Other than to baselessly denigrate, it is not obvious to me what is meant by “chemicals”.
- Synthesized or highly processed versions of or replacements for a normally natural or well established substance; often for the purpose of cost. E.g. high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, rayon, chrome tanned leather, etc.
- Synthesized or highly processed substances that promise to provide the advantages of a natural or well established substance but without any of the drawbacks. E.g. sweeteners without calories, waterproofing sprays that promise breathability, anti-stick coatings that don't require the care of cast iron, replacing metal with light weight plastics, etc.
For me it tends to come down to two rules of thumb that my life experience has given me:
- Highly processed products (particularly food) tend to be unhealthy.
- There is no free lunch. If some new material promises to eliminate the drawbacks of an existing material, then it probably has different drawbacks that you don't know about yet.
Maybe the definition is more of a regional thing. Or maybe it's just more BS. In any case I don't think it's remotely consistent or concrete.
This is just a heuristic, and honestly barely that. It's a belief.
Often there really is free lunch, and that's just progress. Sometimes I think people like to pretend otherwise because it's comforting to deny yourself of convenience.
Aspartame really is zero calories. And it really is safe. Yes, much safer than sugar. No, it doesn't magically make you gain weight. No, it doesn't cause cancer (feeding rats 500 coke bottles worth of aspartame doesn't count!). Yes, it's less carcinogenic than red meat.
From a health standpoint it's better in every single way. Of course taste is another thing all together, and subjective. Point being, yes things CAN just be better.
2. Aspartame is safe and there's not a scientist on Earth who claims otherwise.
3. While we may not know NEW stuff, we do know old stuff. Sugar quite literally kills people. An alternative could, AND DOES, save lives.
I eat no more than I otherwise would, and I avoid the spike in blood glucose.
I see a lot of negative claims around low calorie sweeteners, but no proof.
However, I see irrefutable proof of negative effects of sucrose and glucose and fructose most times I am in public, and in the diabetes and obesity statistics.
And I also have read credibly reports about the sugar industry corrupted research to avoid being in the crosshairs. As a result, I would not put it past them to try to vilify low calorie sweeteners either.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
Obviously, excess low calorie sweeteners is bad, just like everything else in excess. But the question is, is a low calorie sweetener soda nutritionally better than a sugar soda, or low calorie sweetener candy/popsicle/etc better than the sugar alternative.
So far, I would say the answer is an obvious yes, given what we know about the effects of excess simple carbohydrate consumption.
Listen, you can't just make things up. Just because you feel as though something is too good to be true doesn't mean it actually is.
This is like those people who think Ozempic makes your eyes melt and stuff.
The problem is in capitalistic society "pain is gain" is ingrained since you left the womb. People often have trouble conceptualizing that you can get good results without suffering. People actually ENJOY the suffering because they think it directly translates into good stuff for them and their life.
It's not a healthy, or rationale, way to operate. Ensuring your own misery out of a desperate need to prove yourself and your work ethic is just self-destructive behavior. Sorry to be the one to tell you.