Aspartame "sensitives" study published

beemerphile1 · April 2015

glevinso wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you, since you make the claim.

(Hint, those studies either don't exist or they have been debunked)

_John_ · April 2015

I don't laugh at a line in a published researched paper often...but my imaginative mind just LOLed...

One man was excluded because of a self-limiting gastro-intestinal upset during one session (revealed when unblinded to be after control).

glevinso · April 2015

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you, since you make the claim.

(Hint, those studies either don't exist or they have been debunked)

What exactly do you think I have to prove, maybe you should reread my post?

I said, "My personal experience from about five years ago"
Do you think I need to prove my personal experience?

Anecdotes are just that. And there are too many confounding variables to use anyone's n=1 experience as evidence

I don't have time to dig through all this. I suspect you just dumped a search on me without reading these. I will click a few and see what they have to say.

I said, "have seen many studies that document the hazards of aspartame"
In fact the study first linked qualifies although results were that the hazards are unsubstantiated.

Some reading for your enjoyment;

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5258/pdf/227609b0.pdf

I cant get to this through the paywall, but you said this one is unsubstantiated, so I can dismiss it without reading it. Why did you even link it?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6204522

This one SPECIFICALLY says the very thing you are arguing against:

However, they should not in any way be interpreted as demonstrating that aspartame significantly affects the human brain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6152304

This is about excitotoxins, which is not what you are trying to argue against.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939194

This is a correlation/causation study and shows nothing

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCR-408BJC1-4&_user=10&_coverDate=05/19/2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view
=c&_searchStrId=1456058577&
_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=395a2fc9d4ef0ffceeea475146341607
&searchtype=a

OK - so massive doses damage mice. What does that have to do with non-massive doses for humans?

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v7/n4/full/4000976a.html

This one says it is bad for those with phenylketonuria. I think that is well established.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16129618

This one contradicts you again:

It is concluded that low concentrations of ASP metabolites had no effect on the membrane enzyme activity, whereas high or toxic concentrations partially or remarkably decreased the membrane AChE activity, respectively. Additionally, neurological symptoms, including learning and memory processes, may be related to the high or toxic concentrations of the sweetener metabolites.

[/quote]

I have had enough digging through these. In fact I have done more than enough considering your burden of proof. If there is some damning evidence in the later studies, you will have to show me. The first bunch I clicked through didn't sway me.

neanderthin · April 2015

The first link I opened mentioned disordered odor associated learning with a dose equivalent to 27 cans of diet pop, oh and that was on guinea pigs 15 days old.....

EvanKeel · April 2015

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you, since you make the claim.

(Hint, those studies either don't exist or they have been debunked)

What exactly do you think I have to prove, maybe you should reread my post?

I said, "My personal experience from about five years ago"
Do you think I need to prove my personal experience?

I said, "I am certainly not qualified to comment on the study linked above"
I am not so I didn't.

I said, "have seen many studies that document the hazards of aspartame"
In fact the study first linked qualifies although results were that the hazards are unsubstantiated.

Some reading for your enjoyment;

(citation removed for space)

No doubt I butchered some of the addresses while copying and I am not going to the bother with testing each, but whether one agrees with the findings or not there is substantial evidence that aspartame is harmful.

Now that I have wasted my lunch break.

Umm... did you read those?

Just going to put this here:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-google-university-effect/

HardcoreP0rk · April 2015

slideaway1 wrote: »

Is aspartame considered a carcinogenic? Has this been proved or disproved as a myth yet? (genuine question).

According to the IARC...

description of categories
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php

alphabetically sorted list of agents that have been evaluated
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsAlphaOrder.pdf

Caffeine is a 3
Aspartame is not on the list

But, there's this https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/gmm_rpts/gmm1.pdf that was cited in the RTECS and concludes that there was no evidence of carcinogenic activity in mice. It was a 9 month feed study.

And there's this response to some of the work in this area, upon review: http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/aspartame-efsa-final-comments-21913.pdf

"Using IARC and EPA criteria, these results –
three studies, two species, both genders, and multiple sites ‐‐ show unequivocal evidence
aspartame is carcinogenic in animals, and possibly or probably carcinogenic in humans. "

glevinso · April 2015

EvanKeel wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you, since you make the claim.

(Hint, those studies either don't exist or they have been debunked)

What exactly do you think I have to prove, maybe you should reread my post?

I said, "My personal experience from about five years ago"
Do you think I need to prove my personal experience?

I said, "I am certainly not qualified to comment on the study linked above"
I am not so I didn't.

I said, "have seen many studies that document the hazards of aspartame"
In fact the study first linked qualifies although results were that the hazards are unsubstantiated.

Some reading for your enjoyment;

(citation removed for space)

No doubt I butchered some of the addresses while copying and I am not going to the bother with testing each, but whether one agrees with the findings or not there is substantial evidence that aspartame is harmful.

Now that I have wasted my lunch break.

Umm... did you read those?

Just going to put this here:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-google-university-effect/

Evidently not as the first 6 or 7 of them directly contradict his argument, and I didn't bother reading any of the others.

chivalryder · April 2015

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you, since you make the claim.

(Hint, those studies either don't exist or they have been debunked)

What exactly do you think I have to prove, maybe you should reread my post?

I said, "My personal experience from about five years ago"
Do you think I need to prove my personal experience?

I said, "I am certainly not qualified to comment on the study linked above"
I am not so I didn't.

I said, "have seen many studies that document the hazards of aspartame"
In fact the study first linked qualifies although results were that the hazards are unsubstantiated.

Some reading for your enjoyment;

...

No doubt I butchered some of the addresses while copying and I am not going to the bother with testing each, but whether one agrees with the findings or not there is substantial evidence that aspartame is harmful.

Now that I have wasted my lunch break.

Holy crap, you know how to use Google search!

That's incredibly rare for the MFP forum users. I give you credit for that!

glevinso · April 2015

*typing this post while drinking an aspartame-sweetened beverage

Unknown · April 2015

This content has been removed.

MireyGal76 · April 2015

study or not, sensitive or not... I just cannot stand the taste of aspartame - in drinks, in food. It gives me a horrible aftertaste that lasts for hours. yuck.

TR0berts · April 2015

Well, I suppose one could - if they were so inclined - streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch and conclude that, if you were a rodent and were directly injected with a butt-ton of aspartame, that it would be considered harmful.

And for people with certain medical conditions, it can be harmful.

So I guess he's not completely wrong.

chivalryder · April 2015

TR0berts wrote: »

Well, I suppose one could - if they were so inclined - streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch and conclude that, if you were a rodent and were directly injected with a butt-ton of aspartame, that it would be considered harmful.

And for people with certain medical conditions, it can be harmful.

So I guess he's not completely wrong.

I believe we should have a medical experiment where we inject an IV full of aspartame and hook it up to a patient and observe the results.

If the patient shows any negative symptoms, we shall conclude that all aspartame in any dosage should be banned because it is harmful.

beemerphile1 · April 2015

glevinso wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you, since you make the claim.

(Hint, those studies either don't exist or they have been debunked)

What exactly do you think I have to prove, maybe you should reread my post?

I said, "My personal experience from about five years ago"
Do you think I need to prove my personal experience?

Anecdotes are just that. And there are too many confounding variables to use anyone's n=1 experience as evidence

I don't have time to dig through all this. I suspect you just dumped a search on me without reading these. I will click a few and see what they have to say.

I said, "have seen many studies that document the hazards of aspartame"
In fact the study first linked qualifies although results were that the hazards are unsubstantiated.

Some reading for your enjoyment;

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5258/pdf/227609b0.pdf

I cant get to this through the paywall, but you said this one is unsubstantiated, so I can dismiss it without reading it. Why did you even link it?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6204522

This one SPECIFICALLY says the very thing you are arguing against:

However, they should not in any way be interpreted as demonstrating that aspartame significantly affects the human brain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6152304

This is about excitotoxins, which is not what you are trying to argue against.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939194

This is a correlation/causation study and shows nothing

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCR-408BJC1-4&_user=10&_coverDate=05/19/2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view
=c&_searchStrId=1456058577&
_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=395a2fc9d4ef0ffceeea475146341607
&searchtype=a

OK - so massive doses damage mice. What does that have to do with non-massive doses for humans?

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v7/n4/full/4000976a.html

This one says it is bad for those with phenylketonuria. I think that is well established.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16129618

This one contradicts you again:

It is concluded that low concentrations of ASP metabolites had no effect on the membrane enzyme activity, whereas high or toxic concentrations partially or remarkably decreased the membrane AChE activity, respectively. Additionally, neurological symptoms, including learning and memory processes, may be related to the high or toxic concentrations of the sweetener metabolites.

I have had enough digging through these. In fact I have done more than enough considering your burden of proof. If there is some damning evidence in the later studies, you will have to show me. The first bunch I clicked through didn't sway me.
[/quote]

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

TR0berts · April 2015

chivalryder wrote: »

TR0berts wrote: »

Well, I suppose one could - if they were so inclined - streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch and conclude that, if you were a rodent and were directly injected with a butt-ton of aspartame, that it would be considered harmful.

And for people with certain medical conditions, it can be harmful.

So I guess he's not completely wrong.

I believe we should have a medical experiment where we inject an IV full of aspartame and hook it up to a patient and observe the results.

If the patient shows any negative symptoms, we shall conclude that all aspartame in any dosage should be banned because it is harmful.

Sounds like MFPScience, to me!

chivalryder · April 2015

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you, since you make the claim.

(Hint, those studies either don't exist or they have been debunked)

What exactly do you think I have to prove, maybe you should reread my post?

I said, "My personal experience from about five years ago"
Do you think I need to prove my personal experience?

Anecdotes are just that. And there are too many confounding variables to use anyone's n=1 experience as evidence

I don't have time to dig through all this. I suspect you just dumped a search on me without reading these. I will click a few and see what they have to say.

I said, "have seen many studies that document the hazards of aspartame"
In fact the study first linked qualifies although results were that the hazards are unsubstantiated.

Some reading for your enjoyment;

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5258/pdf/227609b0.pdf

I cant get to this through the paywall, but you said this one is unsubstantiated, so I can dismiss it without reading it. Why did you even link it?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6204522

This one SPECIFICALLY says the very thing you are arguing against:

However, they should not in any way be interpreted as demonstrating that aspartame significantly affects the human brain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6152304

This is about excitotoxins, which is not what you are trying to argue against.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939194

This is a correlation/causation study and shows nothing

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCR-408BJC1-4&_user=10&_coverDate=05/19/2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view
=c&_searchStrId=1456058577&
_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=395a2fc9d4ef0ffceeea475146341607
&searchtype=a

OK - so massive doses damage mice. What does that have to do with non-massive doses for humans?

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v7/n4/full/4000976a.html

This one says it is bad for those with phenylketonuria. I think that is well established.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16129618

This one contradicts you again:

It is concluded that low concentrations of ASP metabolites had no effect on the membrane enzyme activity, whereas high or toxic concentrations partially or remarkably decreased the membrane AChE activity, respectively. Additionally, neurological symptoms, including learning and memory processes, may be related to the high or toxic concentrations of the sweetener metabolites.

I have had enough digging through these. In fact I have done more than enough considering your burden of proof. If there is some damning evidence in the later studies, you will have to show me. The first bunch I clicked through didn't sway me.

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

glevinso · April 2015

beemerphile1 wrote: »

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

But these studies aren't documenting hazards. You made a very bold claim which I will quote:

I am absolutely convinced that aspartame is toxic to the human body and at best is a diversion from proven weight loss techniques.

Toxic? Well sure, EVERYTHING is toxic at some dosage. LD50 of aspartame appears to be 5g per kg. So for someone such as me who is 67kg, I would need to eat 335 grams of pure aspartame to get a 50% lethal dose. Just under a pound of the stuff. Typical diet soda contains 125mg of it, so I would need to drink 2680 12-oz cans to get that dose. I would probably die of water poisoning first.

In any case none of what you linked in that massive google-bomb showed me that your claim of "toxicity" has any teeth. Or that it is in any was "diversionary" to "proven" weight-loss technique.

amusedmonkey · April 2015

_John_ wrote: »

I don't laugh at a line in a published researched paper often...but my imaginative mind just LOLed...

One man was excluded because of a self-limiting gastro-intestinal upset during one session (revealed when unblinded to be after control).

Yeah that made me laugh too I almost choked

beemerphile1 · April 2015

glevinso wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

But these studies aren't documenting hazards. You made a very bold claim which I will quote:

I am absolutely convinced that aspartame is toxic to the human body and at best is a diversion from proven weight loss techniques.

Toxic? Well sure, EVERYTHING is toxic at some dosage. LD50 of aspartame appears to be 5g per kg. So for someone such as me who is 67kg, I would need to eat 335 grams of pure aspartame to get a 50% lethal dose. Just under a pound of the stuff. Typical diet soda contains 125mg of it, so I would need to drink 2680 12-oz cans to get that dose. I would probably die of water poisoning first.

In any case none of what you linked in that massive google-bomb showed me that your claim of "toxicity" has any teeth. Or that it is in any was "diversionary" to "proven" weight-loss technique.

You are right, sort of, I said that "I am absolutely convinced". I did not say that I have irrefutable proof. What exactly about a person's opinion is so confusing? I am not asking anyone to prove their opinion. You have yours and I have mine, neither of us are required to prove our opinion.

Did I miss that somewhere when I signed up for the forum that we must be able to without a shadow of a doubt prove our opinions?

EvanKeel · April 2015

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

But these studies aren't documenting hazards. You made a very bold claim which I will quote:

I am absolutely convinced that aspartame is toxic to the human body and at best is a diversion from proven weight loss techniques.

Toxic? Well sure, EVERYTHING is toxic at some dosage. LD50 of aspartame appears to be 5g per kg. So for someone such as me who is 67kg, I would need to eat 335 grams of pure aspartame to get a 50% lethal dose. Just under a pound of the stuff. Typical diet soda contains 125mg of it, so I would need to drink 2680 12-oz cans to get that dose. I would probably die of water poisoning first.

In any case none of what you linked in that massive google-bomb showed me that your claim of "toxicity" has any teeth. Or that it is in any was "diversionary" to "proven" weight-loss technique.

You are right, sort of, I said that "I am absolutely convinced". I did not say that I have irrefutable proof. What exactly about a person's opinion is so confusing? I am not asking anyone to prove their opinion. You have yours and I have mine, neither of us are required to prove our opinion.

Did I miss that somewhere when I signed up for the forum that we must be able to without a shadow of a doubt prove our opinions?

Uh huh.

And what exactly is the value of stating your opinion if you're just stating it for no other reason than to state it?

Realistically, just from a rhetorical standpoint, you're making generalized statements and then hiding behind a "This just my opinion" caveat. The common understanding is that you're attempting to persuade, at least to some degree. Now you're just saying that the evidence you provided doesn't actually support your opinion, it's evidence that you have the opinion that you have? Alrighty.

Also, if you think irrefutable proof is a part of science, then you know nothing Jon Snow.

glevinso · April 2015

Opinions are ideas not based on fact. They are useful in situations where "facts" do not come in to play. For example I can say "It is my opinion we should spend more money on space exploration". You are welcome to contradict that because my statement has no factual basis, you can provide a different thing to spend taxpayer money on, and perhaps even provide reasons.

However if I say "it is my opinion that the sky is green" most people will tell me that my "opinion" is simply incorrect and that factually the sky is blue.

amusedmonkey · April 2015

wkwebby wrote: »

One glaring error on the publication (or the abridged synopsis) would be that HDL-C could not be as high as the Triglycerides. That would take a miracle if the whole patient population had HDL levels as high as they stated. The mmol/L converted to mg/dL (more commonly seen in US) would mean both study groups had "good" cholesterol in the triple digits...[scratching my head], I think not.

However, this is just the abstract and a synopsis, the actual data could be correct. I'm somewhat skeptical though.

If you convert the units it translates like this:
Aspartame sensitive and non-sensitive participants differed psychologically at baseline in handling feelings and perceived stress. Sensitive participants had higher triglycerides (181.5 ± 127.5 vs. 111.6 ± 74.4 mg/dl; p value 0.008) and lower HDL-C (44.8 ± 13.1 vs. 52.2 ± 20.8 mg/dl; p value 0.04)

chivalryder · April 2015

EvanKeel wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

But these studies aren't documenting hazards. You made a very bold claim which I will quote:

I am absolutely convinced that aspartame is toxic to the human body and at best is a diversion from proven weight loss techniques.

Toxic? Well sure, EVERYTHING is toxic at some dosage. LD50 of aspartame appears to be 5g per kg. So for someone such as me who is 67kg, I would need to eat 335 grams of pure aspartame to get a 50% lethal dose. Just under a pound of the stuff. Typical diet soda contains 125mg of it, so I would need to drink 2680 12-oz cans to get that dose. I would probably die of water poisoning first.

In any case none of what you linked in that massive google-bomb showed me that your claim of "toxicity" has any teeth. Or that it is in any was "diversionary" to "proven" weight-loss technique.

You are right, sort of, I said that "I am absolutely convinced". I did not say that I have irrefutable proof. What exactly about a person's opinion is so confusing? I am not asking anyone to prove their opinion. You have yours and I have mine, neither of us are required to prove our opinion.

Did I miss that somewhere when I signed up for the forum that we must be able to without a shadow of a doubt prove our opinions?

Uh huh.

And what exactly is the value of stating your opinion if you're just stating it for no other reason than to state it?

Realistically, just from a rhetorical standpoint, you're making generalized statements and then hiding behind a "This just my opinion" caveat. The common understanding is that you're attempting to persuade, at least to some degree. Now you're just saying that the evidence you provided doesn't actually support your opinion, it's evidence that you have the opinion that you have? Alrighty.

Also, if you think irrefutable proof is a part of science, then you know nothing Jon Snow.

It's called the internet.

Just sayin'.

EvanKeel · April 2015

chivalryder wrote: »

EvanKeel wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

But these studies aren't documenting hazards. You made a very bold claim which I will quote:

I am absolutely convinced that aspartame is toxic to the human body and at best is a diversion from proven weight loss techniques.

Toxic? Well sure, EVERYTHING is toxic at some dosage. LD50 of aspartame appears to be 5g per kg. So for someone such as me who is 67kg, I would need to eat 335 grams of pure aspartame to get a 50% lethal dose. Just under a pound of the stuff. Typical diet soda contains 125mg of it, so I would need to drink 2680 12-oz cans to get that dose. I would probably die of water poisoning first.

In any case none of what you linked in that massive google-bomb showed me that your claim of "toxicity" has any teeth. Or that it is in any was "diversionary" to "proven" weight-loss technique.

You are right, sort of, I said that "I am absolutely convinced". I did not say that I have irrefutable proof. What exactly about a person's opinion is so confusing? I am not asking anyone to prove their opinion. You have yours and I have mine, neither of us are required to prove our opinion.

Did I miss that somewhere when I signed up for the forum that we must be able to without a shadow of a doubt prove our opinions?

Uh huh.

And what exactly is the value of stating your opinion if you're just stating it for no other reason than to state it?

Realistically, just from a rhetorical standpoint, you're making generalized statements and then hiding behind a "This just my opinion" caveat. The common understanding is that you're attempting to persuade, at least to some degree. Now you're just saying that the evidence you provided doesn't actually support your opinion, it's evidence that you have the opinion that you have? Alrighty.

Also, if you think irrefutable proof is a part of science, then you know nothing Jon Snow.

It's called the internet.

Just sayin'.

As long as we're all clear that the inherent value of his opinion in this context is zero, then great

glevinso · April 2015

chivalryder wrote: »

EvanKeel wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

But these studies aren't documenting hazards. You made a very bold claim which I will quote:

I am absolutely convinced that aspartame is toxic to the human body and at best is a diversion from proven weight loss techniques.

Toxic? Well sure, EVERYTHING is toxic at some dosage. LD50 of aspartame appears to be 5g per kg. So for someone such as me who is 67kg, I would need to eat 335 grams of pure aspartame to get a 50% lethal dose. Just under a pound of the stuff. Typical diet soda contains 125mg of it, so I would need to drink 2680 12-oz cans to get that dose. I would probably die of water poisoning first.

In any case none of what you linked in that massive google-bomb showed me that your claim of "toxicity" has any teeth. Or that it is in any was "diversionary" to "proven" weight-loss technique.

You are right, sort of, I said that "I am absolutely convinced". I did not say that I have irrefutable proof. What exactly about a person's opinion is so confusing? I am not asking anyone to prove their opinion. You have yours and I have mine, neither of us are required to prove our opinion.

Did I miss that somewhere when I signed up for the forum that we must be able to without a shadow of a doubt prove our opinions?

Uh huh.

And what exactly is the value of stating your opinion if you're just stating it for no other reason than to state it?

Realistically, just from a rhetorical standpoint, you're making generalized statements and then hiding behind a "This just my opinion" caveat. The common understanding is that you're attempting to persuade, at least to some degree. Now you're just saying that the evidence you provided doesn't actually support your opinion, it's evidence that you have the opinion that you have? Alrighty.

Also, if you think irrefutable proof is a part of science, then you know nothing Jon Snow.

It's called the internet.

Just sayin'.

bluworld · April 2015

Funny, I use diet coke to prevent migraines.

chivalryder · April 2015

EvanKeel wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

EvanKeel wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

But these studies aren't documenting hazards. You made a very bold claim which I will quote:

I am absolutely convinced that aspartame is toxic to the human body and at best is a diversion from proven weight loss techniques.

Toxic? Well sure, EVERYTHING is toxic at some dosage. LD50 of aspartame appears to be 5g per kg. So for someone such as me who is 67kg, I would need to eat 335 grams of pure aspartame to get a 50% lethal dose. Just under a pound of the stuff. Typical diet soda contains 125mg of it, so I would need to drink 2680 12-oz cans to get that dose. I would probably die of water poisoning first.

In any case none of what you linked in that massive google-bomb showed me that your claim of "toxicity" has any teeth. Or that it is in any was "diversionary" to "proven" weight-loss technique.

You are right, sort of, I said that "I am absolutely convinced". I did not say that I have irrefutable proof. What exactly about a person's opinion is so confusing? I am not asking anyone to prove their opinion. You have yours and I have mine, neither of us are required to prove our opinion.

Did I miss that somewhere when I signed up for the forum that we must be able to without a shadow of a doubt prove our opinions?

Uh huh.

And what exactly is the value of stating your opinion if you're just stating it for no other reason than to state it?

Realistically, just from a rhetorical standpoint, you're making generalized statements and then hiding behind a "This just my opinion" caveat. The common understanding is that you're attempting to persuade, at least to some degree. Now you're just saying that the evidence you provided doesn't actually support your opinion, it's evidence that you have the opinion that you have? Alrighty.

Also, if you think irrefutable proof is a part of science, then you know nothing Jon Snow.

It's called the internet.

Just sayin'.

As long as we're all clear that the inherent value of his opinion in this context is zero, then great

The inherent value of any opinion in any context is equal the the value of the gas the escapes the persons behind.

It's just that some are louder than others, and most of them stink.

beemerphile1 · April 2015

EvanKeel wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

beemerphile1 wrote: »

Contradicts what exactly? I made no claims in the first place other than there are a lot of studies that document the hazards of aspartame. Everything else I said was my experience and personal opinion.

Sway you? I'm not trying to sway anyone, if you and others weren't so defensive you would know that.

But these studies aren't documenting hazards. You made a very bold claim which I will quote:

I am absolutely convinced that aspartame is toxic to the human body and at best is a diversion from proven weight loss techniques.

Toxic? Well sure, EVERYTHING is toxic at some dosage. LD50 of aspartame appears to be 5g per kg. So for someone such as me who is 67kg, I would need to eat 335 grams of pure aspartame to get a 50% lethal dose. Just under a pound of the stuff. Typical diet soda contains 125mg of it, so I would need to drink 2680 12-oz cans to get that dose. I would probably die of water poisoning first.

In any case none of what you linked in that massive google-bomb showed me that your claim of "toxicity" has any teeth. Or that it is in any was "diversionary" to "proven" weight-loss technique.

You are right, sort of, I said that "I am absolutely convinced". I did not say that I have irrefutable proof. What exactly about a person's opinion is so confusing? I am not asking anyone to prove their opinion. You have yours and I have mine, neither of us are required to prove our opinion.

Did I miss that somewhere when I signed up for the forum that we must be able to without a shadow of a doubt prove our opinions?

Uh huh.

And what exactly is the value of stating your opinion if you're just stating it for no other reason than to state it?

Realistically, just from a rhetorical standpoint, you're making generalized statements and then hiding behind a "This just my opinion" caveat. The common understanding is that you're attempting to persuade, at least to some degree. Now you're just saying that the evidence you provided doesn't actually support your opinion, it's evidence that you have the opinion that you have? Alrighty.

Also, if you think irrefutable proof is a part of science, then you know nothing Jon Snow.

This post of yours is 100% your opinion, does that make it wrong?

beemerphile1 · April 2015

glevinso wrote: »

Opinions are ideas not based on fact. They are useful in situations where "facts" do not come in to play. For example I can say "It is my opinion we should spend more money on space exploration". You are welcome to contradict that because my statement has no factual basis, you can provide a different thing to spend taxpayer money on, and perhaps even provide reasons.

However if I say "it is my opinion that the sky is green" most people will tell me that my "opinion" is simply incorrect and that factually the sky is blue.

This post of yours is 100% your opinion, does that make it wrong?

slideaway1 · April 2015

Thank you to everyone who responded to my question with informative links etc. Very helpful and very useful. The reason I asked was not to scaremonger etc. I personally don't drink any soft drinks etc. But my dad loves his diet cokes (probably 15 cans a day and really helped with his weight loss) but has gave them up due to things he's read about (any)manufactured sugar substitute being linked to cancer. He still uses Stevia though. It's a shame because he considered Diet Coke a real treat for him.

Aspartame "sensitives" study published

Replies

Categories