Tracking urine by detecting an artificial sweetener is based on the assumption that all urine contains that artificial sweetener. Have they tested that assumption? Sure, the sweetener might be...
Tracking urine by detecting an artificial sweetener is based on the assumption that all urine contains that artificial sweetener. Have they tested that assumption? Sure, the sweetener might be used in a lot of food and drink products, but not everyone eats or drinks products containing artificial sweeteners. That urine would therefore not be tracked by a test looking for the artificial sweetener.
They specifically mention they need the average concentration of artificial sweetener in people's urine. That's a fair basis for most well used pools. That being said, you're right that you can't...
They specifically mention they need the average concentration of artificial sweetener in people's urine. That's a fair basis for most well used pools. That being said, you're right that you can't generalize it to pools used by only a few people or pools that might for some reason or another bias the amount of artificial sweetener in the users diet.
Not only do most people eat and drink those products but if you looked at the very long list of products containing it, I'd say most people eat atleast one of those products. There's really no...
food and drink products, but not everyone eats or drinks products containing artificial sweeteners
Not only do most people eat and drink those products but if you looked at the very long list of products containing it, I'd say most people eat atleast one of those products.
There's really no other way than a smart guess to estimate the amount. Heck, you could argue that the pee might not be dispersed equally, it's really impossible to have any kind of metric without making certain assumptions.
That just comes back to my question: "Have they tested that assumption?" If we're talking about science, let's do it scientifically. That means testing assumptions. That means taking lots of urine...
I'd say most people eat atleast one of those products.
That just comes back to my question: "Have they tested that assumption?" If we're talking about science, let's do it scientifically. That means testing assumptions.
That means taking lots of urine samples, testing them all for the presence of this artificial sweetener, and then coming up with a statistic that says this sweetener is present in X% of urine samples - and then assessing whether this sweetener is a good indicator for the presence of urine. How high does X need to be for the sweetener to be a reliable indicator for the presence of urine? 80%? 90%? 95%? 98%?
Then, if we decide that the sweetener is a reliable indicator for the presence of urine, we need to allow for it in our calculations. If the sweetener is present in X% of urine samples, that means we needs to adjust our calculations by a factor of 100/X when calculating how much urine is present based on detecting the sweetener.
Science has to be scientific. Assumptions need to be tested.
According to Lindsays' papers linked in the Youtube description, They use : Gougeon , R. et al. 2004 . Can J Diabetes . 28, 385-9 as a source to determine that this is the case.
According to Lindsays' papers linked in the Youtube description,
They use :
Gougeon , R. et al. 2004 . Can J Diabetes . 28, 385-9
Tracking urine by detecting an artificial sweetener is based on the assumption that all urine contains that artificial sweetener. Have they tested that assumption? Sure, the sweetener might be used in a lot of food and drink products, but not everyone eats or drinks products containing artificial sweeteners. That urine would therefore not be tracked by a test looking for the artificial sweetener.
They specifically mention they need the average concentration of artificial sweetener in people's urine. That's a fair basis for most well used pools. That being said, you're right that you can't generalize it to pools used by only a few people or pools that might for some reason or another bias the amount of artificial sweetener in the users diet.
Not only do most people eat and drink those products but if you looked at the very long list of products containing it, I'd say most people eat atleast one of those products.
There's really no other way than a smart guess to estimate the amount. Heck, you could argue that the pee might not be dispersed equally, it's really impossible to have any kind of metric without making certain assumptions.
That just comes back to my question: "Have they tested that assumption?" If we're talking about science, let's do it scientifically. That means testing assumptions.
That means taking lots of urine samples, testing them all for the presence of this artificial sweetener, and then coming up with a statistic that says this sweetener is present in X% of urine samples - and then assessing whether this sweetener is a good indicator for the presence of urine. How high does X need to be for the sweetener to be a reliable indicator for the presence of urine? 80%? 90%? 95%? 98%?
Then, if we decide that the sweetener is a reliable indicator for the presence of urine, we need to allow for it in our calculations. If the sweetener is present in X% of urine samples, that means we needs to adjust our calculations by a factor of 100/X when calculating how much urine is present based on detecting the sweetener.
Science has to be scientific. Assumptions need to be tested.
According to Lindsays' papers linked in the Youtube description,
They use :
as a source to determine that this is the case.