 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Arthritis / September 2006Question from a lurker...
Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for Rheumatoid arthritis? > Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for > Rheumatoid arthritis? It doesn't bother me, but I've heard it bothers others. It does bother my dad's diabetes, but that's another thing altogether... Smokie Darling (Annie) > Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for > Rheumatoid arthritis? Hi Anne,,,, Those artificial sweeteners do not bother my RA. One of them makes me break out in a kind of hives aaaaand I can not remember which one. Harv Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for Rheumatoid arthritis? i cannot speak to the RA/aspartame issue, but carbonated soft drinks are suspected of causing bone density loss. kate (who cannot bear the thought of giving up my diet rite pure zero) > Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for > Rheumatoid arthritis? Not unless you're allergic to it (but that's bad in general). Some people are sensitive to it, like some people are sensitive to MSG in chinese food (not used very much anymore), but the numbers are much smaller. People with phenylketoneuria cannot consume products with aspartame because it's a dipeptide where half is phenylalanine. > i cannot speak to the RA/aspartame issue, but carbonated soft drinks are > suspected of causing bone density loss. In high amounts (especially if you already have bone loss and/or are drinking many cans a day) > kate > (who cannot bear the thought of giving up my diet rite pure zero) I know what you mean. Drinking water with everything doesn't sound like fun to me. I already have to drink a minimum of 3 litres a day of water, I like having a break with my meals!  Signaturespammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor: http://www.abmdr.org.au/ http://www.marrow.org/ d'huit wrote: > Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for > Rheumatoid arthritis? Not unless you're allergic to it (but that's bad in general). Some people are sensitive to it, like some people are sensitive to MSG in chinese food (not used very much anymore), but the numbers are much smaller. People with phenylketoneuria cannot consume products with aspartame because it's a dipeptide where half is phenylalanine. > i cannot speak to the RA/aspartame issue, but carbonated soft drinks are > suspected of causing bone density loss. In high amounts (especially if you already have bone loss and/or are drinking many cans a day) > kate > (who cannot bear the thought of giving up my diet rite pure zero) I know what you mean. Drinking water with everything doesn't sound like fun to me. I already have to drink a minimum of 3 litres a day of water, I like having a break with my meals! i can't fault you for that, guy. kate Signaturespammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor: http://www.abmdr.org.au/ http://www.marrow.org/ Katet replied to Anne Richardson question: >> Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for >> Rheumatoid arthritis? > i cannot speak to the RA/aspartame issue, but carbonated soft drinks > are suspected of causing bone density loss. I thought that was only diet Coke and Mentoes. <g> ... Scape goats make a reasonable BBQ if the sauce has the right flavor. Thanking you for all the responses. Having trouble with acid reflux and was told to only drink diet sodas. > Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for > Rheumatoid arthritis? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > kate > (who cannot bear the thought of giving up my diet rite pure zero) I've drank carbonated drinks since I was about 4. My bone density is still 117% of normal for women my age, height and weight, but I too have heard that same thing about bone loss (I must be *special*, nice to have something GOOD to be special about). Smokie Darling (Annie) - Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule? d'huit wrote: > Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for > Rheumatoid arthritis? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > kate > (who cannot bear the thought of giving up my diet rite pure zero) I've drank carbonated drinks since I was about 4. My bone density is still 117% of normal for women my age, height and weight, but I too have heard that same thing about bone loss (I must be *special*, nice to have something GOOD to be special about). Smokie Darling (Annie) - Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule? w0w. that's cool, annie! and really is very good. it's actually heartening to know that somebody on asa has good bones! i like hearing good things about others. so far, i've still got good teeth and pop, despite pop and goodies.<grin> just because i tend to be a little weird and like tangents--logically, have you ever wondered about that phrase? i mean, just how does an exception "prove" any rule, anyhow? i've always scratched my head about that one. i still can't figure out how that works or if it is even true. it's like that other phrase, "rules were meant to be broken". i mean, then why bother making up rules in the first place? and if locks were meant for honest people, then does it make sense for us to be afraid of honest people breaking into our homes? i have a ton of these kinds of phrases i can't make sense out of, yet, as you can tell.LOL kate Heya, Kate, Prove as in proof as in test. Same as the proof of spirits: the proof is what % of alcohol it's tested to be, then the # is doubled. Same as the proof is in the pudding...the test of the quality of the pudding is in the eating of it. Annie puts the rule to the test with her results, rather than breaks it...and that she do. <g> An untested rule, as an untested lock, is worthless...and if a rule weren't broken from time to time there'd be no need of one in the first place. Honest people have no need of locks...the proof of the lock is by the thieves. LOL Hugs from Rosie Signature"If you wanna get it done, you gotta fight for yourself." -- Meat Loaf, Bat Outta Hell II > > d'huit wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > kate Heya, Kate, Prove as in proof as in test. Same as the proof of spirits: the proof is what % of alcohol it's tested to be, then the # is doubled. Same as the proof is in the pudding...the test of the quality of the pudding is in the eating of it. Annie puts the rule to the test with her results, rather than breaks it...and that she do. <g> ***ok. i get it, proof. funny how so many of us think the word is prove. so, you're saying that if different outcome or result makes the rule inapplicable, all you've done is test the rule? not proved it to be true or valid. but wouldn't that test then invalidate the rule? and why wouldn't it? An untested rule, as an untested lock, is worthless...and if a rule weren't broken from time to time there'd be no need of one in the first place. ***sometimes, tested rules and locks are worthless, too, even though they appear solid. and wouldn't that second part depend upon why and how the rule was broken? like maybe it was a dumb or unnecessary rule to begin with, cuz lots of dumb and unnecessary rules are changed by the rule makers. Honest people have no need of locks...the proof of the lock is by the thieves. LOL ***right, honest people don't go where they're not supposed to go. but it is a fact, and law enforcement knows this, that there is no such thing as a lock that is thief-proof. the best we can hope for, in a lock, is that it makes the thief spend just a little more time getting through it. and most of the time, that's not the case at all for a thief. kate Hugs from Rosie Signature"If you wanna get it done, you gotta fight for yourself." -- Meat Loaf, Bat Outta Hell II > > > Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > w0w. that's cool, annie! and really is very good. it's actually > heartening to know that somebody on asa has good bones! i like hearing good > things about others. so far, i've still got good teeth and pop, despite pop > and goodies.<grin> > > just because i tend to be a little weird and like tangents--logically, have > you ever wondered about that phrase? i mean, just how does an exception > "prove" any rule, anyhow? i've always scratched my head about that one.i > still can't figure out how that works or if it is even true. it's like that > other phrase, "rules were meant to be broken". i mean, then why bother > making up rules in the first place? and if locks were meant for honest [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > kate :-) Kate, The word is indeed prove and it comes from proof. Rules, as you put it in your second paragraph, aren't like power...they don't rise to the point of being absolute ( now we're not back to the alcohol proof...not Absolut) so a rule isn't invalidated by being tested. Some people gettting results that oppose the rule test that rule...prove it, rather than break it. Worthless as in foolhardy to put on a lock and not prove it. As in not yanking on it or rattling it to check that it holds. If all people were honest then buying locks in the first place would be the foolhardy part. A rule separates the wheat from the chaff. Again...not absolute. There will still be the heaviest of the chaff in the wheat...wheat can't be 100% chaff free but the rule is to get it as chaff free as you can. A rule is a measuring stick and it's not meant to be writ in stone...but it is meant to be proved and bent and all the misshaping we humans subject our rules to. Most rules do stand the proof of trial and time. If most did not we'd have societies subject to the whims of anarchy and chaos. These days that only happens on occasion. Hope that clears it up for ya! LOL Hugs from Rosie Signature"If you wanna get it done, you gotta fight for yourself." -- Meat Loaf, Bat Outta Hell II > > Heya, Kate, [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > > > kate :-) Kate, The word is indeed prove and it comes from proof. Rules, as you put it in your second paragraph, aren't like power...they don't rise to the point of being absolute ( now we're not back to the alcohol proof...not Absolut) so a rule isn't invalidated by being tested. Some people gettting results that oppose the rule test that rule...prove it, rather than break it. ***LOL, cute pun. ok, wait a minute. i think we are mixing up rules (as in arbitrary rules, created by rule-makers for whatever purpose is proposed or intentioned) with laws (as in physical laws, ie. universal and inviolate). in my view, an arbitrary rule (whatever kind and for whatever purpose or intent) is already suspect and can be invalidated by being tested, when shown to be flawed through testing. and that is why they are repealed, negated or modified. Worthless as in foolhardy to put on a lock and not prove it. As in not yanking on it or rattling it to check that it holds. If all people were honest then buying locks in the first place would be the foolhardy part. ***the funny thing about that is that we really don't need to buy locks, because honest people won't intrude, while the criminal element will always find a way to do so, lock or no lock. i think a lock is simply a psychological thing we use to reassure ourselves that we have some modicum of control over untrustworthy others, which we do not, but we sure would like to have.<smile> A rule separates the wheat from the chaff. Again...not absolute. There will still be the heaviest of the chaff in the wheat...wheat can't be 100% chaff free but the rule is to get it as chaff free as you can. A rule is a measuring stick and it's not meant to be writ in stone...but it is meant to be proved and bent and all the misshaping we humans subject our rules to. Most rules do stand the proof of trial and time. If most did not we'd have societies subject to the whims of anarchy and chaos. These days that only happens on occasion. *** i guess i'm an odd duck, because i see all rules as guidelines or protocols, that are ever changing to accommodate or restrict the variables that occur through time, kind of like how we periodically ammend our constitution (and that, many rules are seriously flawed and eventually dropped). that process of changing a rule, indicates that the rule being changed was invalidated in such a way that it needed to be modified or gotten rid of. i don't necessarily believe that most rules stand the test of time. in fact, i think i'm of the opinion that most rules do not stand the test of time, without being modified at one point or another. so, i guess i'm saying that testing a rule doesn't prove it, but rather checks for its validity in the present moment, against a particular prevalent standard. as for anarchy and chaos--in our nation, we are "ruled" by consent, our consent. without our consent, the rules are useless and indeed, chaos and anarchy would prevail. so, it appears that it is consent that is the standard/basis for the validity of the rules that govern us. this is all just my opinion, though, sweetie. kate Hope that clears it up for ya! LOL Hugs from Rosie Signature"If you wanna get it done, you gotta fight for yourself." -- Meat Loaf, Bat Outta Hell II > > Heya, Kate, > > Prove as in proof as in test. Same as the proof of spirits: the proof is > what % of alcohol it's tested to be, then the # is doubled. Same as the > proof is in the pudding...the test of the quality of the pudding is in the > eating of it. Annie puts the rule to the test with her results, rather than > breaks it...and that she do. <g> > > ***ok. i get it, proof. funny how so many of us think the word is prove. > so, you're saying that if different outcome or result makes the rule > inapplicable, all you've done is test the rule? not proved it to be true or > valid. but wouldn't that test then invalidate the rule? and why wouldn't > it? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rule was broken? like maybe it was a dumb or unnecessary rule to begin > with, cuz lots of dumb and unnecessary rules are changed by the rule makers. > Honest people have no need of locks...the > proof of the lock is by the thieves. LOL [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lock that is thief-proof. the best we can hope for, in a lock, is that it > makes the thief spend just a little more time getting through it. and most > of the time, that's not the case at all for a thief. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > > > i cannot speak to the RA/aspartame issue, but carbonated soft drinks are > > > suspected of causing bone density loss. > > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > kate Whoa...waitaminute LOL One of the definitions of the word proof is to test. So it's right back to the original adage which uses the word prove in its meaning of 'to test.' That's what I was trying to tell you...and everyone else reading. The oldies proof liquor by shaking it and looking at the bubbles...then they set it on fire. :-) It's a durn good thing that most proving isn't that drastic. Some ppl.can tell ya what proving grounds are for...and when ya understand that use of 'to prove' then you'll understand the original adage of testing a rule. As for your opinions? They're interesting, m'dear. <g> O'Kate Hugs from Rosie Signature"If you wanna get it done, you gotta fight for yourself." -- Meat Loaf, Bat Outta Hell II > > :-) Kate, [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > > > > > > kate Whoa...waitaminute LOL One of the definitions of the word proof is to test. So it's right back to the original adage which uses the word prove in its meaning of 'to test.' That's what I was trying to tell you...and everyone else reading. The oldies proof liquor by shaking it and looking at the bubbles...then they set it on fire. :-) It's a durn good thing that most proving isn't that drastic. Some ppl.can tell ya what proving grounds are for...and when ya understand that use of 'to prove' then you'll understand the original adage of testing a rule. ***ok. so what you are saying is that it is the archaic language/sematics of the adage that is confusing me. in other words, in our current era, one could just as easily say that "the exception [sic- TESTS] the rule", instead of saying it "proves the rule" (which misleads people into thinking that the exception is what makes the rule valid or a good rule or "proves" that the rule is correct or worth keeping--like the exception is supposed to be some kind of validating evidence, when it really seems to be just the opposite.). ok. now, i get it. As for your opinions? They're interesting, m'dear. <g> ***yeah, i agree--they're interesting in the bizarre sense, like a train wreck is mesmorizing.LOL just goofy ideas, like the bazillion others that i have.LOL ***are you over the headache, i gave you, yet?<smile> thanks for your effort and your patience with me, rosie. kate O'Kate Hugs from Rosie Signature"If you wanna get it done, you gotta fight for yourself." -- Meat Loaf, Bat Outta Hell II > > :-) Kate, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ***LOL, cute pun. ok, wait a minute. i think we are mixing up rules (as in > arbitrary rules, created by rule-makers for whatever purpose is proposed or > intentioned) with laws (as in physical laws, ie. universal and inviolate). > in my view, an arbitrary rule (whatever kind and for whatever purpose or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ***the funny thing about that is that we really don't need to buy locks, > because honest people won't intrude, while the criminal element will always > find a way to do so, lock or no lock. i think a lock is simply a > psychological thing we use to reassure ourselves that we have some modicum [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > chaff free but the rule is to get it as chaff free as you can. A rule is a > measuring stick and it's not meant to be writ in stone...but it is meant to > be proved and bent and all the misshaping we humans subject our rules to. > Most rules do stand the proof of trial and time. If most did not we'd have > societies subject to the whims of anarchy and chaos. These days that only > happens on occasion. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the test of time, without being modified at one point or another. so, i > guess i'm saying that testing a rule doesn't prove it, but rather checks for > its validity in the present moment, against a particular prevalent standard. > as for anarchy and chaos--in our nation, we are "ruled" by consent, our > consent. without our consent, the rules are useless and indeed, chaos and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > > Prove as in proof as in test. Same as the proof of spirits: the proof > is > > what % of alcohol it's tested to be, then the # is doubled. Same as the > > proof is in the pudding...the test of the quality of the pudding is in the > > eating of it. Annie puts the rule to the test with her results, rather > than > > breaks it...and that she do. <g> > > > > ***ok. i get it, proof. funny how so many of us think the word is prove. > > so, you're saying that if different outcome or result makes the rule > > inapplicable, all you've done is test the rule? not proved it to be true > or > > valid. but wouldn't that test then invalidate the rule? and why wouldn't > > it? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > ***sometimes, tested rules and locks are worthless, too, even though they > > appear solid. and wouldn't that second part depend upon why and how the > > rule was broken? like maybe it was a dumb or unnecessary rule to begin [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > ***right, honest people don't go where they're not supposed to go. but it > > is a fact, and law enforcement knows this, that there is no such thing as > a > > lock that is thief-proof. the best we can hope for, in a lock, is that it > > makes the thief spend just a little more time getting through it. and > most [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > w0w. that's cool, annie! and really is very good. it's actually > > > heartening to know that somebody on asa has good bones! i like hearing > > good > > > things about others. so far, i've still got good teeth and pop, despite > > pop > > > and goodies.<grin> > > > > > > just because i tend to be a little weird and like tangents--logically, > > have > > > you ever wondered about that phrase? i mean, just how does an exception > > > "prove" any rule, anyhow? i've always scratched my head about that one. > > i > > > still can't figure out how that works or if it is even true. it's like > > that > > > other phrase, "rules were meant to be broken". i mean, then why bother > > > making up rules in the first place? and if locks were meant for honest > > > people, then does it make sense for us to be afraid of honest people > > > breaking into our homes? i have a ton of these kinds of phrases i can't > > > make sense out of, yet, as you can tell.LOL > > > > > > kate "diet soda" Isn't that called a Why Bother? DeeTee > Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for > Rheumatoid arthritis? DeeTee wrote: > "diet soda" Isn't that called a Why Bother? Like when I was bartending a fire deparment dinner and a gal ordered "7 & 7.....with diet 7UP....'cause I'm dieting." ... Electricity was invented by rubbing a cat's fur backwards. "diet soda" Isn't that called a Why Bother? DeeTee LOL! here in the seattle area, a "why bother" is a decaffeinated latte with skim milk froth.<smile> kate > Is aspartame, an artifial sweetener, found in diet sodas bad for > Rheumatoid arthritis? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.