|
No. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a data point, not proof in any sense.
Understanding this principle is one of the historical keys to modern science btw. Understand that I'm not saying the gummis don't have an effect. I'm saying the effect is not proven.
You have correlated a change in behavior with a rather small change you made a few days ago. Less than a quarter teaspoon of artificial sweetener. What of the changes you made two weeks ago? Last month? Not all changes will show immediately; if dietary changes are of fat-soluble substances, they will stick around in the body for quite some time. (Sucralose is considered not fat-soluble, so that is a point in favor of causality.)
Are all behavioral changes necessarily overnight? What to make of the time before the gummis arrived?
The human body is a pretty complex thing. Michael Pollan points out that thyme, if taken in large quantities by itself, promotes cancer; but in small quantities WITH other foods, helps prevent cancer, because it contains large amounts of different anti-oxidants. He points out that our obsession with single points of nutrition is actually unhealthy, and it's the complete diet that must be looked at. The simple "X is good for you/Y is bad for you", which our culture currently promotes, is not enough explanation. Perhaps X and Y combined is a natural and beneficial diet.
|