Diet Soda and Weight Loss
Options
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
ADME PK is typically performed on small molecule drugs which are orally bioavailable and do not undergo rapid metabolism. A is for asbsorption and relates to the ability of the compound to transfer from a mucosal layer such as the intestine into the blood stream for distribution. Aspartame, as an example, is not absorbed into the blood. The M in ADME is for metabolism, related to if the compound is broken down in our body or remains intact. Aspartame, as an example, is rapidly broken down into components of phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol. Di is for distribution, which is the ability of the compound to be distrubuted to different tissues via the blood. For aspartame it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is no "D". E is for excretion, the removal of the compound from the blood to be excreted by the body and works in opposition to distribution. Again, for aspartame, it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is nothing to excrete. Finally PK is the summation of ADME plus seeing what peak levels compound reaches in the blood or in target tissues and how long that is sustained. Of course, in the case of aspartame, can't really do PK given its just immediately broken down.
Aspartame, and the other commonly used artificial sweetners, are metabolically labile and are quickly broken down in our bodies. There is nothing to study in terms of PK so not sure what you are really asking here.
Clearly you have a much deeper knowledge of the this subject area. My comment was from why some doctors say they can't take a position of the artificial sweeteners. At least with some discussions I've listened too. I don't have references because I didn't keep notes about it at the time because my concern was other topics. I can't deeply debate the merits because my background isn't strong. I'm merely accepting the expertise of others.
There literally dozens of artificial sweeteners, although many are uncommon. In my mind the main saving grace of these compounds is that they are typically many times sweeter than even fructose, so very little of the compounds are used. There are even many acute toxins we use routinely with good results. So in fact I'm not overly concerned with the toxicity. However I think it wise to keep an mind open about that. It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets. For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day. I actually think artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to refined sugars.
I personally do us a small amount of some artificial sweeteners, although since cutting back on sugar I surprising find myself comsuming much fewer things that contain them. My perception of sweet has been changing. In fact I've found myself being turned off by some things that are just too sweet.
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.19 -
I see some cherry picking of abstracts with no clear conception of what the concepts are. Too many words are put together that are incoherent.4
-
"Science is catching up with the controversy"
I'm going to go ahead and wait for it to catch up before I believe it then.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
ADME PK is typically performed on small molecule drugs which are orally bioavailable and do not undergo rapid metabolism. A is for asbsorption and relates to the ability of the compound to transfer from a mucosal layer such as the intestine into the blood stream for distribution. Aspartame, as an example, is not absorbed into the blood. The M in ADME is for metabolism, related to if the compound is broken down in our body or remains intact. Aspartame, as an example, is rapidly broken down into components of phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol. Di is for distribution, which is the ability of the compound to be distrubuted to different tissues via the blood. For aspartame it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is no "D". E is for excretion, the removal of the compound from the blood to be excreted by the body and works in opposition to distribution. Again, for aspartame, it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is nothing to excrete. Finally PK is the summation of ADME plus seeing what peak levels compound reaches in the blood or in target tissues and how long that is sustained. Of course, in the case of aspartame, can't really do PK given its just immediately broken down.
Aspartame, and the other commonly used artificial sweetners, are metabolically labile and are quickly broken down in our bodies. There is nothing to study in terms of PK so not sure what you are really asking here.
Clearly you have a much deeper knowledge of the this subject area. My comment was from why some doctors say they can't take a position of the artificial sweeteners. At least with some discussions I've listened too. I don't have references because I didn't keep notes about it at the time because my concern was other topics. I can't deeply debate the merits because my background isn't strong. I'm merely accepting the expertise of others.
There literally dozens of artificial sweeteners, although many are uncommon. In my mind the main saving grace of these compounds is that they are typically many times sweeter than even fructose, so very little of the compounds are used. There are even many acute toxins we use routinely with good results. So in fact I'm not overly concerned with the toxicity. However I think it wise to keep an mind open about that. It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets. For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day. I actually think artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to refined sugars.
I personally do us a small amount of some artificial sweeteners, although since cutting back on sugar I surprising find myself comsuming much fewer things that contain them. My perception of sweet has been changing. In fact I've found myself being turned off by some things that are just too sweet.
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.
Thank-you for this. Words have meanings, and people today seem to think they can make a word mean whatever they want, and it destroys the ability to communicate in an accurate manner. Your patience in dealing with what has been posted is admirable. I have learned a lot from what you have posted, so thank-you for that as well.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »How many more years of research has to flow into the same thing for the last person to be satisfied? The consensus on aspartame is the most confident "ain't nothing wrong with it" I've ever seen in any substance.
Aspartame is far from the only artificial sweetener. Additionally the studies done are have been one sided, both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies should be done. The problem is the FDA requirements. But why fear, the US government has never been wrong with diet or drugs!
Out of curiosity what is your familiarity with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies? Its a rather odd request for a food additive which is rapidly metabolized and cleared. Kind of like demanding we study the properties of ice on the surface of the sun. For a compound to have measurable PK it has to be able to enter into the blood without being metabolically altered or cleared. So how, exactly, are you picturing a PK study be performed on a methylated dipeptide? Perhaps you can explain what mean and what you expect out of such a study?
ADME PK is typically performed on small molecule drugs which are orally bioavailable and do not undergo rapid metabolism. A is for asbsorption and relates to the ability of the compound to transfer from a mucosal layer such as the intestine into the blood stream for distribution. Aspartame, as an example, is not absorbed into the blood. The M in ADME is for metabolism, related to if the compound is broken down in our body or remains intact. Aspartame, as an example, is rapidly broken down into components of phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol. Di is for distribution, which is the ability of the compound to be distrubuted to different tissues via the blood. For aspartame it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is no "D". E is for excretion, the removal of the compound from the blood to be excreted by the body and works in opposition to distribution. Again, for aspartame, it is metabolically broken down and not absorbed so there is nothing to excrete. Finally PK is the summation of ADME plus seeing what peak levels compound reaches in the blood or in target tissues and how long that is sustained. Of course, in the case of aspartame, can't really do PK given its just immediately broken down.
Aspartame, and the other commonly used artificial sweetners, are metabolically labile and are quickly broken down in our bodies. There is nothing to study in terms of PK so not sure what you are really asking here.
Clearly you have a much deeper knowledge of the this subject area. My comment was from why some doctors say they can't take a position of the artificial sweeteners. At least with some discussions I've listened too. I don't have references because I didn't keep notes about it at the time because my concern was other topics. I can't deeply debate the merits because my background isn't strong. I'm merely accepting the expertise of others.
There literally dozens of artificial sweeteners, although many are uncommon. In my mind the main saving grace of these compounds is that they are typically many times sweeter than even fructose, so very little of the compounds are used. There are even many acute toxins we use routinely with good results. So in fact I'm not overly concerned with the toxicity. However I think it wise to keep an mind open about that. It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets. For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day. I actually think artificial sweeteners offer a safer alternative to refined sugars.
I personally do us a small amount of some artificial sweeteners, although since cutting back on sugar I surprising find myself comsuming much fewer things that contain them. My perception of sweet has been changing. In fact I've found myself being turned off by some things that are just too sweet.
A little background on myself I currently work in drug development and ADME-PK is part of our repitoire for evaluating our compounds so its something I have direct experience with. Medical doctors would not have direct experience with pharmacokinetic studies so that isn't actually within their area of expertise. Its like someone who isn't a mechanic expressing concern that an electric car hasn't been thoroughly smog tested and so until they see data on smog tests for the Tesla they aren't going to purchase one. Pharmacists would probably be much more familiar with the concept of ADME-PK through their studies although again not through the practice of it. The group that would know about it through doing it would be research scientists in areas of drug development. A metabolized food additive isn't something you'd put into an ADME-PK study because there is about as much point in that as trying to smog test a Tesla. You mentioned that you listened to expertise, hopefully you are genuine there and don't mean that you listen to "expertise" only if it conforms to what you have decided to believe anyways. MDs don't have expertise there unless they are MD-PhDs who did some drug development.
You are correct about it being low amounts due to higher sweetness. Aspartame off the top of my head is something like 200 times the sweetness of fructose (I might not remember the exact number). They aren't toxins so you definately don't have to worry about toxicity. People really misuse and overuse the word toxin these days.
"It is becoming widely accepted that fructose is a chronic toxin in the dosage range that is typical in many modern diets" News to me. What is this group (scientific or medical) widely accepts fructose is a "toxin". Fructose doesn't qualify as a toxin because it does not meet the definition of a toxin which is that it has to have acute toxicity. "For example in the US many teens are consuming in excess of 50 g/day." case in point that fructose is not a toxin.
Quick aside just as an FYI. Fructose is a monosaccharide, along with glucose and galactose, fructose being a plant product. Many of the sugars we encounter in our daily lives are disaccharides, two monosaccharides linked together. Lactose is a disaccharide and is the source of sweetness in milk, the sugar found in milk, its galactose and glucose linked together. Sucrose, also a plant product, is also a disaccharide and is what we think of when we think table sugar....its glucose and fructose. You may have seen the name dextrose on ingredient labels, dextrose is just another name for glucose...same thing.
I'm more of a salt-tooth than a sweet-tooth, I like my chocolate dark as they make it. I like sweet beverages though for whatever reason. I flavor my coffee with aspartame typically. Will have a diet coke maybe a couple times a week but thats about it. I'm not trying to push artificial sweetners like they are going to help with people's health, they are a non-entity for me, they neither help nor harm. If you are on a diet and you love your sweet drinks then switching to a diet style drink is a good way to avoid some unneeded calories from a syrup, thats about it.
I very carefully used the term “chronic toxin”. There are different levels of toxicity. Most people only consider something toxic if it is acutely toxic. Many of our over the counter drugs are in the category, but the dosage is typically high for toxic effects and often the effects don't accumulate over time. Chronic toxins are completely on the other end of the spectrum. Often chronic toxin effects accumulate over time and often take decades to do their damage.
The toxic effects of fructose are depended on multiple factors but is mostly driven by how much fructose must be metabolized at a given time. Just how much is too much is a complex question with many variables. Pretty much all fructose is metabolized in the liver or is excreted. The liver has a limited capacity to handle fructose and will handle overloads by converting fructose to low density lipids. This is the same way the ethanol is metabolized, except ethanol can also pass into the brain which isn’t possible with fructose. What happens is the lipids end up being stored in the liver and that becomes a problem in multiple ways. For example uric acid is a by-product of fructose metabolism and it does have toxic properties. The lipids stored in the liver can create a condition called NonAlcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). NAFLD also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome. Finally, even if the lipids make their way out of the liver, they tend to added to the visceral fat, which also contributes to Metabolic Syndrome.
So in short, fructose is a dose dependent hepatic chronic toxin just like ethanol. However, unlike ethanol it doesn’t have the acute toxicity. This relationship possibly exists because ethanol is derived from fructose. (Many people in the world know how to do that.)
NAFLD just like Fatty Liver Disease leads to cirrhosis of the liver. Currently an estimated 25% of the people in the US have NAFLD. http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/nafld/
Metabolic Syndrome is more complex but is estimated afflict about 1/3 of the US population. Not everyone that is obese has it and it is possible to be slim and have Metabolic Syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
The cause of NAFLD is too much fructose being processed by the liver. So the number of people having that problem in the US suggests that a large number of people in the US are consuming fructose at high enough levels to encounter toxic effects from that consumption.
While the toxicity of fructose was controversial in the past it is currently more widely accepted. The controversy started well over 200 years ago. Science is catching up with the controversy. However there haven’t been any well-established links between artificial sweeteners and NAFLD or Metabolic Syndrome. (Many have tried to establish links.)
I feel at this point its important to back up and define some terms.
Toxin has a definition and I feel like you, and many members of the public, are misusing it and changing its meaning.
A toxin, by definition, is a metabolic product of a living organism (animal, plant, bacterium) that has an acute toxic affect to another organism. Toxins are also typically antigenic and trigger antibody production. If a compound doesn't meet that definition it is not a toxin. Arsenic is acutely toxic, however it is not the metabolic product of a living organism it is an element and therefore it is not a toxin. Tar produced by tabacco plants can leave residues that over time can increase risk of harm in the form of cancer by causing damage to your lung, but its not acutely toxic...so its not a toxin. You stating that you carefully stated "chronic toxin" does not somehow mean you aren't misusing the term. If we were talking about the damages of poverty on society and you started talking about the difficulties billionaires face and I pointed out that billionaires aren't poor and you came back saying "I carefully stated 'poor billionaires' " that doesn't suddenly mean you are now making sense." There are no poor billionaires...there are no chronic toxins. There is such a thing as chronic toxicity however you must understand the word toxin does not mean "anything that is toxic".
The bacterium vibro cholera produces a molecule that causes damage to the cell membrane of cells in your intestine rupturing and killing them in quick order. That is a toxin.
Fructose is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Aspartame is not a toxin by the definition of the word toxin. Small molecules used as drugs produced in labs are not toxins by the definition of the word toxin.
People are just taking toxin to mean "anything that is toxic" and that is NOT the definition of the word at all, people are just misuing it.
So what do you mean when you say toxin? Do you mean "anything that can possibly cause us harm" because that seems to be the way you are using it. In that sense sure, any sugar is a toxin...oxygen is a toxin, anything we injest is a toxin because metabolic products of it cause us repairable damage that, although repairable, over long periods of time tear us down and increase our chance of cancer or chronic diseases.
Fructose, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, as a processed product no doubt has a lot to do with the ease at which American's become obese with their diets. That doesn't make fructose a "toxin". Words have meaning and we should use those words only when their meaning applies. Saying "chronic toxin" is like saying "poor billionaire" its antithetical to the very meaning of the word. Toxins, by definition of the word, have high toxicity at low concentrations in an acute fashion. If I am somehow mistaken please find a scientific publication or a scientific organization (such as the CDC) refering to a "chronic toxin" or something that is not a living organisms organic product as a toxin or something that causes damage only over the long term as a toxin and link to it. Do note you might find a phrase such as "chronic toxin exposure" but the chronic refers to the exposure not the toxin itself, so be careful.
Can look up cholera toxin as a cannonical example of a toxin, specifically a type of toxin known as an enterotoxin. BT, a pesticide, is also an enterotoxin but it only affects certain insects. Another property of toxins by the way, they tend to be organism specific. Cholera toxin wouldn't affect those insects.
I know I am repeating myself but I want to say this again for emphasis to anyone reading. Toxin DOES NOT MEAN "anything that is toxic". Toxic and toxin, despite how similar they look, are very different words.
3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Science is catching up with the controversy"
I'm going to go ahead and wait for it to catch up before I believe it then.
Science is behind schedule. Blame it on the grad students.2 -
Don't have time to look into it right now but if anyone else does I'd be curious to know if antigenicity is a requirement for something to be defined as a toxin. Toxins I know of are all antigenic (stimulate antibody production) but I'm not sure if that is a requirement for it to be defined as a toxin or just something common to most toxins.0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Science is catching up with the controversy"
I'm going to go ahead and wait for it to catch up before I believe it then.
Science is behind schedule. Blame it on the grad students.
Lazy bums, why can't they work through the night. Don't worry, I'm sure the public will entice a senator to demand science do more science-ing while simultaneously cutting funding.7 -
It is impossible for us to know what effect inorganic compounds of chemicals have on the human body which has evolved over time without ever, up until very recently, been exposed to these chemicals. There is a psychological desire to comfort ourselves into believing we somehow completely grasp the effect that a totally transformed artificial environment and way of life has on our health, and to turn a blind eye to circumstances, such as 1 in 2 people becoming cancer patients, which would suggest that some variable(s) recently introduced, might have an impact. I find it really interesting that so many people react with such outrage towards anyone who dares to argue an opposing view, or who even speculates that maybe, just maybe, we might not know everything about how certain chemicals effect our bodies. There is an industry at work that stands to lose a good deal of money should we question the safety of their products. The corruption of the fda is obvious, and it is difficult to deny they are in bed with corporate america, keen on propagating what they call "tobacco science," when we become aware of the fact that many chemicals and additives found in processed food and beverage, as well as gmos, are banned in most other developed nations. It would make sense when considering these issues to remember that doctors and "science" once claimed smoking was harmless. It's a fault of our egos that repeats itself throughout history and causes us to we think we know everything, especially when the proper amount of research has absolutely not been done and there is plenty of independent research out there which stands in open conflict with the bought and paid for majority opinion: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
I'm not going to come back here and check to see who is arguing with me. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument very briefly. While making no changes to my diet, I once lost 8 pounds when I cut out artificially sweetened chewing gum and beverages. I also then at once stopped getting headaches and my digestion issues completely ended. Do whatever you want with your body but don't expect everyone to blindly accept what corporations tell us, or to accept the "research" that they fund on the products that they then sell.2 -
Well, Mercola is a quack, so there goes that...8
-
Plutodreams wrote: »It is impossible for us to know what effect inorganic compounds of chemicals have on the human body which has evolved over time without ever, up until very recently, been exposed to these chemicals.
I'd just like to point out that man has been exposed to the compounds in aspartame for as long as man has been eating.5 -
While I understand it's hard to kick a soda habit (trust me; been there, done that), but switching to diet soda isn't really all that better. The sweeteners can cause more issues. I have heard what you're talking about too and I've also heard about a bone density issue with the sweeteners used, but like I said, I've heard.
You're best best is to quit soda completely, and try alternatives like tea and flavored waters (mint, lemon, cucumber).1 -
Plutodreams wrote: »It is impossible for us to know what effect inorganic compounds of chemicals have on the human body which has evolved over time without ever, up until very recently, been exposed to these chemicals. There is a psychological desire to comfort ourselves into believing we somehow completely grasp the effect that a totally transformed artificial environment and way of life has on our health, and to turn a blind eye to circumstances, such as 1 in 2 people becoming cancer patients, which would suggest that some variable(s) recently introduced, might have an impact. I find it really interesting that so many people react with such outrage towards anyone who dares to argue an opposing view, or who even speculates that maybe, just maybe, we might not know everything about how certain chemicals effect our bodies. There is an industry at work that stands to lose a good deal of money should we question the safety of their products. The corruption of the fda is obvious, and it is difficult to deny they are in bed with corporate america, keen on propagating what they call "tobacco science," when we become aware of the fact that many chemicals and additives found in processed food and beverage, as well as gmos, are banned in most other developed nations. It would make sense when considering these issues to remember that doctors and "science" once claimed smoking was harmless. It's a fault of our egos that repeats itself throughout history and causes us to we think we know everything, especially when the proper amount of research has absolutely not been done and there is plenty of independent research out there which stands in open conflict with the bought and paid for majority opinion: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
I'm not going to come back here and check to see who is arguing with me. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument very briefly. While making no changes to my diet, I once lost 8 pounds when I cut out artificially sweetened chewing gum and beverages. I also then at once stopped getting headaches and my digestion issues completely ended. Do whatever you want with your body but don't expect everyone to blindly accept what corporations tell us, or to accept the "research" that they fund on the products that they then sell.
Drive by ignorance.6 -
-
mysticwryter wrote: »While I understand it's hard to kick a soda habit (trust me; been there, done that), but switching to diet soda isn't really all that better. The sweeteners can cause more issues. I have heard what you're talking about too and I've also heard about a bone density issue with the sweeteners used, but like I said, I've heard.
You're best best is to quit soda completely, and try alternatives like tea and flavored waters (mint, lemon, cucumber).
I take it you have not taken the time to actually read the responses in the 8 pages here. Nothing to fear.4 -
mysticwryter wrote: »While I understand it's hard to kick a soda habit (trust me; been there, done that), but switching to diet soda isn't really all that better. The sweeteners can cause more issues. I have heard what you're talking about too and I've also heard about a bone density issue with the sweeteners used, but like I said, I've heard.
You're best best is to quit soda completely, and try alternatives like tea and flavored waters (mint, lemon, cucumber).
If you had read the thread, you would see that sweeteners, specifically aspartame, have been discussed in great detail in this thread.
Spoiler alert - they aren't dangerous.5 -
mysticwryter wrote: »While I understand it's hard to kick a soda habit (trust me; been there, done that), but switching to diet soda isn't really all that better. The sweeteners can cause more issues. I have heard what you're talking about too and I've also heard about a bone density issue with the sweeteners used, but like I said, I've heard.
You're best best is to quit soda completely, and try alternatives like tea and flavored waters (mint, lemon, cucumber).
Are you truly basing your consumption choices based on "I heard somewhere that..."?
Look at it this way: someone will read your post, with no science, no facts to back it up, just a vague "I heard somewhere that" (or worse yet, hear you say it in person with the same confidence you have here), and begin to repeat it. Then we have another group of people all saying "I heard somewhere that...", repeating what you allegedly heard, none of you having any knowledge of the facts. That's why you need to verify what you're saying before you say it.7 -
Plutodreams wrote: »I'm not going to come back here and check to see who is arguing with me. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument very briefly. While making no changes to my diet, I once lost 8 pounds when I cut out artificially sweetened chewing gum and beverages. I also then at once stopped getting headaches and my digestion issues completely ended. Do whatever you want with your body but don't expect everyone to blindly accept what corporations tell us, or to accept the "research" that they fund on the products that they then sell.
putting aside the rest of your arguments -- which rely on feelings, fear, and the "science = bad" mentality that's becoming all to prevalent -- I don't think anyone would recommend someone should keep drinking something they personally feel negative affects to after drinking. I'm really glad that you found and removed the source of your headaches. Fortunately, I don't have any such side-effects from my diet dr pepper.5 -
mysticwryter wrote: »While I understand it's hard to kick a soda habit (trust me; been there, done that), but switching to diet soda isn't really all that better. The sweeteners can cause more issues. I have heard what you're talking about too and I've also heard about a bone density issue with the sweeteners used, but like I said, I've heard.
You're best best is to quit soda completely, and try alternatives like tea and flavored waters (mint, lemon, cucumber).
Multiple biologists and chemists have weighed into this thread with factual science. We don't have to go off of hearsay, we have scientific facts to back up the knowledge that aspartame is not dangerous.4 -
It is impossible for us to know what effect inorganic compounds of chemicals have on the human body which has evolved over time without ever, up until very recently, been exposed to these chemicals. There is a psychological desire to comfort ourselves into believing we somehow completely grasp the effect that a totally transformed artificial environment and way of life has on our health, and to turn a blind eye to circumstances, such as 1 in 2 people becoming cancer patients, which would suggest that some variable(s) recently introduced, might have an impact. I find it really interesting that so many people react with such outrage towards anyone who dares to argue an opposing view, or who even speculates that maybe, just maybe, we might not know everything about how certain chemicals effect our bodies. There is an industry at work that stands to lose a good deal of money should we question the safety of their products. The corruption of the fda is obvious, and it is difficult to deny they are in bed with corporate america, keen on propagating what they call "tobacco science," when we become aware of the fact that many chemicals and additives found in processed food and beverage, as well as gmos, are banned in most other developed nations. It would make sense when considering these issues to remember that doctors and "science" once claimed smoking was harmless. It's a fault of our egos that repeats itself throughout history and causes us to we think we know everything, especially when the proper amount of research has absolutely not been done and there is plenty of independent research out there which stands in open conflict with the bought and paid for majority opinion: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
I'm not going to come back here and check to see who is arguing with me. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument very briefly. While making no changes to my diet, I once lost 8 pounds when I cut out artificially sweetened chewing gum and beverages. I also then at once stopped getting headaches and my digestion issues completely ended. Do whatever you want with your body but don't expect everyone to blindly accept what corporations tell us, or to accept the "research" that they fund on the products that they then sell.
"such as 1 in 2 people becoming cancer patients, which would suggest that some variable(s) recently introduced"
I don't know if the rate is that high but understand that when you practically eliminate death from infectious disease and extend life expectancy to almost 90 years old there is going to be a significant increase in deaths from diseases we haven't yet cured, because frankly you are going to die of something.
Cancer is something that every day you are alive you have a chance of developing, the longer people live and the more people don't die early to infectious disease the higher the cancer rate climbs. That is to be expected. Interpreting that as "we must be exposing ourselves to something that causes cancer" is a assumption that would need to be backed up by epidemiological evidence that rates of specific types of cancer have increased above the rates one would expect for a population with current life expectancies. If we, for example, dealt with the obesity epidemic in the united states so that rates of death due to heart disease plummeted I would expect the rate of cancer to increase. Why? Because those people who previously died early to heart disease are now living long enough to die of cancer. Morbid I know, but true. We all die of something, and if you live long enough chances are that is going to be cancer.
" I find it really interesting that so many people react with such outrage towards anyone who dares to argue an opposing view, or who even speculates that maybe, just maybe, we might not know everything about how certain chemicals effect our bodies."
Not sure if this is directed in part at me but:
1. I'm not "outraged" in the slightest, I'm just working diligently to correct statements I view as being innacurate. Any emotion you are reading into my posts is you reading into it.
2. If someone came in and say "I speculate that we might not know everything" I wouldn't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is people taking their personal speculation to the level of strong language such as "X is dangerous" and then advising other people on the basis of their personal beliefs.
As for the rest I don't really see the need to dive into conspiracy theory.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions