(07-06-2015 01:43 PM)BigBigRocketFan Wrote: [ -> ]http://utnews.utoledo.edu/index.php/06_1...-coca-cola
I was surprised that the Health Science Campus only carries sugar free drinks. I am sure that they are trying to send the message that sugar is unhealthy which is true enough and they understandably want to create their image as promoting good health and a healthy lifestyle first and foremost ; however, they surely recognize that there are also questions and uncertainties associated with artificial sweeteners as well. If they had the courage of their convictions and REALLY wanted to promote good health rather than just promote an image I would think that they would not sell any sugar based OR artificially sweetened beverages on their campus.
Of course that might lower the value of UT's new Coke contract
From the Mayo Clinic website: according to the National Cancer Institute, there are no real scientific studies that show approved artificial sweeteners cause Cancer or any other major disease.
The sugar lobby would love otherwise.
(07-06-2015 06:59 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]From the Mayo Clinic website: according to the National Cancer Institute, there are no real scientific studies that show approved artificial sweeteners cause Cancer or any other major disease.
The sugar lobby would love otherwise.
If you go back and read my initial post you will observe that I said "questions and uncertainties" and I did not specifically mention cancer. What I was thinking of are several recent studies that suggest a correlation between obesity and diet pop consumption. This seems counter intuitive because people who drink diet pop do so to avoid the calories and hence the weight gain but that is what these studies appear to show. Of course obesity is a primary risk factor for both type II diabetes and heart disease so while the proof may not be conclusive, it should run up some sort of red flag as it raises questions and uncertainties that beg for further study.
My point was not that you should choose sugar sweetened drinks over drinks sweetened by artificial sweeteners my point was why drink (or promote drinking) either one???
I like mayo on my baconator sandwich, with a pop. I didn't know they had a whole clinic devoted to it. Those crazy Minnisotoans. I tried that Mexican coke that's supposed to be so good, cut with cane sugar. Eh. Kept sticking in my nose. So now if I drink diet, I get cancerous AND fat? Going to have to pay extra for the pall-bearers. Tastes like the stuff I used to drink in chem lab anyhow. Never saw the attraction, just wanted to be one of the cool kids.
(07-06-2015 11:43 PM)T-Town Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015 06:59 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]From the Mayo Clinic website: according to the National Cancer Institute, there are no real scientific studies that show approved artificial sweeteners cause Cancer or any other major disease.
The sugar lobby would love otherwise.
If you go back and read my initial post you will observe that I said "questions and uncertainties" and I did not specifically mention cancer. What I was thinking of are several recent studies that suggest a correlation between obesity and diet pop consumption. This seems counter intuitive because people who drink diet pop do so to avoid the calories and hence the weight gain but that is what these studies appear to show. Of course obesity is a primary risk factor for both type II diabetes and heart disease so while the proof may not be conclusive, it should run up some sort of red flag as it raises questions and uncertainties that beg for further study.
My point was not that you should choose sugar sweetened drinks over drinks sweetened by artificial sweeteners my point was why drink (or promote drinking) either one???
For the same reason it wouldn't bother me if Marco's/Domino's,etc wanted to pay big bucks for the naming rights of the Glass Bowl. Hey a lot of fans want a Diet Coke to go with their healthy hot dog/pizza slice at Rocket home games. No, maybe some coffee with plenty of cream and sugar to shoot up my blood pressure up(as if some of the games don't do that anyways). The chances of dying of hospital error or an auto fatality are greater than death by Sucralose. Btw, the pendulum is always swinging-soy was good- now it's not, same with whole grains/bacon for you paleos out there, etc. I do a lot of risk assessment in my life , Splenda seems to have a low factor for me and wouldn't you want me to have a choice?
(07-07-2015 05:23 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015 11:43 PM)T-Town Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015 06:59 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]From the Mayo Clinic website: according to the National Cancer Institute, there are no real scientific studies that show approved artificial sweeteners cause Cancer or any other major disease.
The sugar lobby would love otherwise.
If you go back and read my initial post you will observe that I said "questions and uncertainties" and I did not specifically mention cancer. What I was thinking of are several recent studies that suggest a correlation between obesity and diet pop consumption. This seems counter intuitive because people who drink diet pop do so to avoid the calories and hence the weight gain but that is what these studies appear to show. Of course obesity is a primary risk factor for both type II diabetes and heart disease so while the proof may not be conclusive, it should run up some sort of red flag as it raises questions and uncertainties that beg for further study.
My point was not that you should choose sugar sweetened drinks over drinks sweetened by artificial sweeteners my point was why drink (or promote drinking) either one???
For the same reason it wouldn't bother me if Marco's/Domino's,etc wanted to pay big bucks for the naming rights of the Glass Bowl. Hey a lot of fans want a Diet Coke to go with their healthy hot dog/pizza slice at Rocket home games. No, maybe some coffee with plenty of cream and sugar to shoot up my blood pressure up(as if some of the games don't do that anyways). The chances of dying of hospital error or an auto fatality are greater than death by Sucralose. Btw, the pendulum is always swinging-soy was good- now it's not, same with whole grains/bacon for you paleos out there, etc. I do a lot of risk assessment in my life , Splenda seems to have a low factor for me and wouldn't you want me to have a choice?
You absolutely should have a choice, and in your case it seems to be an informed choice, but how about somebody who wants to get a classic coke at the HSC? Where is their freedom of choice?
Like it or not, there is no REAL freedom of choice if one never has the opportunity to make "bad" choices. And then there is the question of who gets to decide what is a "good" choice and what is a "bad" choice ---and yes perceptions change over time.
My feeling is people should be given total freedom of choice regarding their own bodies with the full understanding that it is their responsibility to learn enough to make informed decisions as well as accept full responsibility for any negative consequences resulting from bad decisions they make.
Bacon good! Heart health!
(07-07-2015 08:10 AM)T-Town Wrote: [ -> ] (07-07-2015 05:23 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015 11:43 PM)T-Town Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015 06:59 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]From the Mayo Clinic website: according to the National Cancer Institute, there are no real scientific studies that show approved artificial sweeteners cause Cancer or any other major disease.
The sugar lobby would love otherwise.
If you go back and read my initial post you will observe that I said "questions and uncertainties" and I did not specifically mention cancer. What I was thinking of are several recent studies that suggest a correlation between obesity and diet pop consumption. This seems counter intuitive because people who drink diet pop do so to avoid the calories and hence the weight gain but that is what these studies appear to show. Of course obesity is a primary risk factor for both type II diabetes and heart disease so while the proof may not be conclusive, it should run up some sort of red flag as it raises questions and uncertainties that beg for further study.
My point was not that you should choose sugar sweetened drinks over drinks sweetened by artificial sweeteners my point was why drink (or promote drinking) either one???
For the same reason it wouldn't bother me if Marco's/Domino's,etc wanted to pay big bucks for the naming rights of the Glass Bowl. Hey a lot of fans want a Diet Coke to go with their healthy hot dog/pizza slice at Rocket home games. No, maybe some coffee with plenty of cream and sugar to shoot up my blood pressure up(as if some of the games don't do that anyways). The chances of dying of hospital error or an auto fatality are greater than death by Sucralose. Btw, the pendulum is always swinging-soy was good- now it's not, same with whole grains/bacon for you paleos out there, etc. I do a lot of risk assessment in my life , Splenda seems to have a low factor for me and wouldn't you want me to have a choice?
You absolutely should have a choice, and in your case it seems to be an informed choice, but how about somebody who wants to get a classic coke at the HSC? Where is their freedom of choice?
Like it or not, there is no REAL freedom of choice if one never has the opportunity to make "bad" choices. And then there is the question of who gets to decide what is a "good" choice and what is a "bad" choice ---and yes perceptions change over time.
My feeling is people should be given total freedom of choice regarding their own bodies with the full understanding that it is their responsibility to learn enough to make informed decisions as well as accept full responsibility for any negative consequences resulting from bad decisions they make.
Btw, just so you know I've been involved with the health food/natural supplement/natural cosmetic business including for a long time. At one point I got to do some trade shows, national TV and mostly local/regional radio.
(07-06-2015 04:41 PM)T-Town Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015 01:43 PM)BigBigRocketFan Wrote: [ -> ]http://utnews.utoledo.edu/index.php/06_1...-coca-cola
I was surprised that the Health Science Campus only carries sugar free drinks. I am sure that they are trying to send the message that sugar is unhealthy which is true enough and they understandably want to create their image as promoting good health and a healthy lifestyle first and foremost ; however, they surely recognize that there are also questions and uncertainties associated with artificial sweeteners as well. If they had the courage of their convictions and REALLY wanted to promote good health rather than just promote an image I would think that they would not sell any sugar based OR artificially sweetened beverages on their campus.
Of course that might lower the value of UT's new Coke contract
i love that the health building took this step...what i dont like is the replacement for sugar which is worse than sugar itself
What I'd really like to see are some upgraded food choices at the GB and Savage. I think better quality could actually improve attendance to some extent.
Gino's is expensive for the small slices we get. I like pepsi products because of Mountain Dew. And i slightly prefer Diet pepsi over diet coke.
(07-07-2015 12:40 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote: [ -> ]What I'd really like to see are some upgraded food choices at the GB and Savage. I think better quality could actually improve attendance to some extent.
FAU does a nice job with their stadium food. National name do some of the stands. Up on their party deck under the enclosed boxes they have up graded food selections. Talked to some of the Marshall and NIU fans at the Boca Bowl and got positive feedback.
I'm excited about this. Coke Zero ftw!!