Diet soda
Options
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
Hmm, apparently I can't. But here is a link to it, you just have to click so sorry for that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t2-ehp0114-000379/
If you look on the far left that is the dose of aspartame (abbreviated APM) given in parenthesis in terms of mg/kg bw (bw is bodyweight).
So you have basically (5,2.5,0.5, 0.1, 0.02, 0.004 and zero g/kg as dose groups.)
Then, if you look over, there is the number of animals that developed tumors by dose group. The percentages in decending order of dose were 43%,38%,34%,40%,32%,29% and 35%.
What that means is that in their own experiment 35% of the rats that received zero aspartame developed cancer. That number went as high as 43% in the highest aspartame dosed group however the percent incidence didn't really follow along with the dose. In otherwords note that dosed at 0.5g/kg/day (equivalent of 320 sodas a day) the tumor incidents was actually lower at 34% than the undosed control at 35%.
Now that isn't because there is an actual significant difference, there is of course some error associated with any experiment. There claim is the difference between 35% in the undosed control and 43% at the highest dose is significant. But if that is significant it is interesting that 0.5g/kg of aspartame gives 34% but less aspartame at 0.1g/kg gives 40%.
Basically my feeling is with their sample size there was probably a random variation of something like 10% between their samples and they are hovering around the number you would expect for spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague Dawley rats that is well documented.
If you look more at the paper you might notice the table linked is for the male rats and the next table is the female rats which have a higher incidence. Here is the female rat table if you are curious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t3-ehp0114-000379/
There is a good reason to split the data by male and female as in the literature it has been noted that female Sprague Dawley rats have a higher tumour incident rate (around 57%) than males (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194).3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
After you click my clickbait link, you'll find that not only does aspartame reduce cancer risk, but does so by a whopping 4.44%!!!0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
Hmm, apparently I can't. But here is a link to it, you just have to click so sorry for that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t2-ehp0114-000379/
If you look on the far left that is the dose of aspartame (abbreviated APM) given in parenthesis in terms of mg/kg bw (bw is bodyweight).
So you have basically (5,2.5,0.5, 0.1, 0.02, 0.004 and zero g/kg as dose groups.)
Then, if you look over, there is the number of animals that developed tumors by dose group. The percentages in decending order of dose were 43%,38%,34%,40%,32%,29% and 35%.
What that means is that in their own experiment 35% of the rats that received zero aspartame developed cancer. That number went as high as 43% in the highest aspartame dosed group however the percent incidence didn't really follow along with the dose. In otherwords note that dosed at 0.5g/kg/day (equivalent of 320 sodas a day) the tumor incidents was actually lower at 34% than the undosed control at 35%.
Now that isn't because there is an actual significant difference, there is of course some error associated with any experiment. There claim is the difference between 35% in the undosed control and 43% at the highest dose is significant. But if that is significant it is interesting that 0.5g/kg of aspartame gives 34% but less aspartame at 0.1g/kg gives 40%.
Basically my feeling is with their sample size there was probably a random variation of something like 10% between their samples and they are hovering around the number you would expect for spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague Dawley rats that is well documented.
If you look more at the paper you might notice the table linked is for the male rats and the next table is the female rats which have a higher incidence. Here is the female rat table if you are curious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t3-ehp0114-000379/
There is a good reason to split the data by male and female as in the literature it has been noted that female Sprague Dawley rats have a higher tumour incident rate (around 57%) than males (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194).
Ah yes, that's the one I mentioned. Notice how the lowest dose of aspartame they gave the rats was equivalent of 2 cans of diet soda every day for their adult life and had a tumor reduction of 6% compared to the control group!2 -
For me Diet Coke is a luxury and a treat so I'd never give it up. I don't think it's unhealthy if consumed in moderation. I do think it makes my sweet tooth worse..maybe I'm imagining that, but I think it does. Also, when I drink I crave salty stuff, so I have to watch it.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
Hmm, apparently I can't. But here is a link to it, you just have to click so sorry for that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t2-ehp0114-000379/
If you look on the far left that is the dose of aspartame (abbreviated APM) given in parenthesis in terms of mg/kg bw (bw is bodyweight).
So you have basically (5,2.5,0.5, 0.1, 0.02, 0.004 and zero g/kg as dose groups.)
Then, if you look over, there is the number of animals that developed tumors by dose group. The percentages in decending order of dose were 43%,38%,34%,40%,32%,29% and 35%.
What that means is that in their own experiment 35% of the rats that received zero aspartame developed cancer. That number went as high as 43% in the highest aspartame dosed group however the percent incidence didn't really follow along with the dose. In otherwords note that dosed at 0.5g/kg/day (equivalent of 320 sodas a day) the tumor incidents was actually lower at 34% than the undosed control at 35%.
Now that isn't because there is an actual significant difference, there is of course some error associated with any experiment. There claim is the difference between 35% in the undosed control and 43% at the highest dose is significant. But if that is significant it is interesting that 0.5g/kg of aspartame gives 34% but less aspartame at 0.1g/kg gives 40%.
Basically my feeling is with their sample size there was probably a random variation of something like 10% between their samples and they are hovering around the number you would expect for spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague Dawley rats that is well documented.
If you look more at the paper you might notice the table linked is for the male rats and the next table is the female rats which have a higher incidence. Here is the female rat table if you are curious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t3-ehp0114-000379/
There is a good reason to split the data by male and female as in the literature it has been noted that female Sprague Dawley rats have a higher tumour incident rate (around 57%) than males (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194).
Ah yes, that's the one I mentioned. Notice how the lowest dose of aspartame they gave the rats was equivalent of 2 cans of diet soda every day for their adult life and had a tumor reduction of 6% compared to the control group!
I mean even if you take the Sofritti study completely at face value and focused only on comparing the highest dose with the no dose control and then accepted that the difference in their groups was significant what it is literally saying is that in this specific species of rat if that rat ingests the human-equivalent dose of 3,200 cans of soda per day worth of aspartame over their entire lifespan those rats incidence of cancer increases from 35% chance to 43% chance. And people choose to not only avoid drinking even a single can of soda because of this but also tell everyone around them how dangerous it is. It is honestly hard for me to take that seriously although I do try.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I mean even if you take the Sofritti study completely at face value and accept that the difference in their groups is significant what it is literally saying is that in this specific species of rat if that rat ingests the human-equivalent dose of 3,200 cans of soda per day worth of aspartame over their entire lifespan those rats incidence of cancer increases from 35% chance to 43% chance. And people choose to not only avoid drinking even a single can of soda because of this but also tell everyone around them how dangerous it is.
A shame, since they could be avoiding cancer by drinking two.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
Hmm, apparently I can't. But here is a link to it, you just have to click so sorry for that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t2-ehp0114-000379/
If you look on the far left that is the dose of aspartame (abbreviated APM) given in parenthesis in terms of mg/kg bw (bw is bodyweight).
So you have basically (5,2.5,0.5, 0.1, 0.02, 0.004 and zero g/kg as dose groups.)
Then, if you look over, there is the number of animals that developed tumors by dose group. The percentages in decending order of dose were 43%,38%,34%,40%,32%,29% and 35%.
What that means is that in their own experiment 35% of the rats that received zero aspartame developed cancer. That number went as high as 43% in the highest aspartame dosed group however the percent incidence didn't really follow along with the dose. In otherwords note that dosed at 0.5g/kg/day (equivalent of 320 sodas a day) the tumor incidents was actually lower at 34% than the undosed control at 35%.
Now that isn't because there is an actual significant difference, there is of course some error associated with any experiment. There claim is the difference between 35% in the undosed control and 43% at the highest dose is significant. But if that is significant it is interesting that 0.5g/kg of aspartame gives 34% but less aspartame at 0.1g/kg gives 40%.
Basically my feeling is with their sample size there was probably a random variation of something like 10% between their samples and they are hovering around the number you would expect for spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague Dawley rats that is well documented.
If you look more at the paper you might notice the table linked is for the male rats and the next table is the female rats which have a higher incidence. Here is the female rat table if you are curious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t3-ehp0114-000379/
There is a good reason to split the data by male and female as in the literature it has been noted that female Sprague Dawley rats have a higher tumour incident rate (around 57%) than males (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194).
Ah yes, that's the one I mentioned. Notice how the lowest dose of aspartame they gave the rats was equivalent of 2 cans of diet soda every day for their adult life and had a tumor reduction of 6% compared to the control group!
I mean even if you take the Sofritti study completely at face value and focused only on comparing the highest dose with the no dose control and then accepted that the difference in their groups was significant what it is literally saying is that in this specific species of rat if that rat ingests the human-equivalent dose of 3,200 cans of soda per day worth of aspartame over their entire lifespan those rats incidence of cancer increases from 35% chance to 43% chance. And people choose to not only avoid drinking even a single can of soda because of this but also tell everyone around them how dangerous it is. It is honestly hard for me to take that seriously although I do try.
According to the MSDS sheet for aspartame, LD50 (the acute dose which would be lethal for 50% of the population) is 10,000 mg/kg (for mice). So even if that translated directly to humans, it means an "average" 150 lb/68 kg human would have to ingest over 680,000 mg of aspartame to reach LD50 levels. From what I can find, Diet Coke has 187 mg of aspartame per 12-ounce serving, so that would equate to an acute dosage of just over 3,636 cans of Diet Coke.
News flash - if you somehow manage to ingest an acute dose of 3,636 cans of Diet Coke, you've got many other issues to deal with which will far supersede the dangers of the aspartame.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
Hmm, apparently I can't. But here is a link to it, you just have to click so sorry for that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t2-ehp0114-000379/
If you look on the far left that is the dose of aspartame (abbreviated APM) given in parenthesis in terms of mg/kg bw (bw is bodyweight).
So you have basically (5,2.5,0.5, 0.1, 0.02, 0.004 and zero g/kg as dose groups.)
Then, if you look over, there is the number of animals that developed tumors by dose group. The percentages in decending order of dose were 43%,38%,34%,40%,32%,29% and 35%.
What that means is that in their own experiment 35% of the rats that received zero aspartame developed cancer. That number went as high as 43% in the highest aspartame dosed group however the percent incidence didn't really follow along with the dose. In otherwords note that dosed at 0.5g/kg/day (equivalent of 320 sodas a day) the tumor incidents was actually lower at 34% than the undosed control at 35%.
Now that isn't because there is an actual significant difference, there is of course some error associated with any experiment. There claim is the difference between 35% in the undosed control and 43% at the highest dose is significant. But if that is significant it is interesting that 0.5g/kg of aspartame gives 34% but less aspartame at 0.1g/kg gives 40%.
Basically my feeling is with their sample size there was probably a random variation of something like 10% between their samples and they are hovering around the number you would expect for spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague Dawley rats that is well documented.
If you look more at the paper you might notice the table linked is for the male rats and the next table is the female rats which have a higher incidence. Here is the female rat table if you are curious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t3-ehp0114-000379/
There is a good reason to split the data by male and female as in the literature it has been noted that female Sprague Dawley rats have a higher tumour incident rate (around 57%) than males (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194).
Ah yes, that's the one I mentioned. Notice how the lowest dose of aspartame they gave the rats was equivalent of 2 cans of diet soda every day for their adult life and had a tumor reduction of 6% compared to the control group!
I mean even if you take the Sofritti study completely at face value and focused only on comparing the highest dose with the no dose control and then accepted that the difference in their groups was significant what it is literally saying is that in this specific species of rat if that rat ingests the human-equivalent dose of 3,200 cans of soda per day worth of aspartame over their entire lifespan those rats incidence of cancer increases from 35% chance to 43% chance. And people choose to not only avoid drinking even a single can of soda because of this but also tell everyone around them how dangerous it is. It is honestly hard for me to take that seriously although I do try.
According to the MSDS sheet for aspartame, LD50 (the acute dose which would be lethal for 50% of the population) is 10,000 mg/kg (for mice). So even if that translated directly to humans, it means an "average" 150 lb/68 kg human would have to ingest over 680,000 mg of aspartame to reach LD50 levels. From what I can find, Diet Coke has 187 mg of aspartame per 12-ounce serving, so that would equate to an acute dosage of just over 3,636 cans of Diet Coke.
News flash - if you somehow manage to ingest an acute dose of 3,636 cans of Diet Coke, you've got many other issues to deal with which will far supersede the dangers of the aspartame.
I looked at your link, actually the LD50 is given as >10,000 mg/kg. That means they tested up to 10,000 mg/kg with no toxicity seen. IE they didn't encounter a toxic dose so they reported that whatever the toxic dose is, it is higher than the highest amount they tested which is 10,000 mg/kg4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
Hmm, apparently I can't. But here is a link to it, you just have to click so sorry for that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t2-ehp0114-000379/
If you look on the far left that is the dose of aspartame (abbreviated APM) given in parenthesis in terms of mg/kg bw (bw is bodyweight).
So you have basically (5,2.5,0.5, 0.1, 0.02, 0.004 and zero g/kg as dose groups.)
Then, if you look over, there is the number of animals that developed tumors by dose group. The percentages in decending order of dose were 43%,38%,34%,40%,32%,29% and 35%.
What that means is that in their own experiment 35% of the rats that received zero aspartame developed cancer. That number went as high as 43% in the highest aspartame dosed group however the percent incidence didn't really follow along with the dose. In otherwords note that dosed at 0.5g/kg/day (equivalent of 320 sodas a day) the tumor incidents was actually lower at 34% than the undosed control at 35%.
Now that isn't because there is an actual significant difference, there is of course some error associated with any experiment. There claim is the difference between 35% in the undosed control and 43% at the highest dose is significant. But if that is significant it is interesting that 0.5g/kg of aspartame gives 34% but less aspartame at 0.1g/kg gives 40%.
Basically my feeling is with their sample size there was probably a random variation of something like 10% between their samples and they are hovering around the number you would expect for spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague Dawley rats that is well documented.
If you look more at the paper you might notice the table linked is for the male rats and the next table is the female rats which have a higher incidence. Here is the female rat table if you are curious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t3-ehp0114-000379/
There is a good reason to split the data by male and female as in the literature it has been noted that female Sprague Dawley rats have a higher tumour incident rate (around 57%) than males (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194).
Ah yes, that's the one I mentioned. Notice how the lowest dose of aspartame they gave the rats was equivalent of 2 cans of diet soda every day for their adult life and had a tumor reduction of 6% compared to the control group!
I mean even if you take the Sofritti study completely at face value and focused only on comparing the highest dose with the no dose control and then accepted that the difference in their groups was significant what it is literally saying is that in this specific species of rat if that rat ingests the human-equivalent dose of 3,200 cans of soda per day worth of aspartame over their entire lifespan those rats incidence of cancer increases from 35% chance to 43% chance. And people choose to not only avoid drinking even a single can of soda because of this but also tell everyone around them how dangerous it is. It is honestly hard for me to take that seriously although I do try.
According to the MSDS sheet for aspartame, LD50 (the acute dose which would be lethal for 50% of the population) is 10,000 mg/kg (for mice). So even if that translated directly to humans, it means an "average" 150 lb/68 kg human would have to ingest over 680,000 mg of aspartame to reach LD50 levels. From what I can find, Diet Coke has 187 mg of aspartame per 12-ounce serving, so that would equate to an acute dosage of just over 3,636 cans of Diet Coke.
News flash - if you somehow manage to ingest an acute dose of 3,636 cans of Diet Coke, you've got many other issues to deal with which will far supersede the dangers of the aspartame.
Just for fun here is the MSDS for sucrose (ie table sugar). http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927285. It actually has a listed LD50 for acute oral toxicity. 29,700 mg/kg in rats.2 -
Gee, it sure seems as if there are a lot of accounts that espouse the food industry's POV, verbatim.22
-
There's a word for that. It's sandwiched in the dictionary, right in between the two words that surround the word "addiction".run2brazil wrote: »
Severity: I've run half marathons with her and she seeks out diet soda at the finish line instead of water.
11 -
-
There's a word for that. It's sandwiched in the dictionary, right in between the two words that surround the word "addiction".run2brazil wrote: »
Severity: I've run half marathons with her and she seeks out diet soda at the finish line instead of water.
Right. "I'm thirsty. Think I'd like a soda." = addiction.9 -
Gee, it sure seems as if there are a lot of accounts that espouse the food industry's POV, verbatim.
I notice an equal or greater number of accounts that ignore science and promote unsubstantiated fearmongering and woo.
Did you even read through the thread? Much of what has been said by the sensible people here is backed up by science, with plenty of source links posted.8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
Hmm, apparently I can't. But here is a link to it, you just have to click so sorry for that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t2-ehp0114-000379/
If you look on the far left that is the dose of aspartame (abbreviated APM) given in parenthesis in terms of mg/kg bw (bw is bodyweight).
So you have basically (5,2.5,0.5, 0.1, 0.02, 0.004 and zero g/kg as dose groups.)
Then, if you look over, there is the number of animals that developed tumors by dose group. The percentages in decending order of dose were 43%,38%,34%,40%,32%,29% and 35%.
What that means is that in their own experiment 35% of the rats that received zero aspartame developed cancer. That number went as high as 43% in the highest aspartame dosed group however the percent incidence didn't really follow along with the dose. In otherwords note that dosed at 0.5g/kg/day (equivalent of 320 sodas a day) the tumor incidents was actually lower at 34% than the undosed control at 35%.
Now that isn't because there is an actual significant difference, there is of course some error associated with any experiment. There claim is the difference between 35% in the undosed control and 43% at the highest dose is significant. But if that is significant it is interesting that 0.5g/kg of aspartame gives 34% but less aspartame at 0.1g/kg gives 40%.
Basically my feeling is with their sample size there was probably a random variation of something like 10% between their samples and they are hovering around the number you would expect for spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague Dawley rats that is well documented.
If you look more at the paper you might notice the table linked is for the male rats and the next table is the female rats which have a higher incidence. Here is the female rat table if you are curious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t3-ehp0114-000379/
There is a good reason to split the data by male and female as in the literature it has been noted that female Sprague Dawley rats have a higher tumour incident rate (around 57%) than males (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194).
Ah yes, that's the one I mentioned. Notice how the lowest dose of aspartame they gave the rats was equivalent of 2 cans of diet soda every day for their adult life and had a tumor reduction of 6% compared to the control group!
I mean even if you take the Sofritti study completely at face value and focused only on comparing the highest dose with the no dose control and then accepted that the difference in their groups was significant what it is literally saying is that in this specific species of rat if that rat ingests the human-equivalent dose of 3,200 cans of soda per day worth of aspartame over their entire lifespan those rats incidence of cancer increases from 35% chance to 43% chance. And people choose to not only avoid drinking even a single can of soda because of this but also tell everyone around them how dangerous it is. It is honestly hard for me to take that seriously although I do try.
According to the MSDS sheet for aspartame, LD50 (the acute dose which would be lethal for 50% of the population) is 10,000 mg/kg (for mice). So even if that translated directly to humans, it means an "average" 150 lb/68 kg human would have to ingest over 680,000 mg of aspartame to reach LD50 levels. From what I can find, Diet Coke has 187 mg of aspartame per 12-ounce serving, so that would equate to an acute dosage of just over 3,636 cans of Diet Coke.
News flash - if you somehow manage to ingest an acute dose of 3,636 cans of Diet Coke, you've got many other issues to deal with which will far supersede the dangers of the aspartame.
3,636?
Damn, guess I’ll have to cut back.
3 -
Anecdotal. Broscience get's called out correctly. If it's REAL science, then let's see the refutations that support actual evidence against it.KirbySmith46 wrote: »
Lol, funny to hear someone say "broscience" and not really know how to apply it. Many of the people here can SITE peer reviewed clinical studies on this subject. That's much different than broscience.KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »I didn't mean for this to be a debate- I thought this community forum was meant to be supportive of one another. It's my first time writing on it, and likely my last. Thank you to those who understood and offered tips for her.
My opinion: I do believe that soda is bad for your health- please look closely at the nutrition facts. I'm surprised to see someone on this discussion comparing drinking too much soda to eating too much kale. Quite a bold comparison, leading me to think that we look at food and ingredients very differently. I've looked into the ingredients in diet soda and I am not sold on the fact that diet soda did not contribute to my aunts cancer this past year. If you drink it and it works for you, that's great. I just don't believe that calorie free and healthy are the same thing. Sorry to cause so many disagreements in my post when I was just asking for health tips.
Yeah this is the wrong place to get support. You ask a simple question and down the worm hole you go. Bunch of bro science here anyway. Not exactly where I would be going for advice. Best of luck to you.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You serious Clark? I’ve seen plenty of bad “science” on these forums!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
Science is a nothing more than what humans use to study the world that is. It has no point of view or agenda.stevencloser wrote: »
10 -
Science is a nothing more than what humans use to study the world that is. It has no point of view or agenda.stevencloser wrote: »
Then why do you insist that those who are basing their beliefs upon science have an agenda?7 -
So let me get this straight..........................scientist's who look for a cure for cancer (or any diseases for that matter) have no point of view or agenda?Science is a nothing more than what humans use to study the world that is. It has no point of view or agenda.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions