Demi Lovato attacked a Froyo shop for having sugar free items on their menu

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wishing all the best for Demi!

I do too. I really like her but she is off her rocker on this one and I think its best that the store did not engage further and just let her keep rambling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
On the other hand, it's useful to have a discussion about who benefits from sugar free (diabetics only) and who can be hurt with artificial sweeteners (the rest of the world). So she may not be as addled as you think she is...

It's not diabetics only. I am on a medication where my blood sugar can spike abnormally and I cannot eat refined sugar.

I STRONGLY disagree that sugar-free foods should be categorized as for diabetics. We are all more than our diseases, and lots of people don't want to eat refined sugar.

To say the rest of the world is hurt by artificial sweeteners is a gross overstatement. I use stevia for instance and it does not cause harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep reading this and do not understand what she was trying to say. Or it’s so ridiculous it’s hard to believe.

She is not well in the head. She was trying to say SHE was triggered by seeing low-sugar options at the front of the store before she got to the full-sugar options further in, but instead implied it's triggering for EVERYONE in LA because diet culture is so prevalent there. She's really just ... not well in the head. I'm hoping she gets her feet under her and doesn't go the way of Amanda Bynes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She may be suffering another mental episode.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sugar free ice cream is now considered a trigger? She's nuts.

You can’t say nuts. It’s triggering on several levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are missing the point.

The point is that people need to be more aware that artificial sweeteners are bad for your health, and should be reserved for diabetics. It's the same category as vegan, nut-free, gluten-free, etc... there for certain populations that need them.

Should the store have a sign that says "Sugar-free options are for diabetics only. Please show proof of diagnosis. FOCUS ON YOURSELF, QUEENS! NO CAP!"

[Anonymous]

It's a very reactive response which feels borderliney to me and based on the depth of her past addictions (as well as this level of anger) i do wonder if a pervasive personality issue is at play here. Hopefully she is getting solid treatment.

[Anonymous]

She is not well. Diabetics need those sugar free options. She needs professional help if she is that easily triggered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sugar free ice cream is now considered a trigger? She's nuts.

You can’t say nuts. It’s triggering on several levels.

So by this logic, seeing diet soda would be triggering, in which case you should probably never leave the house.

This is the stupidest non-story EVER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
On the other hand, it's useful to have a discussion about who benefits from sugar free (diabetics only) and who can be hurt with artificial sweeteners (the rest of the world). So she may not be as addled as you think she is...

It's not diabetics only. I am on a medication where my blood sugar can spike abnormally and I cannot eat refined sugar.

I STRONGLY disagree that sugar-free foods should be categorized as for diabetics. We are all more than our diseases, and lots of people don't want to eat refined sugar.

To say the rest of the world is hurt by artificial sweeteners is a gross overstatement. I use stevia for instance and it does not cause harm.

+1 My nephew is unable to process real sugar and can only do artificial sweeteners. It took years to diagnose and is uncommon, but yes there are other reasons to have options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
On the other hand, it's useful to have a discussion about who benefits from sugar free (diabetics only) and who can be hurt with artificial sweeteners (the rest of the world). So she may not be as addled as you think she is...

Hmm...this makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
On the other hand, it's useful to have a discussion about who benefits from sugar free (diabetics only) and who can be hurt with artificial sweeteners (the rest of the world). So she may not be as addled as you think she is...

Hmm...this makes sense.

It’s not useful to start that discussion by attacking a small local business with your million followers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are missing the point.

The point is that people need to be more aware that artificial sweeteners are bad for your health, and should be reserved for diabetics. It's the same category as vegan, nut-free, gluten-free, etc... there for certain populations that need them.

So diabetics should have nothing on offer at froyo shops because it might trigger idiots with EDs? gtfo what narcissism. The world doesn’t revolve around her or you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sugar free ice cream is now considered a trigger? She's nuts.

You can’t say nuts. It’s triggering on several levels.

What, offensive to all the Pecans out there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
On the other hand, it's useful to have a discussion about who benefits from sugar free (diabetics only) and who can be hurt with artificial sweeteners (the rest of the world). So she may not be as addled as you think she is...

It's not diabetics only. I am on a medication where my blood sugar can spike abnormally and I cannot eat refined sugar.

I STRONGLY disagree that sugar-free foods should be categorized as for diabetics. We are all more than our diseases, and lots of people don't want to eat refined sugar.

To say the rest of the world is hurt by artificial sweeteners is a gross overstatement. I use stevia for instance and it does not cause harm.

And some of us don't want to weigh 300 pounds and drink Diet Coke. Sorry, not sorry.