, sure no reason to add artificial sweeteners.
But if you're like many who are overweight and use this as a substitute for sugar laden products, then that's (at least based on current evidence) a great option. Obesity is known to cause many issues and negative health effects, so lessening a known evil in exchange for a probably non-evil is a rational choice.
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
I prefer the Palmer to Smuckers. i find the taste far superior. but thats just me.
I prefer the Palmer to Smuckers. i find the taste far superior. but thats just me.
Do you mean Polaner? If so, I agree. My favorite is Smuckers Sugar Free Apricot and was hoping the skinnygirl would fill the bill but not quite. Unfortunately Wallmart seems to have stopped carrying it. Plus the skinnygirl is 10 oz whereas the Smuckers is 12.75 oz.
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.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank GreySquirrel365
But if you're like many who are overweight and use this as a substitute for sugar laden products, then that's (at least based on current evidence) a great option. Obesity is known to cause many issues and negative health effects, so lessening a known evil in exchange for a probably non-evil is a rational choice.
https://www.mdvip.com/about-mdvip...ltodext
Sodium benzoate? Perhaps in engine coolant, but not in my food:
https://www.healthline.
Leave a Comment