[ExI] Dangers of coffee and black tea??
rtomek at ceti.pl
Thu Jun 11 03:16:58 UTC 2009
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Adam Raizen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 17:43, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> > After reading ("there" and "over there") some mixed opinions about
> > artificial sweeteners I have decided to either not have it sweet or eat
> > plain old sugar if I wanted some fun in my mouth. Since there is so much
> > money pumped in, even if a-sweeteners are actually not so nice we may
> > never know (I remember a story of tobacco funded "research").
> Western culture has a strong bias against anything 'artificial' and I would
> think that extropians would be less likely to suffer from this. Some
Well, who knows, maybe they (as well as some other people) will be more
likely to prosper because of this?
> sweeteners are actually claimed to be harmful by some people, whereas some
> are only opposed as a general principle against artificial things. I think
> that the artificial sweeteners on the market today are safe, but I do try to
> avoid aspartame, since it seems to be the most likely to be harmful if any
> artificial sweetener is.
As far as I know, aspartame is most widely used (it is - or was - part of
some dietetic drinks). Sometimes under different names. So I think it is
possible, that its availability might have been a factor in its perceived
harmful effects. I mean, the negative effects could have been better known
in this case and less known in others.
I am not in a position to question research (I would have to read some
papers first, a lot of them, and I don't feel such need, and I have not
enough time to feel such need either). Also, I don't think I should tell
other people what they should avoid.
However, I think, that since many generations of humans were able to make
it without artificial things, I should be able to be at least partially
successful too. So there is no obligation to use this stuff, I am not a
"client" of artificiality, quite the opposite. I'm going to only use what
can prove being worthy (and kick the rest off my way). In case of natural
things, it is hard to be purely natural - bread is not natural and so is
butter. But both have been tested for some few thousands years, so I
assume they will not kill me (or they will, but in a way that has been
long tested, too, and is predictable to some degree). And there are still
some nuances, like "should I eat bread whitened with TiO2" - I don't like
the idea so I would rather go with dark bread (or I would bake one
myself) and only revert to "titanic bread" in case of hunger. And so on.
There are also things that I still use, just because I have not been
curious enough to examine their potential effects on me.
So, while I am not enemy of artificiality, I am against (in a soft sense)
being mindless and using surrogates to meet real needs. In case of sugar,
when I need something sweet, then let it be sugar because this is what I
really need, not some replacement. In other words, I don't need to just
feel this sweetness in my mouth. There are some other side effects of
eating a candy, which is what I really want (and this is why I want
something sweet, when I want it). And if I don't need a candy, then I
should not eat it.
> Sucralose (aka splenda) both tastes the best in my
> opinion and doesn't seem to have anyone claiming specific harm from it, so
> that's what I use. In any event, refined sugar leads to metabolic syndrom
> and type-II diabetes, coronary heart disease, etc., so there's always a
Yes, but how much sugar do I need to eat before I acquire one of those.
Besides, I am just moving away from it at my own pace (actually, this is
long, many years already, movement). I have been somewhat shaken to read
that a "statistical European/American" eats some 10 spoons of sugar a day.
Yeah, fully loaded spoons. I believe I am far below "statistics". But if I
need something sweet, I get what I need.
Anyway if you really think you are ok with sucralose, then be my guest.
> > Besides,
> > there are still fresh fruits and honey, which are probably the best sweet
> > thing (to eat).
> Fruit is probably the best, but it does still contain sugar, so in
> immoderation it's probably as harmful as candy.
Nah, being moderate is, I believe, a side effect of watching oneself.
Being able to tell oneself something like "that's enough". Without this,
anything can be bad. Even oxygen and water - funny, isn't it?
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... **
** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com **
More information about the extropy-chat