I swear I read this as Toblerone and thought, well that ain't going to help.

You are using the same argument anti-vaxxers use about things like aluminum and mercury (thymerosal) and a couple other things found in vaccines. Is phenylalanine harmful? Sure. However, the *amount* of phenylalanine you get from aspartame - or mercury/aluminum from vaccines - is a negligible amount with no large-scale, repeatable scientific evidence that shows it has confirmed negative effects. This doesn't deter people though, because the bias against aspartame/artificial sweeteners in general is so heavily negative in today's society it's an incredibly difficult stigma to get rid of, particularly because many of the anti-aspartame arguments tend to appeal to common sense.

I don't even think the diet coke discussion is even slightly important in the least during this challenge compared to the first weight loss prop at least.
Fact of the matter is this guy who has probably not been under a BF% of less than 10 since he popped out the womb is roughly at about 25-30% BF currently & has to get under 10%. Just do not see this happening without him literally starving himself which we all know will never happen. I think he got awful odds on this prop as well, the last prop he should of had to put up the $50k to win $150k and this one he would of probably had better odds at the $3k to $150k to make happen.

It will be entertaining though to see how this plays out, last prop he was videoing everytime he walked down the street and posting to YT or IG so should be a good watch once he actually decides to put some effort into this.

You're right that it isn't important. The issue is that a bunch of people highly disagree and think that having a couple of diet sodas a day will wreck havoc on your body weight and health
Yeah, so why didn't the normal diet+highest aspartame intake gain weight compared to the normal diet+water intake group? You're trying to make the case that in the high fat+aspartame group the increase in weight compared to high fat+water was due to the aspartame. Well, if it was, then the normal diet+highest aspartame by that logic should've gained even more weight. It's all nonsense and cofounding factors really, and the studies don't really show anything definitive at all since the results are all over the place. And, again: rats.

The normal diet had the same aspartame as the high fat diet. Please read more comprehensively before you make a muddled argument. You seem to have an emotional attachment to your side being right and artificial sweeteners being "safe and healthy". I can only assume that you've consumed a lot of artificial sweeteners over the years and hey you're still alive so they are fine, right?

I think you underestimate the resilience of the human body and the ability of your body to process garbage and keep ticking. I bet I could eat taco bell and mcdonalds and drink diet soda literally every day for the next 30 years and I'll still be alive (I'm 32 now). But that doesn't mean it would be healthy. Just because you are alive doesn't mean you are healthy.

Does the study I linked show nothing, yet the study that shows aspartame is safe show the truth? Or is the question still unresolved in your mind and all the studies show nothing?

"The" study showing aspartame is safe? As if there's one study saying it's unsafe and one saying it's safe and thus it's all up for debate. The scientific community and pretty much every major regulatory body on earth agrees that aspartame in normal doses is perfectly healthy for humans. Read that last sentence again. You're the flat earther, to draw a parrallel.

I side with the scientific community and the EU, USA, Canada, and UK regulatory bodies. You're the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracist.

And regarding the first sentence in your post: The normal diet rats who had aspartame consumed more total aspartame sweetened drinks than the high fat diet rats did in your study, you're mistaken. Almost twice as much per bodyweight of the animal. This is all nonsense either way, debating a single rat study is irrelevant considering the grand scheme of things and the bulk of the scientific evidence. But hey, all government regulatory bodies are purchased by "big soda" in your world view so who cares, it's all aliens.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...6#.W6lU2-gzaUn

If aspartame causes weight gain in rats in your world view and the study shows it then I really wonder why the normal chow rats didn't gain any ****ing weight compared to their water control group

Get off you high horse arguing cognitive dissonance when you literally are doing the exact thing you're accusing him of doing, ignoring one study that debunked your claims about aspartame leading to weight gain/being bad, and clinging to one study that shows increased weight gain in rats. I highly recommend you read this article by NDT to learn more about how studies that show results that fluctuate in and out of the margin for error do not always show something is a scientific truth as you are trying to argue. At best, attempts to show aspartame are harmful or cause weight gain are inconclusive. Arguing it is unsafe/cause weight gain is a scientifically illiterate position to take.

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tys...inties-part-ii

Do you guys drink diet soda? Keep doing and it thinking it's not unhealthy. I don't care. What's your blood pressure? I bet I have a better metabolism than you do if you drink diet soda. I will bet on it. Put your money where your mouth is, find me a diet soda drinker and I'll bet I have lower blood pressure than them. You have no idea what being healthy is.

Let's bet. Find me anyone who drinks diet soda daily. I will bet my blood pressure is lower. Anyone on Earth. Go ahead.

Is diet soda as healthy as drinking water? Which is a better choice for your body?

There's no way, 15 tops

You do know that blood pressure isn't a scale where the bottom end is super healthy and the top end is super unhealthy, right? It's pretty weird to settle something by proclaiming to have the lowest blood pressure as if lower automatically means healthier. Going from "better metabolism" straight into "lower blood pressure" is also a bit odd.

But I mean you already showed yourself to be entirely scientifically illiterate when you referred to a rat study as "double blind" so in reality we should probably leave your ramblings aside when it comes to all things science/related to the body/anything ever

edit: When you're losing an argument, just throw the ultimate trump card: LOWER BLOOD PRESSURE. I don't even. I'm 110/70, by the way, and whatever lower than that you have is completely ****ing irrelevant lmao

Let me put it to you this way since you seem entrenched in your ideas and immune to facts/science... let's assume you are not a vegan/vegetarian, is meat bad for you? Has eating meat had a negative impact on your health? Because many vegans can show you several studies and "facts" about how meat is bad for you. But, you can still live a perfectly healthy life being a meat-eater and could debunk their preconceived notions about meat right? It's the same concept here with diet sodas except the diet soda argument has wayyyy less variables.

Confirmed, aspartame raises blood pressure.

That and past posting

in b4 the 200 post derail about aspartame

Medically supervised fasting... ez game...

I'm like 100/60 with 45-50 resting heart rate. What's yours? I drink too much diet coke. I've been wanting to cut it out for a while but it's better than other "vices."

How does zero calorie carbonated flavored water hinder weight loss?

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

Wrong. There hasn't been any study on humans showing I'll effects from aspartame.

Not one.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

Maybe something like this is the plan. Would explain why Jaime hasn't been eating ultra-clean - he's dreading when this challenge begins.

Not sure if supervised fasting with resistance training is even feasible though - need protein to repair the damaged muscle..

unless you can inject BCAAs through IV as well?

I'm not a scientist, so I'm not sure if this would work in the first place, but if if did, I don't think you would get around the "BCAAs have calories" issue.

wow - Jamie looks awful, gained weight and no muscles, body pasture is terrible, shows no sign of serious bodybuilding

imo you guys focus too much on weight loss - a healthy and sustainable fat level of under 10 percent you only get with serious muscle mass building, anything else is unhealthy starving with the guaranty to hit a massive yoyo cycle after the bet and even look worse then

From a strictly financial standpoint, it's probably a better strategy to starve to <10% BF because it doesn't matter that he yoyo's, he'll already have pocketed the winnings.

Having said that, Bill Perkins wants to do the prop bet as an incentive for Jaime to be healthier and starvation would be a ****ing slap in the face in terms of publicity. I'd go as far as to say it would be a moral cop out.

it's kinda weird that initially bill perkins wanted the staples brothers to get healthier with the bet but this 2nd bet is anything but

thats not true at all, getting under 10percent with building muscles (natural!) is the healthiest lifestyle, that is todays standard in life science
- being skinny is the only proven way to prolong your life
- training muscles with a healthy mixed diet is the only proven way to sustain physical and mental health deep into your 90ies at least (with moderate cardio)

of course being skinny is better for longevity but most skinny people are somewhere between 10 and 15% fat, not sub 10