This Ingredient Leaves Advertisers STUNNED!

Right now, in your pantry, you have an ingredient than can make slugs melt.

It’s the combination of a highly-reactive, unstable metal, and an element that is one electron away from lethal chlorine gas.

This ingredient can raise blood pressure in humans, making it dangerous to those with heart disease, high cholesterol, and those at risk of stroke.

This ingredient can kill you.

However, we also need this ingredient to live.

What is this ingredient? It is salt.

And that is exactly why this ingredient leaves advertisers stunned. Because I can make just about anything sound horrifying, like a controversy, or the Illuminati of supplements if I happen to word it in such a manner. And these advertisers happen to know that. They use this exact method to try to get your attention so you’ll buy their product.

Right now you probably also have an ingredient in your pantry or cupboard that can kill your pet cats or dogs. That ingredient is chocolate. Pets cannot process it. Yet many people eat it quite regularly. Do you think twice about it? Probably not. Should you? Probably not. But when I make the direct link that it can kill your pets, do you begin to doubt that chocolate is healthy, even for a fraction of a second? Possibly. That is exactly the lies and manipulation these ads try to coerce you with.

Did you know, even drinking too much water, too quickly can kill you? And it can kill you in a matter of hours. So, using that logic .. theoretically water can be more lethal for you than fast food, in an immediate manner. Are you scared to drink water? No. Should you be? Absolutely not.

So why do people believe in that sort of advertising? Because they want miracles. Miracles that don’t exist. They want purity. The epitome of health. The epitome that doesn’t exist yet, because everyone is different, and has different dietary needs. Yet people don’t know that, so they keep believing these blanket terms that are just confusing them about their food choices.

This is why we should believe in moderation. However, should moderation include handfuls of the latest supplements touted on some sort of TV show that just wants to make money? (I’m looking at a certain doctor here, mayhaps one better left in the Wizard of Oz, if you know what I’m saying). Should moderation include reading every website blindly, believing that absolutely everything is harmful to you?

No.

What is harmful to you, may not be harmful to me. What is harmful to me, may not be harmful to you. I mean, I could go ahead and tell everyone to avoid penicillin because I’m allergic to it, it harms me, and therefore it must be bad. But that’s a complete and utter lie. Penicillin is not bad for some people. For some people, it is the first line of treatment.

So theoretically, you can take green coffee bean if you want to. I mean, studies have had to be retracted because they’re probably bullshit, and the beans can be tainted with penicillumso it’s probably not the best idea for me .. but if you believe it works, free country, right? And maybe one day the evidence might change, and more studies might come out. So who knows?

Setting the bullshit aside, there does not exist a supplement that can raise your metabolism more than a few percent without risk of killing you. That doesn’t mean that they result in certain death (ECA stacks — ephedrine, caffeine, and aspirin — may raise your metabolism up to 10%, and are vastly used by bodybuilders .. however, they have also killed people who were not careful about over-consumption or overexertion), but in some cases, they do, such as the DNP I just linked in this sentence; that can raise your metabolism a whopping 50%, but has most certainly killed people. If a website or TV show cited it as a miraculous dietary aid today (which it was believed to be in 1938 until it was pulled off the shelf a year later, yet people are still obtaining it, using it, and dying) — bragging about its miraculous ability to increase your metabolism more than any other substance, and its way of seemingly melting fat (leaving out the part that it literally causes your cells to overheat themselves to death in the meantime) .. how many people do you think would probably buy it? My guess would be millions.

That doesn’t mean you can’t raise your metabolism naturally, the hard way — aka proper diet, exercise, spicy foods, lifting weights and having a high muscle mass, etc. That just means that this isn’t what most people want to hear. That’s why clickbait exists. That’s why people order these shitty, sketchy products from these shitty, sketchy websites. The same people also go to these shitty, sketchy websites for food recommendations.

So people are against GMO’s, gluten, and pesticides, but they will unknowingly take capsules full of weed-killer (exactly what DNP is made for), ordering them off of third-party websites as a weight-loss aid. Where do we find the balance?

Certainly not all clickbait is bad. Heck, science even does it from time to time (well, news websites do it about science .. there could be a small link to something in a cancer study and on the news it’ll say ‘New Cancer Cure Found at ____ University!’). It’s all about views, really. But that doesn’t mean you should believe everything you read. Even if it has a catchy title. Because they’re probably just doing it for money (read: ads), not science. Even if it has some science-y stuff in it. A lot of advertisers will sponsor a small-scale study just to link to as ‘proof’, even though the results are likely entirely skewed. Such as the green coffee bean study I linked above.

What separates the fact from the bullshit? Time. There has always been diet aids, but they are forever changing. Green tea has been out there a long time, and has a lot of evidence that it may work. So the longer something is out there, the more likely it will get more studies which have more things in common, to help sort the wild bullshit claims from the concrete evidence that occurs more and more often. And who knows, maybe that green coffee bean will have more valid claims linked to it one day.

And once you finally see these advertisers repeating their claims more and more (hint: many won’t, because they still want your attention), such as trans fat being bad for you .. well, they might actually be right for once. But that’s probably because they’re parroting information for a decade ago.

That’s ads for you.

Advertisements

Are artificial sweeteners evil?

Sweetener

Are artificial sweeteners evil?

It is a debate that has been going on for decades.

Oddly enough, the word ‘artificial’ creates hostility on its own. Many people associate ‘artificial’ with something bad. You know what is artificial? Flying on a plane and getting to the other side of the world in 16 hours or less. Driving a car. Eating cereal that came in a printed, pre-packaged box. Having a skin graft or a lung transplant. Taking medicine. Having a blog.

Are half of these things bad? No. But they don’t have the word ‘artificial’ in them, so they seem less likely to be misconstrued. Call it ‘artificial transport’ and then see what people say after a few years. Probably either hostility defending it, or a lot more people choosing to walk.

However, I digress. I must admit to being the neutral party when it comes to the actual subject matter. I believe artificial sweeteners are both good and bad.

Why?

The good:

They can help with weight loss and blood pressure reduction. Alternatively, though, so can reducing your sugar intake. I would call it a moot point, then, but do acknowledge the fact that they can indeed help dieters with poor impulse control when it comes to sweets. This may be a good thing for those with a risk of diabetes.

The aspartame -> brain tumour ‘link’ is likely a fallacy. There were simply not enough potential causes isolated to garner it a real concern.

Sucralose is proven safe to consume, even in ridiculous amounts. A packet of Splenda contains 12mg of sucralose. Scientists were having subjects safely consume up to 500mg per day (that’s 41.6 packets in a day!).

Men who drink diet soda instead of regular soda might have a reduced risk of heart disease. However, this seems to depend on other factors as well, so I wouldn’t call it the be-all end-all to your current soda habit.

The bad:

They might actually make you more hungry. Artificial sweeteners have no effect on ghrelin, the hormone that makes us hungry. Real sugars, however, can reduce it; making us less hungry. Marginally so, but still enough for a statistical difference.

They might cause you to eat more fat. They are also not very useful when it comes to people who aren’t dieting, as they will usually end up ‘eating back’ the ‘missing’ calories later in the day.

Artificial sweeteners mixed with alcohol cause you to get drunk more quickly than their sugar-sweetened counterparts. Why is this bad? Those who ‘go big or go home’, or are known to start a party with a rapid succession of alcohol consumption may be at higher risk of alcohol toxicity without even knowing it. In fact, this effect may be even worse when caffeine is addedsuch as in the case of mixing diet cola and alcohol.

There is also some evidence that those who regularly consume artificial sweeteners may not feel as satisfied when they consume real sugars, causing them to over-indulge. They may even lose interest in less-sweet foods that may be necessary for good health.

There are other things out there to discuss as well, such as how they purportedly increase incidences in cancer. However, I did not find any studies concrete enough about that for me to feel worthy of linking. There is still a lot of controversy about it, even in the scientific world, it seems. I suppose we’ll just have to wait to find out more.


So should you consume artificial sweeteners or not?

Well, that is completely up to you.

As noted by my introduction postI believe in moderation. I think they’re fine, but I prefer having them in foods where they’re already mixed in – I still use sugar in recipes. When I consume artificial sweeteners in ‘regular’ foods, my preferences are varied. I might put a packet of sucralose-based sweetener in my oatmeal every couple weeks, because stevia can taste like vomit to me (at least in oatmeal .. oddly enough, I am fine with using it in hot chocolate or smoothies). I use both sucralose and stevia-sweetened protein powders equally enough. When it comes to sodas, I prefer sugar alcohols. They seem to make me crave less sweet stuff afterwards, compared to acesulfame-potassium. That is just me, though. You could be completely different in your preferences, and I am a-okay with that.

Whatever you do, just make sure not to over-do it. That goes with both sugar and artificial sweeteners; as both have their upsides and downsides.