Should I eliminate aspartame from my life? My Doctor says yes!
Replies
-
I just thought I'd point out that companies are removing aspartame from their products, not because there's any proof aspartame is in any way harmful, but because they're pandering to individuals who have jumped on the "aspartame is bad for you" bandwagon. You cannot take that as proof of anything, other than companies respond to public opinion to increase their bottom line. They want to make money. This is the same reason you'll find "gluten free!" stamped on products that never had gluten in them in the first place. It's just good old-fashioned marketing. To say "companies are moving away from aspartame because they're realizing it's bad for you" (or anything asking those lines) is simply not rooted in fact.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
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?
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
lol I'm guessing you have credentials yourself?
That's actually not the point. I think general comments and opinions are welcomed by everyone. I certainly welcome them. And some of the most insightful comments I've heard often come from those without formal credentials.
But to convey the point, I have more letters after my name than within my name, and I don't have an overly short name. That's not used as a bragging tool and it's not even relevant whether you even believe me, but I say this to highlight the fact that despite my credentials, I don't drop this "because science" and I try to avoid these blanket statements that I see everywhere authoritatively stating that one side of the argument is clearly better than the other "because science", or that I'm right "because science". What people really do in that regard is red flag themselves as closed minded to those whose jobs in life revolve around actual science or health care applications. Especially when they quote high school physics and chemistry principles and apply them to topics of clinical relevance with highly erroneous assumptions of the variables at hand. It's just so.... exposing.
This includes people WITH credentials btw. I've met plenty in my line of work who say the equivalent of "because science" with great consistency, and time always reveals them to limit their own ceiling of knowledge and performance to a significant degree. Just because of their attitude.
I just don't get why people can't keep their minds open and digest info from both sides, and applaud whenever someone shares information regardless if it is for or against their point. Eventually, you end up picking a side for practical reasons, but you always keep the doors open and always keep learning.
I'd argue that you're merely building a straw man of MFP users who cry "science" without provided citations to relevant sources, when many citations of many sources have been posted time and time again. a large number of posts you may see are repeated answers to questions which themselves have been repeated countless times.
often a new poster will arrive making specious claims and quickly be shot down by forum vets who may or may not provide the relevant evidence in those particular replies. you may even be able to sense the weariness and sentiment that the issue has been addressed many times before.galgenstrick wrote: »PaleoMoxie wrote: »campjackson wrote: »Hello Everyone!
I just got back from seeing my cardiologist with a glowing report that I am praising the Lord for giving me my health back. During our conversation, my Doctor noted that I had lost weight. I told her that I had been on Nutri System...and that I really LOVE the frozen food plan! She said that Nutri System was a good way to lose weight...but that I needed to watch the labels to make sure that there were no Aspartame in the ingredients. She went on to say that Aspartame usage will result in very slow weight loss...or NONE at all...and that I should stop the Diet Coke as it was full of Aspartame. Right then and there...I swore off "pop" for ever!
But when I got home...I noticed that almost all the diet foods and drinks have Aspartame in them. Now I am wondering what I am going to eat. And I need a second opinion. Any help would be so appreciated! Roland
That is because diet drinks and foods are NOT real food and you should not be consuming them. Eat the food God made. That is how many of my religious friends look at it. You need to be eating whole foods and drinking water, not drinking diet drinks that don't provide nutrition and are horrible for your body, same goes for food.
Right, so babbling on about religion is going to change fact based evidence.
As soon as someone suggests I "eat the food God made", I always want to point out that I'd die if I tried surviving on NOTHING.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MercuryBlue wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
lol I'm guessing you have credentials yourself?
That's actually not the point. I think general comments and opinions are welcomed by everyone. I certainly welcome them. And some of the most insightful comments I've heard often come from those without formal credentials.
But to convey the point, I have more letters after my name than within my name, and I don't have an overly short name. That's not used as a bragging tool and it's not even relevant whether you even believe me, but I say this to highlight the fact that despite my credentials, I don't drop this "because science" and I try to avoid these blanket statements that I see everywhere authoritatively stating that one side of the argument is clearly better than the other "because science", or that I'm right "because science". What people really do in that regard is red flag themselves as closed minded to those whose jobs in life revolve around actual science or health care applications. Especially when they quote high school physics and chemistry principles and apply them to topics of clinical relevance with highly erroneous assumptions of the variables at hand. It's just so.... exposing.
This includes people WITH credentials btw. I've met plenty in my line of work who say the equivalent of "because science" with great consistency, and time always reveals them to limit their own ceiling of knowledge and performance to a significant degree. Just because of their attitude.
I just don't get why people can't keep their minds open and digest info from both sides, and applaud whenever someone shares information regardless if it is for or against their point. Eventually, you end up picking a side for practical reasons, but you always keep the doors open and always keep learning.
I'd argue that you're merely building a straw man of MFP users who cry "science" without provided citations to relevant sources, when many citations of many sources have been posted time and time again. a large number of posts you may see are repeated answers to questions which themselves have been repeated countless times.
often a new poster will arrive making specious claims and quickly be shot down by forum vets who may or may not provide the relevant evidence in those particular replies. you may even be able to sense the weariness and sentiment that the issue has been addressed many times before.galgenstrick wrote: »PaleoMoxie wrote: »campjackson wrote: »Hello Everyone!
I just got back from seeing my cardiologist with a glowing report that I am praising the Lord for giving me my health back. During our conversation, my Doctor noted that I had lost weight. I told her that I had been on Nutri System...and that I really LOVE the frozen food plan! She said that Nutri System was a good way to lose weight...but that I needed to watch the labels to make sure that there were no Aspartame in the ingredients. She went on to say that Aspartame usage will result in very slow weight loss...or NONE at all...and that I should stop the Diet Coke as it was full of Aspartame. Right then and there...I swore off "pop" for ever!
But when I got home...I noticed that almost all the diet foods and drinks have Aspartame in them. Now I am wondering what I am going to eat. And I need a second opinion. Any help would be so appreciated! Roland
That is because diet drinks and foods are NOT real food and you should not be consuming them. Eat the food God made. That is how many of my religious friends look at it. You need to be eating whole foods and drinking water, not drinking diet drinks that don't provide nutrition and are horrible for your body, same goes for food.
Right, so babbling on about religion is going to change fact based evidence.
As soon as someone suggests I "eat the food God made", I always want to point out that I'd die if I tried surviving on NOTHING.
Careful, self-righteous atheists are just as smug and annoying as religious fanatics. Well, maybe a bit less annoying and a bit more smug.0 -
MercuryBlue wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
lol I'm guessing you have credentials yourself?
That's actually not the point. I think general comments and opinions are welcomed by everyone. I certainly welcome them. And some of the most insightful comments I've heard often come from those without formal credentials.
But to convey the point, I have more letters after my name than within my name, and I don't have an overly short name. That's not used as a bragging tool and it's not even relevant whether you even believe me, but I say this to highlight the fact that despite my credentials, I don't drop this "because science" and I try to avoid these blanket statements that I see everywhere authoritatively stating that one side of the argument is clearly better than the other "because science", or that I'm right "because science". What people really do in that regard is red flag themselves as closed minded to those whose jobs in life revolve around actual science or health care applications. Especially when they quote high school physics and chemistry principles and apply them to topics of clinical relevance with highly erroneous assumptions of the variables at hand. It's just so.... exposing.
This includes people WITH credentials btw. I've met plenty in my line of work who say the equivalent of "because science" with great consistency, and time always reveals them to limit their own ceiling of knowledge and performance to a significant degree. Just because of their attitude.
I just don't get why people can't keep their minds open and digest info from both sides, and applaud whenever someone shares information regardless if it is for or against their point. Eventually, you end up picking a side for practical reasons, but you always keep the doors open and always keep learning.
I'd argue that you're merely building a straw man of MFP users who cry "science" without provided citations to relevant sources, when many citations of many sources have been posted time and time again. a large number of posts you may see are repeated answers to questions which themselves have been repeated countless times.
often a new poster will arrive making specious claims and quickly be shot down by forum vets who may or may not provide the relevant evidence in those particular replies. you may even be able to sense the weariness and sentiment that the issue has been addressed many times before.galgenstrick wrote: »PaleoMoxie wrote: »campjackson wrote: »Hello Everyone!
I just got back from seeing my cardiologist with a glowing report that I am praising the Lord for giving me my health back. During our conversation, my Doctor noted that I had lost weight. I told her that I had been on Nutri System...and that I really LOVE the frozen food plan! She said that Nutri System was a good way to lose weight...but that I needed to watch the labels to make sure that there were no Aspartame in the ingredients. She went on to say that Aspartame usage will result in very slow weight loss...or NONE at all...and that I should stop the Diet Coke as it was full of Aspartame. Right then and there...I swore off "pop" for ever!
But when I got home...I noticed that almost all the diet foods and drinks have Aspartame in them. Now I am wondering what I am going to eat. And I need a second opinion. Any help would be so appreciated! Roland
That is because diet drinks and foods are NOT real food and you should not be consuming them. Eat the food God made. That is how many of my religious friends look at it. You need to be eating whole foods and drinking water, not drinking diet drinks that don't provide nutrition and are horrible for your body, same goes for food.
Right, so babbling on about religion is going to change fact based evidence.
As soon as someone suggests I "eat the food God made", I always want to point out that I'd die if I tried surviving on NOTHING.
Careful, self-righteous atheists are just as smug and annoying as religious fanatics. Well, maybe a bit less annoying and a bit more smug.
Nothing self-righteous about it. I didn't bring religion into the discussion; atheists rarely do. But if someone wants to smugly bring God into a discussion about science, they have to accept that those who don't share their views may respond. Funny how religious people feel it's okay to drop the G-word constantly but can't handle it when people don't agree. Believe it or not, I can go months without talking about religion, but if someone is going to use it to preach nutrition- or anything else, for that matter- I'm going to have a response to it.0 -
So are we still talking about aspartame??0
-
MercuryBlue wrote: »MercuryBlue wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
lol I'm guessing you have credentials yourself?
That's actually not the point. I think general comments and opinions are welcomed by everyone. I certainly welcome them. And some of the most insightful comments I've heard often come from those without formal credentials.
But to convey the point, I have more letters after my name than within my name, and I don't have an overly short name. That's not used as a bragging tool and it's not even relevant whether you even believe me, but I say this to highlight the fact that despite my credentials, I don't drop this "because science" and I try to avoid these blanket statements that I see everywhere authoritatively stating that one side of the argument is clearly better than the other "because science", or that I'm right "because science". What people really do in that regard is red flag themselves as closed minded to those whose jobs in life revolve around actual science or health care applications. Especially when they quote high school physics and chemistry principles and apply them to topics of clinical relevance with highly erroneous assumptions of the variables at hand. It's just so.... exposing.
This includes people WITH credentials btw. I've met plenty in my line of work who say the equivalent of "because science" with great consistency, and time always reveals them to limit their own ceiling of knowledge and performance to a significant degree. Just because of their attitude.
I just don't get why people can't keep their minds open and digest info from both sides, and applaud whenever someone shares information regardless if it is for or against their point. Eventually, you end up picking a side for practical reasons, but you always keep the doors open and always keep learning.
I'd argue that you're merely building a straw man of MFP users who cry "science" without provided citations to relevant sources, when many citations of many sources have been posted time and time again. a large number of posts you may see are repeated answers to questions which themselves have been repeated countless times.
often a new poster will arrive making specious claims and quickly be shot down by forum vets who may or may not provide the relevant evidence in those particular replies. you may even be able to sense the weariness and sentiment that the issue has been addressed many times before.galgenstrick wrote: »PaleoMoxie wrote: »campjackson wrote: »Hello Everyone!
I just got back from seeing my cardiologist with a glowing report that I am praising the Lord for giving me my health back. During our conversation, my Doctor noted that I had lost weight. I told her that I had been on Nutri System...and that I really LOVE the frozen food plan! She said that Nutri System was a good way to lose weight...but that I needed to watch the labels to make sure that there were no Aspartame in the ingredients. She went on to say that Aspartame usage will result in very slow weight loss...or NONE at all...and that I should stop the Diet Coke as it was full of Aspartame. Right then and there...I swore off "pop" for ever!
But when I got home...I noticed that almost all the diet foods and drinks have Aspartame in them. Now I am wondering what I am going to eat. And I need a second opinion. Any help would be so appreciated! Roland
That is because diet drinks and foods are NOT real food and you should not be consuming them. Eat the food God made. That is how many of my religious friends look at it. You need to be eating whole foods and drinking water, not drinking diet drinks that don't provide nutrition and are horrible for your body, same goes for food.
Right, so babbling on about religion is going to change fact based evidence.
As soon as someone suggests I "eat the food God made", I always want to point out that I'd die if I tried surviving on NOTHING.
Careful, self-righteous atheists are just as smug and annoying as religious fanatics. Well, maybe a bit less annoying and a bit more smug.
Nothing self-righteous about it. I didn't bring religion into the discussion; atheists rarely do. But if someone wants to smugly bring God into a discussion about science, they have to accept that those who don't share their views may respond. Funny how religious people feel it's okay to drop the G-word constantly but can't handle it when people don't agree. Believe it or not, I can go months without talking about religion, but if someone is going to use it to preach nutrition- or anything else, for that matter- I'm going to have a response to it.
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 though0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »PaleoMoxie wrote: »campjackson wrote: »Hello Everyone!
I just got back from seeing my cardiologist with a glowing report that I am praising the Lord for giving me my health back. During our conversation, my Doctor noted that I had lost weight. I told her that I had been on Nutri System...and that I really LOVE the frozen food plan! She said that Nutri System was a good way to lose weight...but that I needed to watch the labels to make sure that there were no Aspartame in the ingredients. She went on to say that Aspartame usage will result in very slow weight loss...or NONE at all...and that I should stop the Diet Coke as it was full of Aspartame. Right then and there...I swore off "pop" for ever!
But when I got home...I noticed that almost all the diet foods and drinks have Aspartame in them. Now I am wondering what I am going to eat. And I need a second opinion. Any help would be so appreciated! Roland
That is because diet drinks and foods are NOT real food and you should not be consuming them. Eat the food God made. That is how many of my religious friends look at it. You need to be eating whole foods and drinking water, not drinking diet drinks that don't provide nutrition and are horrible for your body, same goes for food.
I've eaten a many Church dinners that don't follow this line of thought.
Exhibit A of not real food: Church dinners in the Midwest
I'm in the Northeast and here too. Church meals can be a killer. Those are some tremendous meals, but good lord...the stuff that is in them. I nearly had a coronary helping prep our communion breakfast one week.
Oh, I'm in the Northeast too. My sister lived in the Midwest for a while and she brought back the "cuisine".
The words "congealed" and "salad" do not belong together. Nor should pretzels have anything to do with either of them.
0 -
Even mentioning the god thing that person said is pointless because if you look at her diary you can see her preachings on food are a joke. I don't think it's worth 1 more post to talk about it.
Listen, if bourbon isn't divine then we have way more serious problems than one person's diary.0 -
Hey, Roland - don't worry too much about the debates here. I am new to the site, but for the most part I think all of the passion and spark is because people really care about trying to share information and help one another improve our lives.
When it comes to Aspartame, there isn't a huge weight of evidence that leads to red lights and sirens telling you to STOP, so all you can do is try to arm yourself with good general information and make decisions for yourself from there. Nutrition seems to be like that in some areas. It sounds like you are making reasonable choices going forward, and you have made amazing progress so far! Blessings to you, and here's hoping for your further success.
And I am one of those evil Left-Coast Californian types, but I vividly remember helping out at a church dinner in the south once - I'd bet they share some of the same culinary heritage as the midwestern variety. All I remember is little cocktail hotdogs floating in a vat of BBQ sauce, some sort of really terrifying jello/marshmallow salad, and lots of cornbread with honey butter (though I have to admit that cornbread with honey butter sounds really good right now =P).
Oh, you were at a high class southern church do! When we lived down south, our church supper cocktail hot dogs were in melted grape jelly!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
Unless you're allergic to one of the 2 amino acids (things that make up EVERY protein we eat)
which make aspartame, or it gives you headaches, or tastes bad, etc., there's no reason not to
eat it.
If you don't want to eat it, don't.
You could also do some research, read some studies (real science). Here's a good place to start:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed0 -
I remember reading that thread but then I couldn't find it again... search fail on my part. Thanks for linking it.0 -
Even mentioning the god thing that person said is pointless because if you look at her diary you can see her preachings on food are a joke. I don't think it's worth 1 more post to talk about it.
Listen, if bourbon isn't divine then we have way more serious problems than one person's diary.
WWJD
I always figured Jesus was a Jack man, so that diary basically confirms everything.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Even mentioning the god thing that person said is pointless because if you look at her diary you can see her preachings on food are a joke. I don't think it's worth 1 more post to talk about it.
Listen, if bourbon isn't divine then we have way more serious problems than one person's diary.
WWJD
I always figured Jesus was a Jack man, so that diary basically confirms everything.
No, my cousin Jesus drinks Corona. I saw him at his sister Guadalupes birthday party last week.
yeah that's my cholo, we got wrecked Friday night0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions