Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

MBrothers22

Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--

Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.

Pascals wager works for the "aspartame is bad" crowd.

"It doesn't hurt to NOT consume aspartame so why would you?"

It's used a lot when debating the existencr of a god too, but I won't go into that

Aaron_K123

Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--

Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.

Pascals wager works for the "aspartame is bad" crowd.

"It doesn't hurt to NOT consume aspartame so why would you?"

It's used a lot when debating the existencr of a god too, but I won't go into that

Yeah but Pascals wager has become an example of a bad argument. People tend to bring it up to show the flaw in an argument not to say why it is a good argument.

Slacker16

How did I miss this thread?
I don't do friend requests but am tempted to send the OP my first one ever.

I know nothing of chemistry (bio or otherwise), but this is within my area of expertise:

In Pascal's actual Wager a rational person wouldn't take the risk.... of not believing in God if (A) God exists and (B) not believing in him results in going to hell.

There are two non-fallacious readings of Pascal's wager (that I know of), and neither applies here.

The first reading is that, given choices A and B of which A has no known possible negative outcomes but a possible positive one (even if remote to the point of p=0) and B has no known positive outcomes but a possible negative one, a rational man would choose A.

This doesn't apply since avoiding artificial sweeteners does have a known negative outcome: every time you want something sweet in your gullet, you have to pay calories for it.

The second reading is that, if choice A has an infinitely positive outcome of non-zero probability or choice B has an infinitely negative outcome of non-zero probability (or both), then a rational man would pick A regardless of any other finitely positive or negatice outcomes.

This doesn't apply since avoiding artificial sweeteners won't make you immortal and (as illustrated in the first post) the chance of dying from diet soda is equal to that of dying from water.

thingest

This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.

Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.

Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!

So the real question would be:

"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"

Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?

Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.

richardheath

This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.

Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.

Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!

So the real question would be:

"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"

Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?

Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.

So, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?

Thing is, science isn't simply the best tool we have for understanding the world around us (including our own bodies), it is the ONLY tool we have for doing so. And while we probably never will know everything there is to know, and sometimes get led a little astray, science does at least tend to head us in that direction. Read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Aaron_K123

This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.

Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.

Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!

So the real question would be:

"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"

Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?

Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.

So, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?

Thing is, science isn't simply the best tool we have for understanding the world around us (including our own bodies), it is the ONLY tool we have for doing so. And while we probably never will know everything there is to know, and sometimes get led a little astray, science does at least tend to head us in that direction. Read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

This. If you actually waited until we could scientifically "prove" that something is safe for consumption before you ingested it then you would die of starvation.

Science doesn't "prove" anything, proof is the domain of mathematics alone. Science is used to disprove things and by eliminating possibilities arrive at the most plausible explanation based on models.

There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.

The idea that science ever proves things is a misunderstanding of what science is.

richardheath

I was wondering about how artificial sweetener work. I'm guessing since it breaks down exactly like any food breaks down while being digested that the the reason one does not gain weight by consuming it (assuming they would gain weight from the alternative sweetener by over consuming, thus the industry making diet drinks for the new demand) would be because in this new molecular composition it tastes sweeter thus it is required to use much less of it than the alternative sweetener so not as many calories, thus not the cover consumption, thus not the weight gain? I've read some articles about artificial sweeteners (but don't even remember which ones) that seem to talk more about insulin issues than cancer or toxicity. I find this all very interesting and appreciate the conversation.

The reason diet soda is "diet" even though aspartame breaks down like anything else is because aspartame is about 700 times sweeter than sugar so you need 700 times less of it. It isn't that aspartame has zero calories it is that so little aspartame is used to sweeten a drink that its number of calories is negligible.

As I broke down in my post 180mg of aspartame is by weight about 162mg protein by weight. We know that protein is about 4 calories per gram so that means the aspartame in the soda is about 0.7 calories. That is so low they just call it zero. Actually I think with the aspartame is some carbs to bulk it when they add it so I think I've heard a can of diet soda actually has about 3 or 4 calories but that is low enough that they can call it zero.

I haven't really seen anything to support the idea that aspartame triggers insulin production. The assumption seems to be that because it tastes sweet our bodies would produce insulin but I am not sure that is actually true and not just based on "common sense" associated with how insulin is related to sugar and sugar tastes sweet and aspartame tastes sweet therefore...

I am not saying aspartame does not cause insulin production because I honestly don't know, I haven't seen anything to suggest that is true and I am skeptical since protein doesn't cause insulin production and aspartame is protein.

Protein is insulinogenic, possibly more so than carbohydrates. See here for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060863

This isn't to say aspartame is insulinogenic. I would doubt it, just because the amounts ingested are so low compared to a high protein meal.

Aaron_K123

I was wondering about how artificial sweetener work. I'm guessing since it breaks down exactly like any food breaks down while being digested that the the reason one does not gain weight by consuming it (assuming they would gain weight from the alternative sweetener by over consuming, thus the industry making diet drinks for the new demand) would be because in this new molecular composition it tastes sweeter thus it is required to use much less of it than the alternative sweetener so not as many calories, thus not the cover consumption, thus not the weight gain? I've read some articles about artificial sweeteners (but don't even remember which ones) that seem to talk more about insulin issues than cancer or toxicity. I find this all very interesting and appreciate the conversation.

The reason diet soda is "diet" even though aspartame breaks down like anything else is because aspartame is about 700 times sweeter than sugar so you need 700 times less of it. It isn't that aspartame has zero calories it is that so little aspartame is used to sweeten a drink that its number of calories is negligible.

As I broke down in my post 180mg of aspartame is by weight about 162mg protein by weight. We know that protein is about 4 calories per gram so that means the aspartame in the soda is about 0.7 calories. That is so low they just call it zero. Actually I think with the aspartame is some carbs to bulk it when they add it so I think I've heard a can of diet soda actually has about 3 or 4 calories but that is low enough that they can call it zero.

I haven't really seen anything to support the idea that aspartame triggers insulin production. The assumption seems to be that because it tastes sweet our bodies would produce insulin but I am not sure that is actually true and not just based on "common sense" associated with how insulin is related to sugar and sugar tastes sweet and aspartame tastes sweet therefore...

I am not saying aspartame does not cause insulin production because I honestly don't know, I haven't seen anything to suggest that is true and I am skeptical since protein doesn't cause insulin production and aspartame is protein.

Protein is insulinogenic, possibly more so than carbohydrates. See here for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060863

This isn't to say aspartame is insulinogenic. I would doubt it, just because the amounts ingested are so low compared to a high protein meal.

Huh, was unaware...thanks.

purple44444

This thread is very informative! I drink diet dr pepper and have had success losing weight as long as I keep within my calories.

warrio1010

I didn't read the whole thread, sorry.

Most articles that I have read state that with 'moderate' consumption there is no problem. Are there any recommended upper limits ? I can easily drink 2 litres of pepsi max a day, too much?

Secondly I've read that diet soda can cause dental problems (maybe nothing to do with aspartame), is this substantiated?

Thanks and again, sorry if this stuff has been covered (I only skimmed the OP).

Lilenatalem

The only thing I have to add to this very very VERY long thread is.

I don't care if someone fear mongers me and tells me its going to kill me, or someone tells me it's "okay" to eat.

ITS NOT REAL FOOD. Don't eat it. Period.

End of story.

EAT REAL FOOD. All zero calorie sweeteners are not good for us, it sends mixed messages to our brains that we are eating sugar... but there are no calories. Just eat real food.

If you want a soda, drink a freaken soda. Just don't drink one everyday.

EVERYTHING in moderation.

Just eat REAL food.

Also.. come on people.. stop drinking soda. Like really you wanna lose weight, DRINK WATER. And lots of it. STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.

warrio1010

The only thing I have to add to this very very VERY long thread is.

I don't care if someone fear mongers me and tells me its going to kill me, or someone tells me it's "okay" to eat.

ITS NOT REAL FOOD. Don't eat it. Period.

End of story.

EAT REAL FOOD. All zero calorie sweeteners are not good for us, it sends mixed messages to our brains that we are eating sugar... but there are no calories. Just eat real food.

If you want a soda, drink a freaken soda. Just don't drink one everyday.

EVERYTHING in moderation.

Just eat REAL food.

Also.. come on people.. stop drinking soda. Like really you wanna lose weight, DRINK WATER. And lots of it. STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.

Just LOL

Branstin

Secondly I've read that diet soda can cause dental problems (maybe nothing to do with aspartame), is this substantiated?

Not taking care of dental hygiene causing dental problems, nothing to do with aspartame.

Branstin

STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.

Based on what?

starrylioness

I don't drink calories so I always have diet Dr Pepper...and while I don't drink them daily, I've always figured there's worse out there for me than a diet soda occasionally! Great informative read! Thank you!

kelly_e_montana

I have a condition called Interstitial Cystitis. Feels like a bladder infection where there is none. It is triggered by aspartame in many patients. My doctors told me to avoid it and I have been symptom-free ever since. However, if I drink any beverage containing it, I immediately have an acute attack.

Eliminating aspartame is usually one of the first steps in treating IC.

kelly_e_montana

I got your point. I drank 6+ Diet Cokes per day for about 20 years. I then developed IC. When I eliminated aspartame, it went away. I didn't change anything else about my diet. For me, I feel like I developed a sensitivity to aspartame over time that negatively impacted my life, impacting my ability to exercise, work, etc. Enjoy it until your body says "NO!" I really don't know why such a food sensitivity would develop, but I'm not a chemist either. If the OP could shed any light on this, I'd be happy to listen :flowerforyou:

ScaryMaryOne

Thank you so much for this post. I am SO TIRED of people scaring other people to death with unfounded statements about aspartame. There is so much NOT-SCIENCE going on in our society that is directly correlated with whack-a-doo conspiracy theory. Such as the vaccine issue. Or climate change. Or evolution. People seem to think that it is valid to respond to scientific material that is supported by facts, double-blind studies and broad consensus in the scientific communities by saying things like , "Well, what you are saying doesn't fit with my experience, so you are wrong", or "I saw a study online that said blah-blah-blah" when the studies are simply a crock. So! Thanks again! Let's hear it for science!

ScaryMaryOne

You sound like you have no idea whatsoever how science goes about evaluating the safety of food products. If you did, you would NOT be saying, "can current science evaluate the safety of aspartame?" Instead, you would spend your time and energy on something worthwhile rather than wasting it on this silly conspiracy theory. Period.