Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

RodaRose

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.

Exactly.

thingest

That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before! The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon. We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.

I take it you don't see the irony of using a computer that couldn't be built using craftsmanship alone to post this on a website which seeks to help people make food choices based on a scientific understanding of nutrition rather than intuition and personal observation.

ETA : and, for the record, we're still very far from "explaining" gravity.

Of course not! I love my computer, a pretty advanced piece of technology, and love science which helps me understand the world and the universe. I just don't fall (or rather, try not to) in these traps sustained in the name of science. In the particular case of artificial sweeteners and aspartame, I am wary of names such as Monsanto or Ajinomoto behind them.

BTW, despite that only craftsmanship was available at that time, this didn't stop Charles Babbage from making his Analytical Engine (thus establishing the foundations of programmable computers) one hundred years before Konrad Zuse created the first electro-mechanical programmable computer!

Okay. So what was the "trap" in my original post. What did I get wrong? What did I omit? What specific non-vague reason do we have to fear specifically the molecule aspartame?

There is no "trap" in your noble attempt to give another scientific explanation of the safety of aspartame in your post. But there is a flaw in it! I explained in my first reply.

..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!

Also, I wrote an article about it with further details:
http://www.thingest.org/can-current-science-assess-the-safety-of-artificial-sweeteners/

Regulatory agencies are flooded with complaints related to aspartame alone. All of them are quickly disqualified with different reasons, most of the time with a simple "lack of evidence or data". No a single one has been properly explained scientifically yet we are asked to believe that current science is fully qualified to rule aspartame safety! They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!

paygep

I don't see why this thread should be pinned to the top of the board.

SideSteel

I don't see why this thread should be pinned to the top of the board.

Because it has good information.

SDkitty

Very rarely do I read every page of a thread so kudos to all with the knowledge that kept me going :flowerforyou:

I have nothing smart to add, simply want this to stay in my topics LOL

snikkins

The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.

As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.

Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.

stevencloser

They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!

Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.

mccindy72

The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.

As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.

Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.

Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.

stevencloser

The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.

As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.

Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.

Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.

And the company that was responsible for making most of the arms for nazi Germany now makes elevators and escalators. Things change after time.

mccindy72

The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.

As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.

Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.

Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.

And the company that was responsible for making most of the arms for nazi Germany now makes elevators and escalators. Things change after time.

Hm. Nazi Germany was 60 years ago. Monsanto is alive and well and still operating the same way they always have.

thingest

The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.

As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.

Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.

Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.

And the company that was responsible for making most of the arms for nazi Germany now makes elevators and escalators. Things change after time.

Hm. Nazi Germany was 60 years ago. Monsanto is alive and well and still operating the same way they always have.

Besides, I don't see people ingesting elevators and escalators. Big difference!

thingest

The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.

Balance. Balance and common sense is the key!

Too much science and we end up with Gattaca-like (or perhaps Equilibrium-like) dystopian societies.
Too much emotions and instincts and we are back to the dark ages, burning witches at the stake with the Inquisition.

thingest

They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!

Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.

What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!

andreavarangu

bump

gypsyrose64

I must confess to scanning through the thread rather quickly, so forgive me if it was mentioned.
My question refers to artificial sweeteners under high heat.

It seems I read 'somewhere' that heat does something to sweeteners making them react differently with the body and possibly making them toxic when they were not in their original packaged state. When I cook with aspartame, it seemed to yield a bitter taste to me, so I switched to cooking with splenda and happier with the end results.

Does cooking with them change the end result of their structure or digestibility?

Just curious.

Aaron_K123

I must confess to scanning through the thread rather quickly, so forgive me if it was mentioned.
My question refers to artificial sweeteners under high heat.

It seems I read 'somewhere' that heat does something to sweeteners making them react differently with the body and possibly making them toxic when they were not in their original packaged state. When I cook with aspartame, it seemed to yield a bitter taste to me, so I switched to cooking with splenda and happier with the end results.

Does cooking with them change the end result of their structure or digestibility?

Just curious.

Aspartame is a dipeptide, essentially protein. If heating it caused toxicity we would expect heating meat or any protein to alsi yield a toxic product as aspartyl-phenylalanine is going to be un any protein source. I am therefore doubtful that heating aspartame would yield a toxic product.

When it comes down to it aspartame is just a methylated dipeptide that binds to taste receptors that register sweetness. As a macro it is protein.

stevencloser

They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!

Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.

What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!

I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.

Branstin

They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!

Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.

What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!

The same could be applied to every food on the market and environmental factors such as the sun and grass.

richardheath

The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.

As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.

Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.

Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.

The protective gear thing is an issue of dose and context. Working with gallons of concentrated product is not the same as ingesting residual amounts. Spending days spraying with aerosol-ized product is not the same as ingesting trace amounts on a piece of fruit occasionally.

FunkyTobias

They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!

Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.

What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!

That's not Occam's razor, that's the post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy.