Should I eliminate aspartame from my life? My Doctor says yes!
Options
Replies
-
MercuryBlue wrote: »halilozkal wrote: »According to a systematic review from Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(8):629-727, you can just go ahead and consume it, for further reading see below!
"Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Peace Out!
Just who do you think you are, coming in here posting actual scientifically relevant information?
Funded by the very companies producing the product. This product was given approval after the chemical companies stacked the deck at the regulatory agencies. It was rejected several years in a row until this happened. Move on.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »MercuryBlue wrote: »halilozkal wrote: »According to a systematic review from Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(8):629-727, you can just go ahead and consume it, for further reading see below!
"Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Peace Out!
Just who do you think you are, coming in here posting actual scientifically relevant information?
Funded by the very companies producing the product. This product was given approval after the chemical companies stacked the deck at the regulatory agencies. It was rejected several years in a row until this happened. Move on.
Fortunately, no one is forcing you to consume it.0 -
lol someone merely mentioning a god or gods, faith, lack of faith, whatever, is not necessarily self-righteous. atheism, agnosticism, and anything else are certainly included there. all is fair in open conversation.
waiting to pounce on someone "as soon as" they make mention of something (and then having a "well they started it" attitude), however...
I doubt you can go for months without talking about religion if you have a snappy remark to make every time someone "preaches". keep up the good fight though
That's some pretty selective quoting there. You got the "as soon as" and not the "I want to". Interesting. As in, as soon as I hear it, that's how I want to respond. Wanting to in no way implies action; to the contrary, it shows that I don't allow every thought that crosses my mind to pass my lips. If someone uses their religion to prove a point or to preach at me, I tell them I don't share their beliefs. If they push the issue or try to debate me, I'll likely respond. Generally speaking, barring a bad mood or particularly irritating individual, I will simply keep my thoughts on religion to myself.
But hey, have fun smirking at strangers on discussion boards, I guess? Because that's in no way smug or self-righteous... Lol.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »MercuryBlue wrote: »halilozkal wrote: »According to a systematic review from Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(8):629-727, you can just go ahead and consume it, for further reading see below!
"Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Peace Out!
Just who do you think you are, coming in here posting actual scientifically relevant information?
Funded by the very companies producing the product. This product was given approval after the chemical companies stacked the deck at the regulatory agencies. It was rejected several years in a row until this happened. Move on.
"Move on"? Right.
Such a typical conspiracy-theory response. "If the evidence runs contrary to what I want to believe, it is obviously because the deck is stacked and everyone is bribed and data has been falsified." Follow it with smug hand-waving because... Reasons.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »MercuryBlue wrote: »halilozkal wrote: »According to a systematic review from Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(8):629-727, you can just go ahead and consume it, for further reading see below!
"Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Peace Out!
Just who do you think you are, coming in here posting actual scientifically relevant information?
Funded by the very companies producing the product. This product was given approval after the chemical companies stacked the deck at the regulatory agencies. It was rejected several years in a row until this happened. Move on.
Just because a study is funded by a vested party does not negate it. It is a factor to consider, but that is all. If course they would fund a study if they believed it to not be harmful. It's not exactly hard to deduce that the party that will benefit most from a study would fund it. If there was something harmful, don't you think sugar companies would fund a study showing that? It's been around for decades.
What do you mean 'chemical companies stacked the deck at the regulatory agencies'?0 -
Keep your doctor. That's one who not afraid to contradict Searle/Monsanto/Merisant. The only studies that were used to pass aspartame were the studies conducted by G.D. Searle and associated labs for FDA approval. Our conquerors love to change history. When the Bressler report was released, they set up a blue ribbon panel of scientists to look through and assess the Bressler report. They were instructed to avoid looking at the most damning aspects that were pointed out by the Bressler report and the result sanctified all those flawed studies used for passage through the FDA. Look at the story of FDA commissioner Arthur Hall Hayse, the excitotoxicity of aspartame, the rate of today's scientific studies altered to please funding sources and the continued findings science-based independent studies showing one thing or another wrong with aspartame.
Whenever an independent study with no stake in the game finds problems with aspartame (Ramazzini, for example), U.S. regulatory bodies will counter with claims disputing the study or the organization that conducts it. Sometimes they'll perform a ridiculous impromptu study with the aim to compete in the public arena with better news about the product. One is the infamous, deeply flawed AARP study aimed at reaffirming the safety of aspartame in 2005 conducted by the NCI. They merely took a survey of all folks who used diet products as a means to show no causal link to cancer. Europe will eventually be inundated with the same corporate scheme that regulatory agencies were put in place to protect. They will fall in line with the flagship regulatory agency, the FDA.
You are not only being poisoned. You're forbidden to notice.0 -
Keep your doctor. That's one who not afraid to contradict Searle/Monsanto/Merisant. The only studies that were used to pass aspartame were the studies conducted by G.D. Searle and associated labs for FDA approval. Our conquerors love to change history. When the Bressler report was released, they set up a blue ribbon panel of scientists to look through and assess the Bressler report. They were instructed to avoid looking at the most damning aspects that were pointed out by the Bressler report and the result sanctified all those flawed studies used for passage through the FDA. Look at the story of FDA commissioner Arthur Hall Hayse, the excitotoxicity of aspartame, the rate of today's scientific studies altered to please funding sources and the continued findings science-based independent studies showing one thing or another wrong with aspartame.
Whenever an independent study with no stake in the game finds problems with aspartame (Ramazzini, for example), U.S. regulatory bodies will counter with claims disputing the study or the organization that conducts it. Sometimes they'll perform a ridiculous impromptu study with the aim to compete in the public arena with better news about the product. One is the infamous, deeply flawed AARP study aimed at reaffirming the safety of aspartame in 2005 conducted by the NCI. They merely took a survey of all folks who used diet products as a means to show no causal link to cancer. Europe will eventually be inundated with the same corporate scheme that regulatory agencies were put in place to protect. They will fall in line with the flagship regulatory agency, the FDA.
You are not only being poisoned. You're forbidden to notice.
Unfortunately, what you don't know is that the Ramazzini Institute receives all of its funding from the Lizard Men that live in the center of the earth. They have a vested interest in people giving up artificial sweeteners and going back to sugar because they'll make easier to catch, larger meals for them when they decide to harvest all of human kind for the great Lizard Man BBQ event set for 2045.0 -
MercuryBlue wrote: »halilozkal wrote: »According to a systematic review from Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(8):629-727, you can just go ahead and consume it, for further reading see below!
"Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Peace Out!
Just who do you think you are, coming in here posting actual scientifically relevant information?
A doctor in the Netherlands
0 -
I won't touch Aspartame , and I am very careful about labels on sugar free/ low calorie products. Always have been since I was a teenager. Aspartame leaves a horrible taste in my mouth.0
-
Oh dear. We've entered metallic cranial encasement territory.0
-
This thread has been closed. As a friendly reminder, you don't have to agree with others, but the debate should be on topic and respectful. Some guidelines that might be of interest to you.
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums
Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion.
And if you'd like to review ALL of the guidelines, they're located here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
Because... Science.
davis_em0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions