Examples like saccharin only support the political case for banning animal testing on vertebrates or "higher": humans don't deserve the benefits of knowledge gained by torturing animals in labs.
All my disagreements with scientists are moral/ethical, not with the science.
-Abhilash M et al., “Effect of long term intake of aspartame on antioxidant defense status in liver.” Food Chem Toxicol. 2011 Jun;49(6):1203-7. Epub 2011 Mar 3.
-Ciappuccini R et al., “Aspartame-induced fibromyalgia, an unusual but curable cause of chronic pain.” Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2010 Nov-Dec;28(6 Suppl 63):S131-3. Epub 2010 Dec 22.
-Soffritti M et al., “Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice.”
-Walton RG et al., “Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population.” Biol Psychiatry. 1993 Jul 1-15;34(1-2):13-7
-Van den Eeden SK et al., “Aspartame ingestion and headaches: a randomized crossover trial.” Neurology. 1994 Oct;44(10):1787-93.
-Walton RG et al., “Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population.” Biol Psychiatry. 1993 Jul 1-15;34(1-2):13-7
-Van den Eeden SK et al., “Aspartame ingestion and headaches: a randomized crossover trial.” Neurology. 1994 Oct;44(10):1787-93.
I'm extremely interested in the new findings that saccharine does not cause cancer in humans like it does in rats. Sassafras, once the principle ingredient in root beer among many other uses, was banned in the 70's by the FDA for being slightly carcinogenic in lab rats. The industry has had to use artificial flavor in place of safrole ever since. I believe it's time to revisit this issue of safrole. If we're banning this useful natural oil for no reason, it would be a real shame and a loss.
Wow. Now *that* was surprising. So many people have brought up to me how 'bad' for you artificial sweeteners are, and Splenda always comes up as 'one of the worst'. I listen to a professional talk about it, and it turns out sucralose is pretty much the best option out of all of them. But the question still remains: does Splenda taste like candied rubber? :P
Oh and I agree that the solution isn't to devise a lab generated super sweetener but for people to learn to just take in less sweeteners.
It's very interesting all this because i was at one point one of those guys who bought an Alkaline Water machine, thoughts that ALL artificial sweeteners were detrimental..etc.. the list goes on and on, so in a nutshell, i was a fucking idiot!. I bought into that "conspiracy" mentality by about 2005 which lasted until about 2009. It's people like you Concordance that give us a hard does of "reality" and i have you and others to thank in giving us the real and logical facts. Thank you! :)
Personally I do not know why anyone even bothers drinking soda or food laced with sweeteners or even sugar for that matter, a little occasionally is nice but peoples day to day dietary choices fail to astound me. Want evidence of the value of a paleo style diet have a look at Dr.Terry Wahls recent youtube video Minding Your Mitochondria relating to MS but which probably applies to many diseases/illnesses but also our day to day lifestyles.
Thank you for making this video, I found it very informative. I stay away from artificial sweeteners because I can usually tell my digestive system is a bit off when I consume them, plus I don't like the aftertastes. But most importantly, I agree with your conclusion that fixing our diets, so as to not have the excessive sweetness craving, will benefit us greatly.
Have you done any videos de-bunking the breakdown of aspartame into a neurotoxin at certain temperatures?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
These sweeteners have not been in food long enough to be declared safe. No evidence can mean have not looked. The problem with new additives is that in addition to the direct effects, there are many possible interactions, with the body and other additives.
You can't get to all that in a short video, but you should highlight that shortcoming in your analysis. As a result of that omission, the video comes over a little like propaganda rather than a review of accepted research.
I watched the video again and I was perhaps a little harsh. The conclusion was sensible advice even if some of the wording regarding the conclusions on saccharin and Aspartame were somewhat guarded.
The nature is best argument was a little simplified, I'm sure everyone realises snake venom and poison frogs are bad.
The dose argument regarding Aspartame overlooks the fact that it is used in a huge range of products and the quantity is not controlled or listed on the packet.
@C0nc0rdance can you make a video how these things work? do they basically interact with receptors of the taste bud's epithelia but are simply non-digestable lie cellulose?
So just to be clear, if one were going to take in a moderate amount of sugar per day, would you consider it a good idea to replace that sugar with an equivalent(in sweetness) amount of artificial sweetener?
It looks like both are pretty safe in tight moderation (assuming you "burn what you take in"), but if you are the type of person who gets even a little excess, I think you'd be better off with sucralose.
I still have deep reservations about AceK, but it's the LACK of evidence that I worry about.
If you want a low-cal sweetener that's (apparently) safe, tasty and safe for you teeth, try erythritol. Unlike most of the polyols aka "sugar alchols", it doesn't have that initial unpleasant laxative effect.
Searle was founded in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1888 by Gideon Daniel Searle. In 1908, the company was incorporated in Chicago. 1941, the company established headquarters in Skokie, Illinois. Acquired by the Monsanto Company in 1985. Pharmacia Corporation was created in April 2000 through the merger of Pharmacia & Upjohn (itself the result of the merger of Pharmacia and Upjohn) with the Monsanto Company and its G.D. Searle unit.
Good video, I must say that it bored me the first time. However, I recently started arguing with a conspiracy nut. Now the video is suddenly more interesting.
Aspartame was first manufactured & patented by G.D. Searle in 1965 who spent millions of dollars in their effort to bring it to market, conducting ‘safety tests’ and submitting to the FDA over a hundred ‘studies’ claiming aspartame was ‘safe’.
an investigation into Searle’s testing procedures then also came into question. During the investigation, it was found that much of the data was inaccurate, manipulated, and just downright shoddy...
The sound level on this video seems a little low compared to other videos set at a similar level. Just fyi.. it might be me but I'm having to turn my speakers way up just to hear it well.
Nice video. Though CSPI is the last place I would ever get my health information from. Anybody remember CSPI saying that transfats are healthy and saturated fats are bad?
No! I don't remember that. Source, please! Thanks!
Dr. Wikipedia tells me that they were trying to stop animal fat frying as far back as 1989. I don't agree with them on everything, but I recognize that they are much more sensitive to risk than I am.
Thank you so much, C0nc0rdance. My wife and I have been waiting for this video for a long time. You have made me feel so much more assured. I know I can count on you to give a great, unbiased analysis of the literature. You are doing a great public service. You are amazing. A million thanks.
A most outstanding and comprehensive presentation of artificial sweeteners that actually gets it right for a change. There is an astounding amount of misinformation and, well, ideology surrounding artificial sweeteners that the actual science too easily gets lost in the fray. It's very refreshing to see someone actually do the due diligence instead of rehashing chain emails or quack pseudoscientific homeopaths trying to sell books. Nicely done, I look forward to seeing your other work!
I came upon this quite by chance but now I'm wondering what type of sweetener does my "Silver Spoon" fall under? I use x2 pellets in x1 cup of tea and have about 4-5 cups of tea a day.
What about honey? I use honey to sweeten my breakfast cereal of Wheatabix.
Don't tell me I can't eat Ricola sweets too. :'( I primarily use sweeteners to avoid table sugar to save some calories, my mum on the other hand uses sweeteners because she is a Type 1 diabetic.
Your opinion about theordore roosevelt is irrelevant to the video. This is a bad thing because it took away from the video because it had nothing to do with it. I'm listening to you speak while reading about something irrelevant.
I've never understood the desire in people to conflate 'safe' and 'natural', or for that matter 'dangerous' and 'chemical', when nature includes things like smallpox, arsenic and crocodiles and 'chemical' includes... EVERYTHING!!! EVERYTHING IS CHEMICALS!!! *pant, wheeze*
@CountSpanku1a Because often there is a *correlation* between 'dangerous' and 'chemical', in their typical colloquial meanings. And we *love* to simplify complex, detail-specific correlations of ill-defined terms, into 'easy-to-understand' causations.
"Well sulphuric acid is a chemical, and I know that's dangerous, so chemicals must be dangerous!" Simple pattern-recognising like this is what our lazy brains like to do, rather than looking at the actual relationships.
Five stars, Concordance, another excellent video in the hat! Thank you so much for taking the time to research all of this and put this information out to the public.
Searle was about to get in big trouble for that until Reagan got elected, and they bought off all the regulators. If you look at the history, it's really pretty clear.
You might want to look at the "safety testing" done by G.D. Searle, when they first applied to the FDA. They snuck aspartame in to the control group, so that the control group would grow brain tumors, and they would be able to say that the test group was not different from the control. Some perceptive fellow at the FDA noticed that the control group had an unusually high number of brain tumors, and an investivation revealed that G.D Searle had rigged the test. G.D.
I'm not sayiing they're definitely dangerous, but the fact that they're not dangerous when in a chain does not mean they're safe floating freely in larger concentrations than they might normally be found.
Also, "Aspartame is one of the most studied sweeteners" is said to mislead you into thinking that the studies indicated that they were safe, which he does not say. That is because every well done animal study showed that it causes brain tumors.
@UFDionysus Nothing is every dangerous. I was given 800 grams of Aspartame (when I needed a blood transfusion) and nothing happened. There were no side effects. I am not made of brain tumors anymore. You are wrong.
The next oxidation, which detoxifies acetaldehyde is slow. For methanol, it's even worse. The first oxidation of methanol produces formaldehyde, which has finally been admitted to be a human carcinogen, amongh other problems.
Other misleading statements included: the amino acids in aspartame are "found throughout the body as part of proteins." This is to make you thinik they're safe, when in reality, free amino acids can have effects that they do not have when bound to other amino acids.
@UFDionysus Formaldehyde is only secreted during rabies and does not usually end up in soda. Also, your claim that all diet sodas are %100 Hydrogen Cyanide is also false, I just checked the ingredients (they're not). So yes, when you have no amino acids it is good for you to inhale diet sodas to get the extra DNAs.
I was all with him right up until he said something I know to be 100% false (and some other misleading statements): "The ethanol is processed very rapidly in your liver and detoxified" This is 100% false. Your liver primarily oxidizes things, and in some cases, that makes them lots worse. Alcohols often qualify as such. Ethanol (normal drinking alcohol) is processed first into acetaldehyde, which is much more toxic than alcohol, and probably the cause of hangovers.
I made it nine minutes in, but I'm tired and struggling to concentrate well. Thanks for this, though; I learned a lot. I posted a video response of my goat, trying to find jelly beans in an empty candy bag, just to add some silliness to the subject. It's high fructose corn syrup, after all . . .
How do they measure the statement that saccharine is 200 times sweeter than sugar? Do they have a tongue-o-meter, or are they guessing? Isn't sense of taste subjective?
What I want to know is when are they going to invent artificial sweeteners that actually taste like sugar? Aspartame and saccharine both taste like crap. Splenda not quite as bad, but still kind of nasty and I taste it for hours after eating something with it.
Oh god, I work in a clinic and last week there was something that looked like grape jelly leaking from the ceiling in the storage room. I should have tasted it.
Or is it Walter Voegtlin's work (1975, Stone Age Diet)? Or any of a number of successive authors proposing the same argument from evolution (Ancestor's Diet, Caveman Diet)?
I recommend you read:
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2002) 56.
There's no reason you can't be healthy on any number of diets, but they need to stand on their own empirical evidence, not lean on faulty arguments like "We evolved to eat this".
@C0nc0rdance Evolution enthuseists often forget that no intelligent caring being was involed in our evolution. So just because "we evolved to eat this" doesn't mean its in our best interest to do so.
I just got done watching your video. But about the Stevia products, what if you aren't concerned about the mutagenic potential that it has? If (hypothetically) you were gay and had no intention for children, would you be so concerned about it?
Mutagens are also carcinogens! Most cancers have at least one genetic lesion in their history.
My goal wasn't to scare you off of stevia. It has a pretty good safety record, and I think it will ultimately be pretty safe. Certainly moderate your intake of it, because it is more likely to have a steeply dose-dependent toxicity.
RebA is safer that extracts, according to the studies I read, but lacks the anti-inflammatory and other good properties.
I do not understand why someone cares about how much calories contain sweeteners.
Unless they are made of plutonium, considering how tiny are typical amounts used, they just cant make any significant contribution to energy balance.
For best results I suggest blending sucralose with sugar or else stomach goes insane for drinking too much pure water. 1kg sugar to 2g sucralose is good proportion and tastes much better, than pure sugar or pure sucralose.
As a type-2 diabetic (and, I admit, a carbonated drink addict), this video makes me feel more certain about my choice to try and stick to Schweppes diet ginger ale, which is made with Splenda.
I noticed a small error: the picture of "deadly nightshade" is actually a picture of bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) -- which is also toxic, but not nearly as much as deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna).
In any case I thought this was a very well-made and informative video!
Isn't the whole point that these sweetners are supose to make something that taste bad and isn't appealing to taste good? Isn't attacking the brain by using these chemicals kinda brainwashing? Evolusion in rats may change research results in the future?:D
"Toxicology is founded on the principle that anything, even a mother's love, is damaging in too large amounts."
Methanol is nasty stuff at high doses, but we are talking about microliters, tiny fractions of a drop. Your liver is quite up to the task of clearing very small amounts of potentially toxic substances.
What? He was named "#1 out of 100 in Telegraph's magazine 2007 Top 100 Living Geniuses" list"? He died happy at 102? He published >100 articles?
I've started licking UN-spilled chemicals, just in case! So far, I can rule out 4M Nitric acid and Tris HCl. After the wounds heal, I'll try some sodium azide.
@C0nc0rdance Re Hoffman I mean he started tripping while cycling home after accidentally ingesting LSD in his lab - not shat he expected and perhaps not the best way to travel safely! Excellent video - thanks.
Starch doesn't have the fructose association that makes HFCS and sucrose so bad for us. It breaks down to glucose, slowly. Excesses can result in a fatty liver, obesity, but this has more to do with the calorie counts.
White flour, white potatoes, white corn, etc. all give you a slow, big release of glucose. If you are able to clear all that glucose with exercise or metabolism, no problem. If it builds up, you stuff your liver with glycogen, which feeds fat synthesis.
@C0nc0rdance Thanks I guess I kinda knew this, but there are so many things being told us all the time. It gets really hairy to find out what's true unless you have some inside knowledge on the whole thing. I weigh some 78kg at this time it's roughly 170 pounds I think, my diet is like 45% meat and the rest is usually rice, potatoes, pasta(wholewheat) etc, etc. I row and run a lot and I am blessed/cursed with a speedy Gonzalez metabolism.
Thanks for the very informative reply.I can eat in peace.
I remember when I was a kid I saw a commercial-type thing on Nickelodeon that showed a bunch of sugary items and kids eating them and getting cavities, with some names such as "gucose, sucrose, etc" and it said "remember kids, if it ends with 'ose' , it's GROSS".
I don't have a witty comment about it, but it seems like a thing I would share in the comments of a video like this.
@darksidelead theres nothing wrong with anything as long as its in moderation, its just moderation varies for different things ... moderation for bullets to the head is none lol
It saves time to think of all sweeteners in terms of their fructose content: fructose is linked to the downside of sugars (diabetes, aging, heart disease, many more), unfortunately, it's also the sweetest sugar.
HFCS: 55% fructose
Sucrose: 50% fructose
Honey: 50% fructose
maple syrup: 48%
molasses: 46%
Noticing a pattern? They are all "basically" equivalent to each other. The problem is not which ones we are eating, so much as HOW MUCH we are eating. Avoid excess!
The trick is to avoid forming too much glycogen (animal starch), stored glucose polymer. Keep your calories OUT at about the same level as your calories IN.
The danger of fructose is that it feeds fat synthesis through a much shorter liver pyruvate pathway.
Glucose is main component of nearly every kind of food. You cant avoid glucose and do not need that.
we eat and drink with purpose to get calories.
Problem with scratch is that it is digested slowly and you eat much more than you need
pure glucose will raise your blood sugar so fast that you will loose all appetite immediately, what means you consume less food in general. Very high glucose levels will make food consumption physically impossible.
They contain 50% fructose which is cause of weight gain.
fructose need to be converted to glucose before it can be used, so you will still feel hunger after eating it. Also it has other problems.
Glucose should be completely safe to eat in any sane amounts because it is same as starch products Glucose immediately kills hunger and provides you energy, but it tastes worse and much more is required.
I suggest to blend it with little sucralose or other sweetener.
@ 14:07 HAHA! I used that exact same article in my research paper on the safety of artificial sweetener consumption for a science class at UCLA. It's good to see it spring up again in this video.
C0nc0rdance - I like the information that you give. You seem to be levelheaded, and the quality of information is excellent. I would expect similar content on Discovery Health - if they weren't biased in favor of things like the raw diet, and cashing in on the Naturalistic Fallacy.
Aspartame may not be dangerous per se, and is probably much safer than eating sugar. But I would recommend weaning oneself off of sugar/sweetness altogether. Aspartame is just redundant, not good for anything, unless you're addicted to sugar. I experimented with sweeteners in the beginning of my quest to improve my diet, but I realized they were not helping, just reinforcing my problems with sugar.
Btw, my curiosity is because I would like a truly viable alternative. I do agree with you that it is best to adapt to a more natural sugar intake. But not all people have such an easy time with this, and the market pushing all the sugar has no desire to stop taking advantage of that fact.
I liked the idea of Truvia until I read about it not using true stevia (ironically), but a different extract and process which allows Cargill to patent it. Gives me reason to be doubt the product.
Very interesting video. Can you comment the following for me?
Erythritol isn't like other sugar alcohols. Except for very large consumption, it's completely absorbed in the small intestines, ergo quite safe in comparison.
Truvia/Purevia is not made from the same stevia-extract as is otherwise available. They use, as you pointed out, Reb-A, while the more common extract is stevioside. These are 2 of 4 extracts from stevia, and supposedly not directly comparable. (side effects? safety?)
"Stevioside" is a CLASS of compounds. There are at least 16 well-characterized steviosides, mostly diterpenes, which puts them in the category with retinol and taxol precursors. RebA was commercialized because it was the LEAST active pharmacologically. That's what scares the bejeezus out of me: stevia extract is essentially a mix of drugs that people use to sweeten their coffee!
There's little research on erythritol that isn't caries related. Hard to answer definitely.
Great methodology like your process scientific and controlled found the same information on estrevia in my reasearch. Can you do this for us on antineoplastins (unapproved cancer treatment with no side effects) and other traditional approved cancer treatmeant that has been approved by FDA Great video!
This may be a "science heavy" presentation however it's not overly technical making it very easy for someone with no post secondary education to understand.
I love these deeply informative videos of yours. Though its great once in a while to see you lighten up and do a fun video, I count those as the ice cream videos where these science-heavy ones are the meat and potatos =)
Thanks for the informative video. You are right - splenda & other sweeteners tend to have a horrible aftertaste. I avoid them like the plague & I'm not too fond of regular sugar either. Often I tend to opt for fruits whenever available. This isn't so much due to calorie counting but simply a matter of taste. Less is more as far as the palate is concerned. It's astounding how many processed foods are sweetened - even foods like meat. Americans seem to have a strong addiction for painfully sweet.
I love your "science heavy" videos, they are always very well done and this one was no exception. I really appreciate the work you put into these and I hope you continue to make them. Thank you.
It's funny that you mention that there'd be no guys getting hit in the nuts, because when I watch the Magic Sandwich Show, I often think, "Someone (usually Atheismo) ought to punch C0nc0rdance in the ballbag."
The last time I accidentally tasted something in a lab, it was copper(II)Chloride. All I'm willing to say about that is that it won't be the next sweetener.
Great video on the potential risks of artificial sweeteners.
Except... the conclusion seems wrong. The best solution isn't the product of a laboratory? All but two of the artificial sweeteners are demonstrably harmless as far as we can prove such things (lots of research, no risks demonstrated). But we should adjust our palettes anyway? Why? The evidence does not support that conclusion.
If you re-invented peanut butter today, and wanted to get it on the market as a food additive, there would be an exhaustive testing regimen and five years of toxicology. Eventually, one of those tests would come up positive ("Rats fed 20% peanut butter had elevated mouth cancer").
We can't necessarily rely on science to produce safe chemicals to meet our gustatory desires. It might be safer and easier to just change our behavior a little, to exert conscious control over our diet.
@C0nc0rdance Change our behavior to what? More "natural" food? Honey, for example, might elicit more of a cancer risk than saccharin. What direction should we change our behavior to?, how? If the evidence doesn't suggest a change in behavior, on what basis are you recommending such a change?
Sure, we can't rely on science to produce safe chemicals to meet our desires; but why do you think nature does any better? Why eschew certain artificial sweeteners? You're not following the evidence.
how did you arrive at the conclusion that CSPI doesn't have corporate interests? it sounds like you said they have gone against corporations, but what specific reasons have you found that they don't have corporate ties? it seems like a fairly difficult conclusion to arrive at. I'm just trying to get a better handle on everyone's biases.
It's a good thing that those scientists didn't decide to study viruses like small pox. When I was in chem class, I never would have thought about having my hands anywhere near my face.
A study performed by Harvard University, found artificial sweeteners in foods and beverages increase chances of premature birth by 78%. The 59,334 participating in the study answered questions from the beginning of their pregnancies, reviewing their daily food intake. They showed that woman consuming more than 1L of artificially sweetened beverages per day were 78% more likely to give birth to a child before the 37th week. Women who drank sugary beverages did not have increased premature births
Please cite articles properly so I don't have to go hunting:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Sep;92(3):626-33.
This is a Danish population study, and it's been heavily criticized for improper methodology. It's what we call in research "data dredging". They've gone in post-hoc with inadequate definition and shaken the data until it came up with a low p value.
There was no definition of what sweeteners were used, no baseline medical data, no stratification, and causation was not established.
@C0nc0rdance I'm reading "Probability theory - The logic of science" by E.T. Jaynes right now, and in the intro he actually mentions this field in particular as one of the areas where statistics have been misused badly. I guess this means that he takes some concrete studies of sweeteners to task somewhere in the book, as that's how he tends to hammer in points and warnings, but I haven't gotten to any yet. Interesting coincidence that you posted this video now anyway.
@1964tonto Did this study have well set and defined controls? Without proper controls this study sounds problematic because one needs more calories when pregnant so if the women were drinking low calorie beverages in place of higher calorie ones the fetus may suffer and be born premature as a result of malnutrition rather than due to some toxic effect of the artificial sweeteners.
This has been flagged as spam show
Examples like saccharin only support the political case for banning animal testing on vertebrates or "higher": humans don't deserve the benefits of knowledge gained by torturing animals in labs.
All my disagreements with scientists are moral/ethical, not with the science.
mphello 1 day ago
I've had no issues with Xylitol, and I've been eating it for years.
adolson 1 week ago
-Abhilash M et al., “Effect of long term intake of aspartame on antioxidant defense status in liver.” Food Chem Toxicol. 2011 Jun;49(6):1203-7. Epub 2011 Mar 3.
-Ciappuccini R et al., “Aspartame-induced fibromyalgia, an unusual but curable cause of chronic pain.” Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2010 Nov-Dec;28(6 Suppl 63):S131-3. Epub 2010 Dec 22.
-Soffritti M et al., “Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice.”
cyberaquarius 2 weeks ago
-Walton RG et al., “Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population.” Biol Psychiatry. 1993 Jul 1-15;34(1-2):13-7
-Van den Eeden SK et al., “Aspartame ingestion and headaches: a randomized crossover trial.” Neurology. 1994 Oct;44(10):1787-93.
cyberaquarius 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
-Walton RG et al., “Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population.” Biol Psychiatry. 1993 Jul 1-15;34(1-2):13-7
-Van den Eeden SK et al., “Aspartame ingestion and headaches: a randomized crossover trial.” Neurology. 1994 Oct;44(10):1787-93.
cyberaquarius 2 weeks ago
Any idea of a diet cola that's AceK-free then? It seems that Diet Coke and Coke Zero have it.
hollowaynz1 1 month ago
As a rat lover and caregiver I love your little PSA in this video about the dangers of giving rats sacron.
ABC132Acd 1 month ago
I'm extremely interested in the new findings that saccharine does not cause cancer in humans like it does in rats. Sassafras, once the principle ingredient in root beer among many other uses, was banned in the 70's by the FDA for being slightly carcinogenic in lab rats. The industry has had to use artificial flavor in place of safrole ever since. I believe it's time to revisit this issue of safrole. If we're banning this useful natural oil for no reason, it would be a real shame and a loss.
bsrk7 1 month ago
What are you're personal views on the Paleo/Primal way of life/dieting? What are your thoughts on grains?
Ch4osW4rrior 1 month ago
Wow. Now *that* was surprising. So many people have brought up to me how 'bad' for you artificial sweeteners are, and Splenda always comes up as 'one of the worst'. I listen to a professional talk about it, and it turns out sucralose is pretty much the best option out of all of them. But the question still remains: does Splenda taste like candied rubber? :P
Oh and I agree that the solution isn't to devise a lab generated super sweetener but for people to learn to just take in less sweeteners.
IrwinJohnFinster 1 month ago
It's very interesting all this because i was at one point one of those guys who bought an Alkaline Water machine, thoughts that ALL artificial sweeteners were detrimental..etc.. the list goes on and on, so in a nutshell, i was a fucking idiot!. I bought into that "conspiracy" mentality by about 2005 which lasted until about 2009. It's people like you Concordance that give us a hard does of "reality" and i have you and others to thank in giving us the real and logical facts. Thank you! :)
blade004 2 months ago
Personally I do not know why anyone even bothers drinking soda or food laced with sweeteners or even sugar for that matter, a little occasionally is nice but peoples day to day dietary choices fail to astound me. Want evidence of the value of a paleo style diet have a look at Dr.Terry Wahls recent youtube video Minding Your Mitochondria relating to MS but which probably applies to many diseases/illnesses but also our day to day lifestyles.
petecabrina 2 months ago
Thank you for making this video, I found it very informative. I stay away from artificial sweeteners because I can usually tell my digestive system is a bit off when I consume them, plus I don't like the aftertastes. But most importantly, I agree with your conclusion that fixing our diets, so as to not have the excessive sweetness craving, will benefit us greatly.
Have you done any videos de-bunking the breakdown of aspartame into a neurotoxin at certain temperatures?
ryanswan0 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
These sweeteners have not been in food long enough to be declared safe. No evidence can mean have not looked. The problem with new additives is that in addition to the direct effects, there are many possible interactions, with the body and other additives.
You can't get to all that in a short video, but you should highlight that shortcoming in your analysis. As a result of that omission, the video comes over a little like propaganda rather than a review of accepted research.
wjestick 4 months ago
@wjestick
Here are some fun ways to date these:
Saccharin is older than the phonograph.
AceK is about as old as the first nuclear submarine.
Aspartame is about as old as the Beatles White Album.
Sucralose is about as old as Star Wars.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago 17
@C0nc0rdance
so we don't know i star wars or the photograph are safe yet :O
unassumption 3 months ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
@C0nc0rdance
Are you dumbing down my point?
wjestick 3 months ago
I watched the video again and I was perhaps a little harsh. The conclusion was sensible advice even if some of the wording regarding the conclusions on saccharin and Aspartame were somewhat guarded.
The nature is best argument was a little simplified, I'm sure everyone realises snake venom and poison frogs are bad.
The dose argument regarding Aspartame overlooks the fact that it is used in a huge range of products and the quantity is not controlled or listed on the packet.
wjestick 3 months ago
@wjestick We don't consume snake venom and poison frogs everyday, do we?
Kostly 3 weeks ago
@C0nc0rdance can you make a video how these things work? do they basically interact with receptors of the taste bud's epithelia but are simply non-digestable lie cellulose?
RoScFan 1 month ago
So just to be clear, if one were going to take in a moderate amount of sugar per day, would you consider it a good idea to replace that sugar with an equivalent(in sweetness) amount of artificial sweetener?
Nextstopearth 5 months ago
@Nextstopearth
It looks like both are pretty safe in tight moderation (assuming you "burn what you take in"), but if you are the type of person who gets even a little excess, I think you'd be better off with sucralose.
I still have deep reservations about AceK, but it's the LACK of evidence that I worry about.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago
If you want a low-cal sweetener that's (apparently) safe, tasty and safe for you teeth, try erythritol. Unlike most of the polyols aka "sugar alchols", it doesn't have that initial unpleasant laxative effect.
bannor99 5 months ago
Please turn your unbiased eye for detail on Neonicotinoids
BeondaPale 5 months ago
I kinda wanna lick your brain.
NFM1337 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Searle was founded in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1888 by Gideon Daniel Searle. In 1908, the company was incorporated in Chicago. 1941, the company established headquarters in Skokie, Illinois. Acquired by the Monsanto Company in 1985. Pharmacia Corporation was created in April 2000 through the merger of Pharmacia & Upjohn (itself the result of the merger of Pharmacia and Upjohn) with the Monsanto Company and its G.D. Searle unit.
pimpdarlin 6 months ago
I would like to see a more in depth video on the evolution argument and paleo diets.
Maxdwolf 6 months ago
Good video, I must say that it bored me the first time. However, I recently started arguing with a conspiracy nut. Now the video is suddenly more interesting.
doulos1981 6 months ago 2
Hi! So how did you get to be a PHARMA SHILL?
pimpdarlin 6 months ago
@pimpdarlin
"PHARMA SHILL?"
Ahh so the pharma companies sell artifical sugars.
Oh wait, they don't.
Truth hurts uh?
mecher3k 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@mecher3k
Aspartame was first manufactured & patented by G.D. Searle in 1965 who spent millions of dollars in their effort to bring it to market, conducting ‘safety tests’ and submitting to the FDA over a hundred ‘studies’ claiming aspartame was ‘safe’.
an investigation into Searle’s testing procedures then also came into question. During the investigation, it was found that much of the data was inaccurate, manipulated, and just downright shoddy...
pimpdarlin 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Truth don't hurt me mate. Only people it hurts are liars or people that don't want to know the truth. I'm neither. What about you?
pimpdarlin 6 months ago
1 womb 1 heart 1 love
TheAnnafisher 6 months ago
The sound level on this video seems a little low compared to other videos set at a similar level. Just fyi.. it might be me but I'm having to turn my speakers way up just to hear it well.
Falco98 6 months ago
Splendid documentation and posting of your sources! :)
TinyPlasticSubmarine 6 months ago
Nice video. Though CSPI is the last place I would ever get my health information from. Anybody remember CSPI saying that transfats are healthy and saturated fats are bad?
NobleXenon54 6 months ago 2
@NobleXenon54
No! I don't remember that. Source, please! Thanks!
Dr. Wikipedia tells me that they were trying to stop animal fat frying as far back as 1989. I don't agree with them on everything, but I recognize that they are much more sensitive to risk than I am.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago 4
Very Nice video!!! Well done!!!! Saludos desde México
ALFTUBE50 6 months ago
Thank you so much, C0nc0rdance. My wife and I have been waiting for this video for a long time. You have made me feel so much more assured. I know I can count on you to give a great, unbiased analysis of the literature. You are doing a great public service. You are amazing. A million thanks.
LifeInspector 6 months ago 2
A most outstanding and comprehensive presentation of artificial sweeteners that actually gets it right for a change. There is an astounding amount of misinformation and, well, ideology surrounding artificial sweeteners that the actual science too easily gets lost in the fray. It's very refreshing to see someone actually do the due diligence instead of rehashing chain emails or quack pseudoscientific homeopaths trying to sell books. Nicely done, I look forward to seeing your other work!
resistnzisfutl 6 months ago 6
@resistnzisfutl Yeah, at least some people actually can separate the wheat from the chaff.
r0galik 6 months ago
"No funny cats or guys getting hit in the nuts"
ROFL! Man, I love your channel so much! You are doing a great public service here.
EpistemicFusion 6 months ago
I came upon this quite by chance but now I'm wondering what type of sweetener does my "Silver Spoon" fall under? I use x2 pellets in x1 cup of tea and have about 4-5 cups of tea a day.
What about honey? I use honey to sweeten my breakfast cereal of Wheatabix.
Don't tell me I can't eat Ricola sweets too. :'( I primarily use sweeteners to avoid table sugar to save some calories, my mum on the other hand uses sweeteners because she is a Type 1 diabetic.
Really informative and well made vid!
NOIRIST 6 months ago
Your opinion about theordore roosevelt is irrelevant to the video. This is a bad thing because it took away from the video because it had nothing to do with it. I'm listening to you speak while reading about something irrelevant.
CirrowProductions 6 months ago
Great work dude, keep up the good work!
ivolol 6 months ago
Thank you for making this video, C0nc0rdance!
Keovar 6 months ago
I've never understood the desire in people to conflate 'safe' and 'natural', or for that matter 'dangerous' and 'chemical', when nature includes things like smallpox, arsenic and crocodiles and 'chemical' includes... EVERYTHING!!! EVERYTHING IS CHEMICALS!!! *pant, wheeze*
CountSpanku1a 6 months ago
@CountSpanku1a Because often there is a *correlation* between 'dangerous' and 'chemical', in their typical colloquial meanings. And we *love* to simplify complex, detail-specific correlations of ill-defined terms, into 'easy-to-understand' causations.
"Well sulphuric acid is a chemical, and I know that's dangerous, so chemicals must be dangerous!" Simple pattern-recognising like this is what our lazy brains like to do, rather than looking at the actual relationships.
ivolol 6 months ago
I'm a diabetic (type 1). So this was an intresting video indeed :)
hennybonny 6 months ago
Chang the description to :Warning, this video contains science financed by the Illuminati reptilian anti Christ Zionists NWO puppets.
HybridD91 6 months ago
Amazing video. A good reference for my stevia and sucrose intake. You hit the nail on the head with regulation.
BeBoBli 6 months ago
Five stars, Concordance, another excellent video in the hat! Thank you so much for taking the time to research all of this and put this information out to the public.
FiverBeyond 6 months ago
Eh, I drink Diet Coke because I prefer the flavor over regular coke--regular coke is cloying to me. I don't drink it to be "good" :D
albapuella 6 months ago 2
Extremely informative. Thank you for taking the time to make this analysis.
Evid3nc3 6 months ago
Searle was about to get in big trouble for that until Reagan got elected, and they bought off all the regulators. If you look at the history, it's really pretty clear.
UFDionysus 6 months ago
You might want to look at the "safety testing" done by G.D. Searle, when they first applied to the FDA. They snuck aspartame in to the control group, so that the control group would grow brain tumors, and they would be able to say that the test group was not different from the control. Some perceptive fellow at the FDA noticed that the control group had an unusually high number of brain tumors, and an investivation revealed that G.D Searle had rigged the test. G.D.
UFDionysus 6 months ago
@UFDionysus seale J.D. was an FDA for governemnt when thah control group you said did not happen. It was, you are wrong.
TommyWolaver 6 months ago
I'm not sayiing they're definitely dangerous, but the fact that they're not dangerous when in a chain does not mean they're safe floating freely in larger concentrations than they might normally be found.
Also, "Aspartame is one of the most studied sweeteners" is said to mislead you into thinking that the studies indicated that they were safe, which he does not say. That is because every well done animal study showed that it causes brain tumors.
UFDionysus 6 months ago
@UFDionysus Nothing is every dangerous. I was given 800 grams of Aspartame (when I needed a blood transfusion) and nothing happened. There were no side effects. I am not made of brain tumors anymore. You are wrong.
TommyWolaver 6 months ago
The next oxidation, which detoxifies acetaldehyde is slow. For methanol, it's even worse. The first oxidation of methanol produces formaldehyde, which has finally been admitted to be a human carcinogen, amongh other problems.
Other misleading statements included: the amino acids in aspartame are "found throughout the body as part of proteins." This is to make you thinik they're safe, when in reality, free amino acids can have effects that they do not have when bound to other amino acids.
UFDionysus 6 months ago
@UFDionysus Formaldehyde is only secreted during rabies and does not usually end up in soda. Also, your claim that all diet sodas are %100 Hydrogen Cyanide is also false, I just checked the ingredients (they're not). So yes, when you have no amino acids it is good for you to inhale diet sodas to get the extra DNAs.
TommyWolaver 6 months ago
I was all with him right up until he said something I know to be 100% false (and some other misleading statements): "The ethanol is processed very rapidly in your liver and detoxified" This is 100% false. Your liver primarily oxidizes things, and in some cases, that makes them lots worse. Alcohols often qualify as such. Ethanol (normal drinking alcohol) is processed first into acetaldehyde, which is much more toxic than alcohol, and probably the cause of hangovers.
UFDionysus 6 months ago
I requested that a video on salt and topatoes a few days ago...and still no video on salt and topatoes.
TommyWolaver 6 months ago
I made it nine minutes in, but I'm tired and struggling to concentrate well. Thanks for this, though; I learned a lot. I posted a video response of my goat, trying to find jelly beans in an empty candy bag, just to add some silliness to the subject. It's high fructose corn syrup, after all . . .
rriverstone1 6 months ago
How do they measure the statement that saccharine is 200 times sweeter than sugar? Do they have a tongue-o-meter, or are they guessing? Isn't sense of taste subjective?
rriverstone1 6 months ago
What I want to know is when are they going to invent artificial sweeteners that actually taste like sugar? Aspartame and saccharine both taste like crap. Splenda not quite as bad, but still kind of nasty and I taste it for hours after eating something with it.
Good info in the vid, BTW.
mysock351W 6 months ago
Oh god, I work in a clinic and last week there was something that looked like grape jelly leaking from the ceiling in the storage room. I should have tasted it.
GuacamoleKun 6 months ago
[sarcastic eye-rolling] nice strawman of Loren Cordain's work [/sarcastic eye-rolling]
RustyIronloins 6 months ago
@RustyIronloins
Or is it Walter Voegtlin's work (1975, Stone Age Diet)? Or any of a number of successive authors proposing the same argument from evolution (Ancestor's Diet, Caveman Diet)?
I recommend you read:
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2002) 56.
There's no reason you can't be healthy on any number of diets, but they need to stand on their own empirical evidence, not lean on faulty arguments like "We evolved to eat this".
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago 21
@C0nc0rdance Evolution enthuseists often forget that no intelligent caring being was involed in our evolution. So just because "we evolved to eat this" doesn't mean its in our best interest to do so.
OperatorOscillation 6 months ago
@RustyIronloins Ur mom's a nice strawman.
mmmmmarcus 6 months ago
thanks. btw, how long did the research and video take you?
jlwangbu 6 months ago
Awesome video! Keep it up
omgitsrook 6 months ago
this video reminds me of the Dose makes the poison series. in fact, those videos must be considered as a preface to other videos about consumption.
creativeinsult 6 months ago
I think alot of this information is biased and is not taking alot of other evidence into consideration
pickupthePWN 6 months ago
I just got done watching your video. But about the Stevia products, what if you aren't concerned about the mutagenic potential that it has? If (hypothetically) you were gay and had no intention for children, would you be so concerned about it?
101arg101 6 months ago
@101arg101
Mutagens are also carcinogens! Most cancers have at least one genetic lesion in their history.
My goal wasn't to scare you off of stevia. It has a pretty good safety record, and I think it will ultimately be pretty safe. Certainly moderate your intake of it, because it is more likely to have a steeply dose-dependent toxicity.
RebA is safer that extracts, according to the studies I read, but lacks the anti-inflammatory and other good properties.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago 10
@C0nc0rdance I have asked you multiple times now to do a video on salt and topatoes and you still have not made one.
TommyWolaver 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance so aspartame IS safe?
TheDcac 6 months ago
Thank you. This was so informative. Thank you so much!
roecla 6 months ago
I do not understand why someone cares about how much calories contain sweeteners.
Unless they are made of plutonium, considering how tiny are typical amounts used, they just cant make any significant contribution to energy balance.
For best results I suggest blending sucralose with sugar or else stomach goes insane for drinking too much pure water. 1kg sugar to 2g sucralose is good proportion and tastes much better, than pure sugar or pure sucralose.
deltaxcd 6 months ago
As a type-2 diabetic (and, I admit, a carbonated drink addict), this video makes me feel more certain about my choice to try and stick to Schweppes diet ginger ale, which is made with Splenda.
Very interesting video.
419Films 6 months ago
@supernescio he was lucky. He got to eat lsd, the most beautiful experience imaginable.
DyfnalltDH 6 months ago
I noticed a small error: the picture of "deadly nightshade" is actually a picture of bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) -- which is also toxic, but not nearly as much as deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna).
In any case I thought this was a very well-made and informative video!
arachni42 6 months ago
The only Chemist I know that tastes his work is my Husband's cousin. He does it all the time. He is a flavor chemist for Hershey's.
flibbertygibbet 6 months ago
@flibbertygibbet
I also taste everything on my fingers before rubbing to my clothes.
sulfuric acid or strong bases may damage fabric or eat skin, so it is better to test if you do not have some on your fingers until it is not to late.
deltaxcd 6 months ago
Do a video on salt and topatoes.
TommyWolaver 6 months ago
great video as always!
CerberusBrown 6 months ago
Sadly they all taste like ass, ill take sugar over it any day.
C0mm0nS3ns3 6 months ago
Isn't the whole point that these sweetners are supose to make something that taste bad and isn't appealing to taste good? Isn't attacking the brain by using these chemicals kinda brainwashing? Evolusion in rats may change research results in the future?:D
zazack79 6 months ago
1:05 "smoking in the research lab" should be a song title.
StrikaAmaru 6 months ago
A great video. I'm speachless at the amount of work you put in this. Kudos.
facilsempre 6 months ago
@HugoReitveldz
"Toxicology is founded on the principle that anything, even a mother's love, is damaging in too large amounts."
Methanol is nasty stuff at high doses, but we are talking about microliters, tiny fractions of a drop. Your liver is quite up to the task of clearing very small amounts of potentially toxic substances.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
I wouldn't recommend tasting anything in a lab. Look what happened to Albert Hoffman.
SuperNescio 6 months ago
@SuperNescio
What? He was named "#1 out of 100 in Telegraph's magazine 2007 Top 100 Living Geniuses" list"? He died happy at 102? He published >100 articles?
I've started licking UN-spilled chemicals, just in case! So far, I can rule out 4M Nitric acid and Tris HCl. After the wounds heal, I'll try some sodium azide.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago 24
@C0nc0rdance Please, nothing beats 12M HCL mix with a little H2SO4. "Lean" can't even touch it.
HybridD91 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Re Hoffman I mean he started tripping while cycling home after accidentally ingesting LSD in his lab - not shat he expected and perhaps not the best way to travel safely! Excellent video - thanks.
SuperNescio 6 months ago
When you say avoid those kind of sugars/sweeteners, do you mean starch as well? Like wheat, maize, corn, potatoes etc, etc.?
FoxvoxDK 6 months ago
@FoxvoxDK
Starch doesn't have the fructose association that makes HFCS and sucrose so bad for us. It breaks down to glucose, slowly. Excesses can result in a fatty liver, obesity, but this has more to do with the calorie counts.
White flour, white potatoes, white corn, etc. all give you a slow, big release of glucose. If you are able to clear all that glucose with exercise or metabolism, no problem. If it builds up, you stuff your liver with glycogen, which feeds fat synthesis.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Thanks I guess I kinda knew this, but there are so many things being told us all the time. It gets really hairy to find out what's true unless you have some inside knowledge on the whole thing. I weigh some 78kg at this time it's roughly 170 pounds I think, my diet is like 45% meat and the rest is usually rice, potatoes, pasta(wholewheat) etc, etc. I row and run a lot and I am blessed/cursed with a speedy Gonzalez metabolism.
Thanks for the very informative reply.I can eat in peace.
FoxvoxDK 6 months ago
that wasn't a "triple cheesburger" or large fries
ravebritt 6 months ago
Another FANTASTIC vid by concordance. Good job buddy.
Dikotomii 6 months ago
I remember when I was a kid I saw a commercial-type thing on Nickelodeon that showed a bunch of sugary items and kids eating them and getting cavities, with some names such as "gucose, sucrose, etc" and it said "remember kids, if it ends with 'ose' , it's GROSS".
I don't have a witty comment about it, but it seems like a thing I would share in the comments of a video like this.
SteezySkater72 6 months ago
I'll stick with Glucose mostly, it's my favorite form of sugar.
WolfCoder 6 months ago
thanks ever so much for the info.
greyknight7 6 months ago
You know, somewhere out there some dumb ass in a science lab is going to start licking random spills now.
And when that happens I'm going to laugh and laugh and laugh, cause I'm a terrible person. :(
AndTheyCalledMeMad 6 months ago
McDonald's doesn't have a triple. That's Wendy's.
thirtysilver 6 months ago
@thirtysilver For shame concordance, not knowing the mcdonalds menu!? Im sure he eats there all the time lol ...
Th3Shadow0fDeath 6 months ago
so house wasn't lying, chewing too much gum will make you take a crap :)
darksidelead 6 months ago
Hmmmm, it might be a stupid question, but what's wrong with cane sugar or beet-sugar ( white sugar )?
I know of cause of diabetics and obesity.
zamestol 6 months ago
@zamestol there's absolutely nothing wrong with sugar as long as your eating it in moderation.
darksidelead 6 months ago
@darksidelead theres nothing wrong with anything as long as its in moderation, its just moderation varies for different things ... moderation for bullets to the head is none lol
Th3Shadow0fDeath 6 months ago
@Th3Shadow0fDeath well of course. But i'm pretty sure one could take a few more chocolates to the head than bullets :P
darksidelead 6 months ago
@zamestol
It saves time to think of all sweeteners in terms of their fructose content: fructose is linked to the downside of sugars (diabetes, aging, heart disease, many more), unfortunately, it's also the sweetest sugar.
HFCS: 55% fructose
Sucrose: 50% fructose
Honey: 50% fructose
maple syrup: 48%
molasses: 46%
Noticing a pattern? They are all "basically" equivalent to each other. The problem is not which ones we are eating, so much as HOW MUCH we are eating. Avoid excess!
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
This problem can be avoided by replacing fructose with pure glucose.
there is no such thing as excess of glucose.
if you eat too much you will be sick and throw up.
deltaxcd 6 months ago
@deltaxcd
I absolutely disagree. Glucose excess feeds fat formation. Corn is nearly pure glucose, and it fattens cattle up very nicely (and quickly).
Glucose --> glycogen --> acetyl-CoA --> palmitic acid --> OBESITY!
The trick is to avoid forming too much glycogen (animal starch), stored glucose polymer. Keep your calories OUT at about the same level as your calories IN.
The danger of fructose is that it feeds fat synthesis through a much shorter liver pyruvate pathway.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
Glucose is main component of nearly every kind of food. You cant avoid glucose and do not need that.
we eat and drink with purpose to get calories.
Problem with scratch is that it is digested slowly and you eat much more than you need
pure glucose will raise your blood sugar so fast that you will loose all appetite immediately, what means you consume less food in general. Very high glucose levels will make food consumption physically impossible.
deltaxcd 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
Thanks to all for your responds, its was really nice of you to take the time :)
zamestol 6 months ago
@zamestol
They contain 50% fructose which is cause of weight gain.
fructose need to be converted to glucose before it can be used, so you will still feel hunger after eating it. Also it has other problems.
Glucose should be completely safe to eat in any sane amounts because it is same as starch products Glucose immediately kills hunger and provides you energy, but it tastes worse and much more is required.
I suggest to blend it with little sucralose or other sweetener.
deltaxcd 6 months ago
Anything that happens in the natural universe is natural... deeer
AnunnakiPriesthood 6 months ago
a great watch - thanks for taking the time to made this video.
Dazza102 6 months ago
Great video, loved it!
ElectricSheep10 6 months ago
What about this new one they're boosting Truvia?
BlitzNeko 6 months ago
I would have always thought "natural" meant safe........its good to learn new stuff, thanks.
benaberry 6 months ago
Awesome job. Thanks for making this video.
jayeenn 6 months ago
Thumbs up if Thunderf00t brought you here :)
CrowbarOwner 6 months ago
Great video!
StephenWebb1980 6 months ago
@ 14:07 HAHA! I used that exact same article in my research paper on the safety of artificial sweetener consumption for a science class at UCLA. It's good to see it spring up again in this video.
Forlo12345 6 months ago
C0nc0rdance - I like the information that you give. You seem to be levelheaded, and the quality of information is excellent. I would expect similar content on Discovery Health - if they weren't biased in favor of things like the raw diet, and cashing in on the Naturalistic Fallacy.
Slipknotyk06 6 months ago
Lets lick it for science
muttgooch 6 months ago
Aspartame may not be dangerous per se, and is probably much safer than eating sugar. But I would recommend weaning oneself off of sugar/sweetness altogether. Aspartame is just redundant, not good for anything, unless you're addicted to sugar. I experimented with sweeteners in the beginning of my quest to improve my diet, but I realized they were not helping, just reinforcing my problems with sugar.
Zerafinel 6 months ago
Btw, my curiosity is because I would like a truly viable alternative. I do agree with you that it is best to adapt to a more natural sugar intake. But not all people have such an easy time with this, and the market pushing all the sugar has no desire to stop taking advantage of that fact.
I liked the idea of Truvia until I read about it not using true stevia (ironically), but a different extract and process which allows Cargill to patent it. Gives me reason to be doubt the product.
joembush 6 months ago
Very interesting video. Can you comment the following for me?
Erythritol isn't like other sugar alcohols. Except for very large consumption, it's completely absorbed in the small intestines, ergo quite safe in comparison.
Truvia/Purevia is not made from the same stevia-extract as is otherwise available. They use, as you pointed out, Reb-A, while the more common extract is stevioside. These are 2 of 4 extracts from stevia, and supposedly not directly comparable. (side effects? safety?)
joembush 6 months ago
@joembush
"Stevioside" is a CLASS of compounds. There are at least 16 well-characterized steviosides, mostly diterpenes, which puts them in the category with retinol and taxol precursors. RebA was commercialized because it was the LEAST active pharmacologically. That's what scares the bejeezus out of me: stevia extract is essentially a mix of drugs that people use to sweeten their coffee!
There's little research on erythritol that isn't caries related. Hard to answer definitely.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
Great methodology like your process scientific and controlled found the same information on estrevia in my reasearch. Can you do this for us on antineoplastins (unapproved cancer treatment with no side effects) and other traditional approved cancer treatmeant that has been approved by FDA Great video!
tlbarrera 6 months ago
This may be a "science heavy" presentation however it's not overly technical making it very easy for someone with no post secondary education to understand.
JamesThWilliams 6 months ago
I love these deeply informative videos of yours. Though its great once in a while to see you lighten up and do a fun video, I count those as the ice cream videos where these science-heavy ones are the meat and potatos =)
stiimuli 6 months ago
Thanks for the informative video. You are right - splenda & other sweeteners tend to have a horrible aftertaste. I avoid them like the plague & I'm not too fond of regular sugar either. Often I tend to opt for fruits whenever available. This isn't so much due to calorie counting but simply a matter of taste. Less is more as far as the palate is concerned. It's astounding how many processed foods are sweetened - even foods like meat. Americans seem to have a strong addiction for painfully sweet.
razredge07 6 months ago
Thank you for this great material. I guess you put of lot of effort and time in it. This is great quality.
tubetib 6 months ago
I love your "science heavy" videos, they are always very well done and this one was no exception. I really appreciate the work you put into these and I hope you continue to make them. Thank you.
aabulow2 6 months ago 18
It's funny that you mention that there'd be no guys getting hit in the nuts, because when I watch the Magic Sandwich Show, I often think, "Someone (usually Atheismo) ought to punch C0nc0rdance in the ballbag."
Cheers, mate.
Rarae192 6 months ago
Comment removed
1964tonto 6 months ago
i love your videos so much thanks for this video
thedebateroom 6 months ago
Fascinating and well done as always. Thanks.
pk509 6 months ago
The last time I accidentally tasted something in a lab, it was copper(II)Chloride. All I'm willing to say about that is that it won't be the next sweetener.
amandarandom89 6 months ago
Great video on the potential risks of artificial sweeteners.
Except... the conclusion seems wrong. The best solution isn't the product of a laboratory? All but two of the artificial sweeteners are demonstrably harmless as far as we can prove such things (lots of research, no risks demonstrated). But we should adjust our palettes anyway? Why? The evidence does not support that conclusion.
ghuegel 6 months ago
@ghuegel
If you re-invented peanut butter today, and wanted to get it on the market as a food additive, there would be an exhaustive testing regimen and five years of toxicology. Eventually, one of those tests would come up positive ("Rats fed 20% peanut butter had elevated mouth cancer").
We can't necessarily rely on science to produce safe chemicals to meet our gustatory desires. It might be safer and easier to just change our behavior a little, to exert conscious control over our diet.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Change our behavior to what? More "natural" food? Honey, for example, might elicit more of a cancer risk than saccharin. What direction should we change our behavior to?, how? If the evidence doesn't suggest a change in behavior, on what basis are you recommending such a change?
Sure, we can't rely on science to produce safe chemicals to meet our desires; but why do you think nature does any better? Why eschew certain artificial sweeteners? You're not following the evidence.
ghuegel 6 months ago
Sucralose it is then. Actually I'm more of a creamy/fatty guy than a sweet guy, but the Missus is a Splenda fan, so this is good news.
ozmoroid 6 months ago
"No guys getting hit in the nuts." Hey! was that a dig on me?
skepticallypwnd 6 months ago
@skepticallypwnd Don't be so insecure, it might have been an acknowledgement of your nut kicking greatness!
wearealltubes 6 months ago
@wearealltubes That's a great way to look at it... Thanks!
skepticallypwnd 6 months ago
good vid I will definitely discuss this stuff with my chem students this year!
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
how did you arrive at the conclusion that CSPI doesn't have corporate interests? it sounds like you said they have gone against corporations, but what specific reasons have you found that they don't have corporate ties? it seems like a fairly difficult conclusion to arrive at. I'm just trying to get a better handle on everyone's biases.
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
It's a good thing that those scientists didn't decide to study viruses like small pox. When I was in chem class, I never would have thought about having my hands anywhere near my face.
Primalxbeast 6 months ago
A careful and unbiased representation of a controversial and hysterical medical subject, as always. C0nc0rdance, you rock. :D
Jotto999 6 months ago
Ha ha. Naked women are a form of advertising sweetener.
hybriddefect 6 months ago
Great video! Though it could have used a football in the groin.
urantivirus 6 months ago
Hi C0nc0rdance. Would you consider doing a video on the health effects of plastics like BPA?
bogieharmond 6 months ago
Why don't people cite their sources properly anymore?
progrockcoffee 6 months ago
A study performed by Harvard University, found artificial sweeteners in foods and beverages increase chances of premature birth by 78%. The 59,334 participating in the study answered questions from the beginning of their pregnancies, reviewing their daily food intake. They showed that woman consuming more than 1L of artificially sweetened beverages per day were 78% more likely to give birth to a child before the 37th week. Women who drank sugary beverages did not have increased premature births
1964tonto 6 months ago
@1964tonto
Please cite articles properly so I don't have to go hunting:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Sep;92(3):626-33.
This is a Danish population study, and it's been heavily criticized for improper methodology. It's what we call in research "data dredging". They've gone in post-hoc with inadequate definition and shaken the data until it came up with a low p value.
There was no definition of what sweeteners were used, no baseline medical data, no stratification, and causation was not established.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago 50
@C0nc0rdance Please cite articles saying, ''it's been heavily criticized for improper methodology'', so i don't have to go hunting.
1964tonto 6 months ago
Comment removed
1964tonto 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I'm reading "Probability theory - The logic of science" by E.T. Jaynes right now, and in the intro he actually mentions this field in particular as one of the areas where statistics have been misused badly. I guess this means that he takes some concrete studies of sweeteners to task somewhere in the book, as that's how he tends to hammer in points and warnings, but I haven't gotten to any yet. Interesting coincidence that you posted this video now anyway.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@1964tonto Did this study have well set and defined controls? Without proper controls this study sounds problematic because one needs more calories when pregnant so if the women were drinking low calorie beverages in place of higher calorie ones the fetus may suffer and be born premature as a result of malnutrition rather than due to some toxic effect of the artificial sweeteners.
TheAlphaPyro 6 months ago
Comment removed
1964tonto 6 months ago