Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
You're my hero. Do vaccinations and GMOs next!1
-
You're my hero. Do vaccinations and GMOs next!
Oh doooon't get me started. I work at a non-profit infectious disease research institute that focuses on vaccine and drug development for the treatment of diseases of the developing world. I will flip my *kitten* with anti-vaccers. People who think aspartame is toxic I can at least get non-emotional with because I don't see it as actually leading to death. I mean if they avoid soda because of that no skin off my back really right, at worst I just feel they are being a bit silly.
Anti-GMO rubs me the wrong way for the same reason as the anti-vaccers, they blithely attack something that has become a pillar of our civilization because they don't understand it or think its scary somehow.
Also the aspartame thing has direct relevance to many of the posts I see on this forum. Vaccnines and GMOs are an issue for somewhere else I feel, would be out of place on a diet forum.1 -
Great post! :drinker:
tagging to read the responses later.0 -
Strong confirmation biasUnfortunately, it's bad science to cherry-pick data. Few studies meet everyone's gold-standard. No study is perfect, and anyone can choose to invalidate any study at any time by pointing out its failings. Which leaves us with the question "which studies do you trust"? And Monsanto/Searle/NutraSweet has a lot of money to throw into a huge number of studies by different organizations to create an illusion of safety.
I know this-- my own appetite is better controlled when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. I don't have tendinitis flare-ups when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. My blood sugars are better when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am (I have read studies that indicate that aspartame triggers a sugar release from the liver in some people).
So, will I consume aspartame? No. I get much better results using stevia to sweeten those few things that I consume which I want sweeter. I believe the science that is out there supports my personal observations in my own life, and the lives of others I am familiar with. I just trust the science more that shows aspartame to be bad for the body. Whether it's toxic or carcinogenic or mutagenic or whatever....
Quite right. It's pretty human to seek out information that supports their own convictions. One has to consciously avoid doing it.0 -
OMG this post is amazing
I love my diet coke, to be honest. I have tried not drinking it, but hell.... why spend my life worrying about something that may give me cancer?? I love you so much for making me feel less guilty about enjoying this simple life pleasure 0 -
Strong confirmation biasUnfortunately, it's bad science to cherry-pick data. Few studies meet everyone's gold-standard. No study is perfect, and anyone can choose to invalidate any study at any time by pointing out its failings. Which leaves us with the question "which studies do you trust"? And Monsanto/Searle/NutraSweet has a lot of money to throw into a huge number of studies by different organizations to create an illusion of safety.
I know this-- my own appetite is better controlled when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. I don't have tendinitis flare-ups when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. My blood sugars are better when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am (I have read studies that indicate that aspartame triggers a sugar release from the liver in some people).
So, will I consume aspartame? No. I get much better results using stevia to sweeten those few things that I consume which I want sweeter. I believe the science that is out there supports my personal observations in my own life, and the lives of others I am familiar with. I just trust the science more that shows aspartame to be bad for the body. Whether it's toxic or carcinogenic or mutagenic or whatever....
Quite right. It's pretty human to seek out information that supports their own convictions. One has to consciously avoid doing it.
Exactly right, we are all biased to some degree and it can be difficult to recognize those biases. I feel though that at the point where you recognize that you have a bias it is your responsibility to ensure that you work hard to work against that. But if when you recognize you have a bias your response is instead to proclaim it with pride and wear it as a badge of honor then something is wrong.0 -
Yes, I believe in vaccines. I am not refuting your "science" or the lack of research that says aspartame is bad (or good). I was sharing my personal beliefs about what I choose to eat and why.
Nobody on MFP can ever win an argument based on "scientific research" because people pick and choose which studies they cite as evidence to support their position. I'm not interested in doing that.
I'm just choosing to avoid as many highly processed foods as possible. Whole foods may be minimally processed, but they are not as processed as a can of diet Pepsi....and they taste better.0 -
I love this! It's rational, factual and not a bad read even for a dumb dumb like me
.
I believe it's incredibly important for those with knowledge to try to prevent the spread of misinformation. Sure, some will plug their fingers in their ears and just keep on trucking. However, a lot of people just need some science to help sort out what they heard because someone posted some stupid meme on their facebook wall...
OP, you must be exhausted, but thank you 0 -
Yes, I believe in vaccines. I am not refuting your "science" or the lack of research that says aspartame is bad (or good). I was sharing my personal beliefs about what I choose to eat and why.
Nobody on MFP can ever win an argument based on "scientific research" because people pick and choose which studies they cite as evidence to support their position. I'm not interested in doing that.
I'm just choosing to avoid as many highly processed foods as possible. Whole foods may be minimally processed, but they are not as processed as a can of diet Pepsi....and they taste better.
I don't really see what saying *I believe it because I believe it* really adds to the narrative or our understanding of the very real and tangible processes underpinning our biology.
To me the only thing artificial here is the artificial line some draw between "processed" or "natural" food as if there is substative meaning to be derived from that rather arbitrary and semantic distinction.
There are "processed" things that unequivocally improve our health and standard of living and there are *natural* things that will outright kill you. We are not served by trying to pigeonhole a complex issue into some sort of makeshift black and white choice.
I mean can you define in a measurable or quatifiable way what distinguishes a "natural" food from a "procesed" food? Can you name a single item in the grocery store that has not undergone "processing" in human hands?2 -
So I will bite because I am admittedly curious as to what the response is.
How is a bananna or an apple or rice or an almond or basically anything you can name from the grocery store less "processed" than a can of soda. Is it because the can of soda is in an aluminum can because I'll grant you that, although I guess almonds can also come in aluminum cans.
I mean what criteria are you using here to define what constitutes "processed". Human intervention? Amount of time of human intervention? Number of separate ingredients? What constitutes a "separate ingredient" in a meaningful way? Chemicals? What is the difference between a "natural" chemical and a "processed" chemical? I get the feeling that when I think chemical and when you think chemical we are picturing two completely different concepts.
If we selectively bred cows for millennium to lactate aspartame-milk do you think the future whole-foods crowd would lap it up as nutritious because now its "natural"? Can you think of any "whole food" you'd find in the grocery store today that hasn't undergone millennium of selective breeding?
I just feel that if you really sit down and think about it its pretty clear what an arbitrary distinction you are making between "natural" and "artificial" when you pick something up from a grocery store.0 -
Aspartame, especially in diet sodas, can have some side effects. I get mouth sores any time I drink a diet soda. A friend of mine gets raging headaches when she drinks anything, including tea or coffee,with aspartame.0
-
Aspartame, especially in diet sodas, can have some side effects. I get mouth sores any time I drink a diet soda. A friend of mine gets raging headaches when she drinks anything, including tea or coffee,with aspartame.
I am sorry you get mouth sores and your friend gets headaches but honestly there is a very good reason why the scientific community does not consider personal anecdote as evidence.1 -
Aspartame makes me fart :blushing:0
-
bumping for later reading0
-
Aspartame makes me fart :blushing:
Delicious drinks + a renewable source of energy for methane-based lanterns. Sounds win win to me.3 -
:laugh:Aspartame makes me fart :blushing:
Delicious drinks + a renewable source of energy for methane-based lanterns. Sounds win win to me.
Except I take that back. Aspartame doesn't bother me. Splenda makes me fart. I can have have a Diet Dr Pepper totally risk free :drinker:1 -
Aspartame Is Fecal Matter of Genetically Modified E. Coli bacteria. YUM1
-
Cheese is rotten milk.Aspartame Is Fecal Matter of Genetically Modified E. Coli bacteria. YUM4 -
Aspartame Is Fecal Matter of Genetically Modified E. Coli bacteria. YUM
If by "fecal matter" you mean export product then so is insulin.3 -
Alcohol is yeast poop.3
-
Vinegar is when you get e.coli drunk and they piss themselves.
This is kinda fun. I like making oversimplified anthropomorphized bullsh*t versions of actual processes.7 -
I see you all like your blue koolaid just keep drinking it... For the record cheese will not harbor harmful bacteria. Enjoy your Monsanto bacteria.1
-
The study you are refering to are two studies conducted by the same lab Soffritti et al 2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/ and Soffritti et al 2007 located here for the full article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/
The studies were conducted in rats, specifically Sprague-Dawley rats. This is a rather odd and questionable choice of model organism. Why it is questionable is that really Sprague-Dawley rats are the model organism of choice for studying cancer because they are outbred rats who are known to develop spontaneous tumors 45% of the time. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
Basically you pick Sprague Dawly rats if you want some rats that are going to develop tumors no matter what. The fact that this groups Sprague-Dawley rats developed tumors is therefore no suprise at all and doesn't mean a thing about what affect aspartame had on them.
So I have to ask why, if these researchers wanted to test if a particular compound was carcinogenic, would they EVER choose to test it in Sprague-Dawley rats...rats known for forming spontaneous tumors due to their genetics. Toxicology testing is routinely done in BALB/c or C57B/6 mice so the use of Sprague-Dawley rats is odd.
Also I have to point out that if aspartame made 40% of those who ingest it break out all over the place in tumors I think we would have noticed by now.
It is one flawed study amongst hundreds of studies that demonstrate no carcinogenic or toxic effects of aspartame and yet it is the one study cited over and over by articles talking about how "toxic" aspartame is. Frankly I doubt those people have ever read the study or know anything about Sprague-Dawley rats.
I understand your question, however the answer is rather simple. The reason a study uses a rat with a predisposition to a disease many times is to see if the substance INCREASES the incidence of the disease or affects the progression in any way. If you use "regular" rats, the incidence of disease is much much lower and the amount of animals necessary is orders of magnitude greater to get a reasonable number of occurrences. It becomes even further multiplied since in many studies you need to observe a similar number of cancers in non-dosed rats to have a statistically significant result. You do not want to pay for a study that would have to include the massive numbers of rats to get the required incidence of cancers in control group and test groups required, it isn't economically feasible. So a rat that gets cancer at a much higher rate is beneficial for this study, just as an Agouti gened mouse (that develops diabetes and over weight stature without methylation) is likely to be used in a study looking at a substance's effect in diabetes and increased BMI or gene methylation.
Those studies DO show that APM/aspartame causes a significant, dose-related increased incidence of cancer.
However, does that mean aspartame is toxic sludge? The truth is somewhere in the middle as always. No its not as bad as the demonizers say, but its also not as innocent as the other extreme (like your opinion seems to be) make it out to be. The fact is, it very likely increases incidence of cancer, but the dose at which it does this is unknown, and you are unlikely to receive the same doseage. However, since your body is fighting cancerous cells ALL THE TIME, and the battle can be tipped one way or another, their IS likely a small percent chance using this substance even at a smaller amount will increase the likelihood of throwing your body over the edge from containment and elimination into growth and spreading of cancerous cells. Probably a small chance, weight your risks accordingly. Even taking international flights may increase your chance of cancer similarly, so the question is, what is it worth to you? I'd suggest to weight your risk, not pretend there is no risk or pretend it will kill you if you eat it a few times. But that's up to you.
For me, foods with aspartame taste crappy and the risk is not worth it at all, even without any additional small risks. I definitely avoid any food with it.1 -
I see you all like your blue koolaid just keep drinking it... For the record cheese will not harbor harmful bacteria. Enjoy your Monsanto bacteria.
I think you missed the joke and skipped merrily past into crazy-town.3 -
The study you are refering to are two studies conducted by the same lab Soffritti et al 2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/ and Soffritti et al 2007 located here for the full article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/
The studies were conducted in rats, specifically Sprague-Dawley rats. This is a rather odd and questionable choice of model organism. Why it is questionable is that really Sprague-Dawley rats are the model organism of choice for studying cancer because they are outbred rats who are known to develop spontaneous tumors 45% of the time. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
Basically you pick Sprague Dawly rats if you want some rats that are going to develop tumors no matter what. The fact that this groups Sprague-Dawley rats developed tumors is therefore no suprise at all and doesn't mean a thing about what affect aspartame had on them.
So I have to ask why, if these researchers wanted to test if a particular compound was carcinogenic, would they EVER choose to test it in Sprague-Dawley rats...rats known for forming spontaneous tumors due to their genetics. Toxicology testing is routinely done in BALB/c or C57B/6 mice so the use of Sprague-Dawley rats is odd.
Also I have to point out that if aspartame made 40% of those who ingest it break out all over the place in tumors I think we would have noticed by now.
It is one flawed study amongst hundreds of studies that demonstrate no carcinogenic or toxic effects of aspartame and yet it is the one study cited over and over by articles talking about how "toxic" aspartame is. Frankly I doubt those people have ever read the study or know anything about Sprague-Dawley rats.
I understand your question, however the answer is rather simple. The reason a study uses a rat with a predisposition to a disease many times is to see if the substance INCREASES the incidence of the disease or affects the progression in any way. If you use "regular" rats, the incidence of disease is much much lower and the amount of animals necessary is orders of magnitude greater to get a reasonable number of occurrences. It becomes even further multiplied since in many studies you need to observe a similar number of cancers in non-dosed rats to have a statistically significant result. You do not want to pay for a study that would have to include the massive numbers of rats to get the required incidence of cancers in control group and test groups required, it isn't economically feasible. So a rat that gets cancer at a much higher rate is beneficial for this study, just as an Agouti gened mouse (that develops diabetes and over weight stature without methylation) is likely to be used in a study looking at a substance's effect in diabetes and increased BMI or gene methylation.
Those studies DO show that APM/aspartame causes a significant, dose-related increased incidence of cancer.
However, does that mean aspartame is toxic sludge? The truth is somewhere in the middle as always. No its not as bad as the demonizers say, but its also not as innocent as the other extreme (like your opinion seems to be) make it out to be. The fact is, it very likely increases incidence of cancer, but the dose at which it does this is unknown, and you are unlikely to receive the same doseage. However, since your body is fighting cancerous cells ALL THE TIME, and the battle can be tipped one way or another, their IS likely a small percent chance using this substance even at a smaller amount will increase the likelihood of throwing your body over the edge from containment and elimination into growth and spreading of cancerous cells. Probably a small chance, weight your risks accordingly. Even taking international flights may increase your chance of cancer similarly, so the question is, what is it worth to you? I'd suggest to weight your risk, not pretend there is no risk or pretend it will kill you if you eat it a few times. But that's up to you.
For me, foods with aspartame taste crappy and the risk is not worth it at all, even without any additional small risks. I definitely avoid any food with it.
I think you make a valid point about the SD rats, the same point made by richardheath. I do not however recognize the significance of the effect as published in the paper because they fail to demonstrate a dose depenent effect despite testing a very wide concentration and dosage range.
Can you explain why you feel the demonstrated a significant response given the wide ranging and non-dose dependent values the measured?1 -
I avoid aspartame for the following reasons:
1. It tastes absolutely disgusting.
2. It leaves that nasty fake-sweetener aftertaste.
3. Bloat and other stomach problems that really don't require public airing
4. Migraine trigger
Now, I am fully aware that my reasons for avoiding artificial sweeteners rely on a study with a fairly small sample...you know...just me; however, while this may not qualify as clinically significant, I find it enough to satisfy me, and thus, I avoid it. And I know...it's anecdotal, but if something makes me feel that poorly, I just don't need science to tell me it is okay for me to consume. I listen to my body. And because it makes me that ill, I don't allow my child to consume it either.
What I fail to understand is why people are being so unkind to those who disagree with the OP, even after he invited them (or us I suppose) to join the discussion.
In reality folks, I think we all know that better than sugar or aspartame, is simply to avoid added sweeteners at all. For example, studies have suggested that those who consume diet soda are at a higher risk for weight gain and obesity than those who consume no soda. So, no soda is better than soda, diet or otherwise. Other studies have suggested that artificial sweeteners lead to metabolic disruptions. My sources, like university studies and respected medical organizations, lead me to believe that evidence is inconclusive at best.
My conclusions: it's bad for me because it makes me sick (I can't speak for everyone in that regard), but undoubtedly, water is better for all of us.0 -
I avoid aspartame for the following reasons:
1. It tastes absolutely disgusting.
2. It leaves that nasty fake-sweetener aftertaste.
3. Bloat and other stomach problems that really don't require public airing
4. Migraine trigger
Now, I am fully aware that my reasons for avoiding artificial sweeteners rely on a study with a fairly small sample...you know...just me; however, while this may not qualify as clinically significant, I find it enough to satisfy me, and thus, I avoid it. And I know...it's anecdotal, but if something makes me feel that poorly, I just don't need science to tell me it is okay for me to consume. I listen to my body. And because it makes me that ill, I don't allow my child to consume it either.
What I fail to understand is why people are being so unkind to those who disagree with the OP, even after he invited them (or us I suppose) to join the discussion.
In reality folks, I think we all know that better than sugar or aspartame, is simply to avoid added sweeteners at all. For example, studies have suggested that those who consume diet soda are at a higher risk for weight gain and obesity than those who consume no soda. So, no soda is better than soda, diet or otherwise. Other studies have suggested that artificial sweeteners lead to metabolic disruptions. My sources, like university studies and respected medical organizations, lead me to believe that evidence is inconclusive at best.
My conclusions: it's bad for me because it makes me sick (I can't speak for everyone in that regard), but undoubtedly, water is better for all of us.
Have you read those studies directly yourself or did you read an news story or blog about them. Can you cite them please? Its not good to try to claim authority via rigorous studies without providing your audience the opportunity to read review and evaluate your source material.
The rest is subjective so no comment there.2 -
Ok so after all of that, I still do not want to ingest anything with Aspartame in it. Interesting read though, thanks for sharing your opinion.0
-
Aspartame doesn't scare me.. but some people swear that it affects them negatively so I can understand why they may avoid it. However, drinking a can of diet dr. pepper keeps me from going for a high calorie dessert -- so I shall keep it until I get some better evidence of it being 'toxic.'2
-
Aspartame doesn't scare me.. but some people swear that it affects them negatively so I can understand why they may avoid it. However, drinking a can of diet dr. pepper keeps me from going for a high calorie dessert -- so I shall keep it until I get some better evidence of it being 'toxic.'
In case I haven't been clear this is how I feel to.
I am not trying to convince people who suffer ill effects when they drink a diet soda to drink diet soda anymore than a doctor would encourage a patient with leg pain to move their leg. If it causes you issues then avoid it.
My point is simply that ones personal experience or heresay of the experience of others is not a legitimate reason to label something a general "toxin" especially when the symptoms are something as nebulous and hard to pin down as a headache.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions