Aspartame

sandeegriffin
sandeegriffin Posts: 54 Member
edited November 19 in Food and Nutrition
Good or bad for you? I've had to stop consuming real sugar to lose weight and so far have lost about 15-20 lbs. Switched to sugar free products only to find out it might hurt my chances getting preg. Thougts??

Replies

  • dlkfox
    dlkfox Posts: 463 Member
    It is great!!
  • atjays
    atjays Posts: 797 Member
    Like all things in life, it's fine in moderation. Just don't be drinking gallons of diet sodas daily.
  • MichelleSilverleaf
    MichelleSilverleaf Posts: 2,027 Member
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    edited June 2017
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Aspartame has the same structure as sugar? Erm...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ this study says its broken down the same as other sugars
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    I think aspartame is great. I particularly like the aspartame/ace-k combo (coke zero). I prefer it over sucralose, for sure. I can never get over the aftertaste of sucralose.

    Where did you read that it can affect fertility?
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    edited June 2017
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    I think aspartame is great. I particularly like the aspartame/ace-k combo (coke zero). I prefer it over sucralose, for sure. I can never get over the aftertaste of sucralose.

    Where did you read that it can affect fertility?

    I love coke zero too
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    edited June 2017
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    I think aspartame is great. I particularly like the aspartame/ace-k combo (coke zero). I prefer it over sucralose, for sure. I can never get over the aftertaste of sucralose.

    Where did you read that it can affect fertility?

    http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(16)62172-6/abstract
    heres one study.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited June 2017
    Get your reading glasses ready: http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf

    (tl;dr in case you don't want to read 93 pages of scientific, peer-reviewed studies: aspartame is perfectly safe.)
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Aspartame has the same structure as sugar? Erm...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ this study says its broken down the same as other sugars

    "Other sugars?" It's not sugar. Can you quote where it said that? I lost interest as soon as it started with the fearmongering near the beginning.
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    edited June 2017
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    I think aspartame is great. I particularly like the aspartame/ace-k combo (coke zero). I prefer it over sucralose, for sure. I can never get over the aftertaste of sucralose.

    Where did you read that it can affect fertility?

    Except they are going to stop making Coke Zero and have come up with Coke No Sugar or something like that. Apparently it tastes more like normal Coke. If it doesn't taste as good or better than Zero I'll be seriously annoyed.

    Edited to add the link

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/goodbye-coke-zero-hello-cocacola-no-sugar-20170602-gwj3cx.html
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Oh dear. How can someone get this so wrong? I can not fathom that someone can think that something with a totally different chemical structure is the same structure and the body can't tell the difference. Especially when it can actually tell the difference between fructose, glucose and lactose anyway as their chemical structures are actually not identical.
  • broseidonkingofbrocean
    broseidonkingofbrocean Posts: 180 Member
    edited June 2017
    Eating sugar alternatives will not hinder your chances of getting preggo. If you are actively trying to get preg that is. It isn't easy for you to get pregnant like you might think. So if you're having trouble in that dept it isn't the sugar alternatives and I would talk to your doc.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,227 Member
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    I think aspartame is great. I particularly like the aspartame/ace-k combo (coke zero). I prefer it over sucralose, for sure. I can never get over the aftertaste of sucralose.

    Where did you read that it can affect fertility?

    Except they are going to stop making Coke Zero and have come up with Coke No Sugar or something like that. Apparently it tastes more like normal Coke. If it doesn't taste as good or better than Zero I'll be seriously annoyed.

    Edited to add the link

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/goodbye-coke-zero-hello-cocacola-no-sugar-20170602-gwj3cx.html

    I read this today and I'm not thrilled. I like Coke Zero, dammit. Don't mess with it.
  • Heather4448
    Heather4448 Posts: 908 Member
    Alatariel75 wrote: »

    I read this today and I'm not thrilled. I like Coke Zero, dammit. Don't mess with it.

    Pepsi max. Come to the dark side.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Aspartame has the same structure as sugar? Erm...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ this study says its broken down the same as other sugars

    "Other sugars?" It's not sugar. Can you quote where it said that? I lost interest as soon as it started with the fearmongering near the beginning.

    Aspartame

    Aspartame, discovered in 1965 is a low-calorie sweetener with a sugar-like taste but is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose.[16] It is unique among low-calorie sweeteners in that it is completely broken down by the body to its components - the amino acids, aspartic acid, phenylalanine and a small amount of ethanol.[17–19] These components are found in much greater amounts in common foods, such as meat, milk, fruits, and vegetables, and are used in the body in the same way whether they come from aspartame or common foods

    also no fear mongering really it said that some thought this or that but here is the conclusion-CONCLUSIONS
    Sugar substitutes in various food and beverages are very popular in most of the countries. Extensive scientific research has demonstrated the safety of the six low-calorie sweeteners currently approved for use in foods in the U.S. and Europe (stevia, acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose) each with an acceptable daily intake. A number of studies have been carried out to confirm the safety of artificial sweeteners. A number of studies have also shown the adverse effects of the same. But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human, small sample size, high doses, statistically non-significant or borderline significant, etc. The sugar substitutes are thoroughly investigated for safety with hundreds of scientific studies and then approved by different regulatory authorities like the U.S. FDA, JECFA and FSANZ. Some agents are approved with warning labels too. So further exploration is required with well-designed large-scale studies in the general population. On the anecdotal evidence, it has been concluded that based on analysis of the database of case histories, there are a number of symptoms that are recurrently reported by individuals who believe that they are caused by sugar substitute ingestion. The information gathered in this analysis can be useful in guiding the design and format of any investigative study that may be undertaken to determine individual sensitivity to sugar substitutes.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    I think aspartame is great. I particularly like the aspartame/ace-k combo (coke zero). I prefer it over sucralose, for sure. I can never get over the aftertaste of sucralose.

    Where did you read that it can affect fertility?

    Except they are going to stop making Coke Zero and have come up with Coke No Sugar or something like that. Apparently it tastes more like normal Coke. If it doesn't taste as good or better than Zero I'll be seriously annoyed.

    Edited to add the link

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/goodbye-coke-zero-hello-cocacola-no-sugar-20170602-gwj3cx.html

    I read this today and I'm not thrilled. I like Coke Zero, dammit. Don't mess with it.

    is this for just Australia or?
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Aspartame has the same structure as sugar? Erm...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ this study says its broken down the same as other sugars

    "Other sugars?" It's not sugar. Can you quote where it said that? I lost interest as soon as it started with the fearmongering near the beginning.

    Aspartame

    Aspartame, discovered in 1965 is a low-calorie sweetener with a sugar-like taste but is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose.[16] It is unique among low-calorie sweeteners in that it is completely broken down by the body to its components - the amino acids, aspartic acid, phenylalanine and a small amount of ethanol.[17–19] These components are found in much greater amounts in common foods, such as meat, milk, fruits, and vegetables, and are used in the body in the same way whether they come from aspartame or common foods

    also no fear mongering really it said that some thought this or that but here is the conclusion-CONCLUSIONS
    Sugar substitutes in various food and beverages are very popular in most of the countries. Extensive scientific research has demonstrated the safety of the six low-calorie sweeteners currently approved for use in foods in the U.S. and Europe (stevia, acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose) each with an acceptable daily intake. A number of studies have been carried out to confirm the safety of artificial sweeteners. A number of studies have also shown the adverse effects of the same. But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human, small sample size, high doses, statistically non-significant or borderline significant, etc. The sugar substitutes are thoroughly investigated for safety with hundreds of scientific studies and then approved by different regulatory authorities like the U.S. FDA, JECFA and FSANZ. Some agents are approved with warning labels too. So further exploration is required with well-designed large-scale studies in the general population. On the anecdotal evidence, it has been concluded that based on analysis of the database of case histories, there are a number of symptoms that are recurrently reported by individuals who believe that they are caused by sugar substitute ingestion. The information gathered in this analysis can be useful in guiding the design and format of any investigative study that may be undertaken to determine individual sensitivity to sugar substitutes.

    "Besides its benefits, animal studies have convincingly proven that artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, brain tumors, bladder cancer and many other health hazards."
    That's the part I was referring to. Too definitive a statement for my liking

    Also, nothing you quoted says it breaks down the same as sugar or that your body treats it the same.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    edited June 2017
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Aspartame has the same structure as sugar? Erm...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ this study says its broken down the same as other sugars

    "Other sugars?" It's not sugar. Can you quote where it said that? I lost interest as soon as it started with the fearmongering near the beginning.

    Aspartame

    Aspartame, discovered in 1965 is a low-calorie sweetener with a sugar-like taste but is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose.[16] It is unique among low-calorie sweeteners in that it is completely broken down by the body to its components - the amino acids, aspartic acid, phenylalanine and a small amount of ethanol.[17–19] These components are found in much greater amounts in common foods, such as meat, milk, fruits, and vegetables,

    also no fear mongering really it said that some thought this or that but here is the conclusion-CONCLUSIONS
    Sugar substitutes in various food and beverages are very popular in most of the countries. Extensive scientific research has demonstrated the safety of the six low-calorie sweeteners currently approved for use in foods in the U.S. and Europe (stevia, acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose) each with an acceptable daily intake. A number of studies have been carried out to confirm the safety of artificial sweeteners. A number of studies have also shown the adverse effects of the same. But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human, small sample size, high doses, statistically non-significant or borderline significant, etc. The sugar substitutes are thoroughly investigated for safety with hundreds of scientific studies and then approved by different regulatory authorities like the U.S. FDA, JECFA and FSANZ. Some agents are approved with warning labels too. So further exploration is required with well-designed large-scale studies in the general population. On the anecdotal evidence, it has been concluded that based on analysis of the database of case histories, there are a number of symptoms that are recurrently reported by individuals who believe that they are caused by sugar substitute ingestion. The information gathered in this analysis can be useful in guiding the design and format of any investigative study that may be undertaken to determine individual sensitivity to sugar substitutes.

    "Besides its benefits, animal studies have convincingly proven that artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, brain tumors, bladder cancer and many other health hazards."
    That's the part I was referring to. Too definitive a statement for my liking

    Also, nothing you quoted says it breaks down the same as sugar or that your body treats it the same.

    it says ANIMAL studies"But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human". they cant conclude it with human studies, and it says "It is unique among low-calorie sweeteners in that it is completely broken down by the body to its components.... and are used in the body in the same way whether they come from aspartame or common foods" so to me that means its broken down just like sugar would or any other foods for that matter.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Aspartame has the same structure as sugar? Erm...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ this study says its broken down the same as other sugars

    "Other sugars?" It's not sugar. Can you quote where it said that? I lost interest as soon as it started with the fearmongering near the beginning.

    Aspartame

    Aspartame, discovered in 1965 is a low-calorie sweetener with a sugar-like taste but is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose.[16] It is unique among low-calorie sweeteners in that it is completely broken down by the body to its components - the amino acids, aspartic acid, phenylalanine and a small amount of ethanol.[17–19] These components are found in much greater amounts in common foods, such as meat, milk, fruits, and vegetables,

    also no fear mongering really it said that some thought this or that but here is the conclusion-CONCLUSIONS
    Sugar substitutes in various food and beverages are very popular in most of the countries. Extensive scientific research has demonstrated the safety of the six low-calorie sweeteners currently approved for use in foods in the U.S. and Europe (stevia, acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose) each with an acceptable daily intake. A number of studies have been carried out to confirm the safety of artificial sweeteners. A number of studies have also shown the adverse effects of the same. But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human, small sample size, high doses, statistically non-significant or borderline significant, etc. The sugar substitutes are thoroughly investigated for safety with hundreds of scientific studies and then approved by different regulatory authorities like the U.S. FDA, JECFA and FSANZ. Some agents are approved with warning labels too. So further exploration is required with well-designed large-scale studies in the general population. On the anecdotal evidence, it has been concluded that based on analysis of the database of case histories, there are a number of symptoms that are recurrently reported by individuals who believe that they are caused by sugar substitute ingestion. The information gathered in this analysis can be useful in guiding the design and format of any investigative study that may be undertaken to determine individual sensitivity to sugar substitutes.

    "Besides its benefits, animal studies have convincingly proven that artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, brain tumors, bladder cancer and many other health hazards."
    That's the part I was referring to. Too definitive a statement for my liking

    Also, nothing you quoted says it breaks down the same as sugar or that your body treats it the same.

    it says ANIMAL studies"But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human". they cant conclude it with human studies, and it says "It is unique among low-calorie sweeteners in that it is completely broken down by the body to its components.... and are used in the body in the same way whether they come from aspartame or common foods" so to me that means its broken down just like sugar would or any other foods for that matter.

    It says that the end products of the breakdown of aspartame are treated the same as they would be if they were gotten from other foods. That part has nothing to do with sugar, as it's not the breakdown of sugar that results in the presence of those products.

    As far as the part about animal studies: it doesn't seem to me that it has been "conclusively proven" that aspartame causes cancer in animals. The studies that are always referenced on MFP are severely flawed. Leading with such a bold difinitive statement seems like a misstep.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Aspartame has the same structure as sugar? Erm...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ this study says its broken down the same as other sugars

    That's funny it would say that since aspartame is a protein.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Aspartame has the same structure as sugar? Erm...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ this study says its broken down the same as other sugars

    "Other sugars?" It's not sugar. Can you quote where it said that? I lost interest as soon as it started with the fearmongering near the beginning.

    Aspartame

    Aspartame, discovered in 1965 is a low-calorie sweetener with a sugar-like taste but is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose.[16] It is unique among low-calorie sweeteners in that it is completely broken down by the body to its components - the amino acids, aspartic acid, phenylalanine and a small amount of ethanol.[17–19] These components are found in much greater amounts in common foods, such as meat, milk, fruits, and vegetables,

    also no fear mongering really it said that some thought this or that but here is the conclusion-CONCLUSIONS
    Sugar substitutes in various food and beverages are very popular in most of the countries. Extensive scientific research has demonstrated the safety of the six low-calorie sweeteners currently approved for use in foods in the U.S. and Europe (stevia, acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose) each with an acceptable daily intake. A number of studies have been carried out to confirm the safety of artificial sweeteners. A number of studies have also shown the adverse effects of the same. But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human, small sample size, high doses, statistically non-significant or borderline significant, etc. The sugar substitutes are thoroughly investigated for safety with hundreds of scientific studies and then approved by different regulatory authorities like the U.S. FDA, JECFA and FSANZ. Some agents are approved with warning labels too. So further exploration is required with well-designed large-scale studies in the general population. On the anecdotal evidence, it has been concluded that based on analysis of the database of case histories, there are a number of symptoms that are recurrently reported by individuals who believe that they are caused by sugar substitute ingestion. The information gathered in this analysis can be useful in guiding the design and format of any investigative study that may be undertaken to determine individual sensitivity to sugar substitutes.

    "Besides its benefits, animal studies have convincingly proven that artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, brain tumors, bladder cancer and many other health hazards."
    That's the part I was referring to. Too definitive a statement for my liking

    Also, nothing you quoted says it breaks down the same as sugar or that your body treats it the same.

    it says ANIMAL studies"But most of the studies have limitations such as effects shown only in animals not in human". they cant conclude it with human studies, and it says "It is unique among low-calorie sweeteners in that it is completely broken down by the body to its components.... and are used in the body in the same way whether they come from aspartame or common foods" so to me that means its broken down just like sugar would or any other foods for that matter.

    It says that the end products of the breakdown of aspartame are treated the same as they would be if they were gotten from other foods. That part has nothing to do with sugar, as it's not the breakdown of sugar that results in the presence of those products.

    As far as the part about animal studies: it doesn't seem to me that it has been "conclusively proven" that aspartame causes cancer in animals. The studies that are always referenced on MFP are severely flawed. Leading with such a bold difinitive statement seems like a misstep.

    well when most studies are linked this is usually one of the first places thats linked to.maybe for me I misunderstood it or comprehended it differently. point is its broken down anyway where they say other artificial sweeteners are not these are scientific studies so if this one is flawed then I dont know where else to find studies or which places to believe are accurate with their findings.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »
    Sugar is sugar. Cane sugar, aspartame, honey, fruit, all sugars have the same structure. Your body literally cannot tell the difference. Like atjays said everything in moderation.

    Aspartame has the same structure as sugar? Erm...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ this study says its broken down the same as other sugars

    That's funny it would say that since aspartame is a protein.

    I should have stated its broken down in the body as most other foods(I misread it as other sugars). I cant edit it now.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories