Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
As a scientist actively working towards marine conservation and awareness, I refer you to my avatar. You don't help when you overblow and overstate. Climate change awareness has not been aided by the proliferation of fear mongering, it is a valuable and important field of research that is now ridiculed by a significant portion of society because good intentioned people make over-zealous claims that they can't actually substantiate. Climate Change Science is *slowly* fighting against the negative perceptions but it is difficult to undo the damage done.
Oh hey...the Abyss. Overlooked and underrated. Although looooooong.
Well......James Cameron.....long *kitten* movies, it's really sort of his thing after all. I've been obsessed with this movie since childhood, my nickname in high-school was Queen ***** of the Universe, but for some reason they wouldn't let me have it as the nickname on my Letterman's jacket. :grumble:
Okay there is long and then there is like 5 hours long.
ETA: alright I looked it up and its 2 hours and 50 minutes so I guess memory is exaggerating its length.0 -
As a scientist actively working towards marine conservation and awareness, I refer you to my avatar. You don't help when you overblow and overstate. Climate change awareness has not been aided by the proliferation of fear mongering, it is a valuable and important field of research that is now ridiculed by a significant portion of society because good intentioned people make over-zealous claims that they can't actually substantiate. Climate Change Science is *slowly* fighting against the negative perceptions but it is difficult to undo the damage done.
Oh hey...the Abyss. Overlooked and underrated. Although looooooong.
Well......James Cameron.....long *kitten* movies, it's really sort of his thing after all. I've been obsessed with this movie since childhood, my nickname in high-school was Queen ***** of the Universe, but for some reason they wouldn't let me have it as the nickname on my Letterman's jacket. :grumble:
Okay there is long and then there is like 5 hours long.
ETA: alright I looked it up and its 2 hours and 50 minutes so I guess memory is exaggerating its length.
LOL, as I make my marine bio students watch it every year, I understand completely what you mean, it does seem MUCH longer than what it says on the DVD case.0 -
I will admit at some point I just started skimming this thread, I'll go back and read it carefully later but this is my two cents. I have been a 200+ pound woman my whole adult life (15 1/2 years) and 300+ for the last 2 (finally have seen 299 and never going to 300 again so help me God.) I grew up with a major soda addiction ( I mean MAJOR) so bad that I probably was consuming 500+ calories in soda (I also was more active then but I digress) after a week at summer camp of semi healthing eating I went out to eat with some people I felt self conscious with. (fat people always tend to feel guilty that we still have to eat because some skinny people don't realize this) so I ordered a diet pepsi. It was amazing and I couldn't tell the difference, however real soda disgusted me from that point on. I can drink the clear real sodas if push comes to shove but real cola blech. I am human. I am flawed. I don't have the best discipline 24/7 but I am trying. I would rather give up chocolate for life than give up my 2 diet pepsis a day. Maybe the research is out on the affects of sweeteners and I wouldn't dare tell anyone they are good for you. But you know what else is bad? having a BMI of 50+. I dropped weight like nobody's business once I went off real sodas and I don't buy the myth that they make you hungry (carbonated beverages stretch the stomach and if drunk in excess and often sure, it will take more to satisfy a larger stomach but it isn't the sweetener's fault.) Yes I eventually gained that weight back but it was for entirely different reasons, some in my control, some out of it. I doubt anyone eats perfectly 100% all the time and we do the best we can. The dangers of aspartame and sucralose may be debatable but if anything they are harmful long term. My weight is harmful now. It is the only "sweet" substance I regularly indulge in and I am doing well with 25+ pounds off in a fairly short amount of time eating sensibly. It is a tool. I am sure if we broke everything we eat down there is something in our food that is just as bad. The only way to be completely sure we are eating pure is to either live on a farm or shop at specialty stores, neither of which I can afford. I don't even know if I want to eat pure really, which may sound horrible but my philosophy that has taken my whole life to learn is this: no weight loss plan will ever work if it isn't something I can sustain for life. Therefore I am going to enjoy this white bread, pizza, artificial sweetener world and learn to do so in moderation so that at least I am a normal weight used to eating normal portions. Once I have accomplished that I will worry about the next goal and habits to break. I am not having biological children so I don't have to worry about birth defects and I am more worried about being here for my adopted child's graduation so that is my focus. I don't judge those who don't agree with me. I have a niece who is natural this and natural that. I sometimes jokingly remind her that hemlock is natural and they used it for capital punishment in ancient Greece but if it works for you great. This is something that is working for me with no side affects. (getting off soap box now.)
1 -
bump0
-
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.
I implied no such thing with what I said. You merely inferred that and you still don't know whether I am or am not an expert.
By the way, I simply reflected back what she said about herself.
So I gave it a few days rest but this damn thing popped back up in the main threads......:grumble:
I am not an expert on epigenetics, I am however an expert on evolution and phylogenetics and can tell quite easily by the content of your posts your level of expertise. I objected to your statement that this could somehow cause damage to future generations however far down the line. This is not what epigenetics is about. You seem to be confusing actual changes in the genetic make up with changes in which the expressed phenotype is altered due to environmental conditions. The genotype itself is not changed and no genotypic change is passed on to future generations. If the genes of the individual are never exposed to the necessary conditions, the phenotype is never expressed. So even if it were found that aspartame somehow caused an epigenetic effect, stopping the use of aspartame would stop the issue immediately (within that generation) no inherent harm would be passed on.
MmHm--except that female babies are born with all the eggs they will ever have and, if those eggs are damaged, it WILL affect future generations. Famine is one of those situations and chemical exposure is another.
And there are billions of other possible things that can cause "damage", and yes if that damage occurs in the gametes as opposed to the somatic cells then offspring born with that "damage" will carry the "damage" in all of their own future somatic cells and pass it on in their own gametes. But see, that sort of damage is called mutation, and it's an important part of this process called Evolution via Natural Selection, because in point of fact, not all "damage" to the DNA is bad. Every once in a while it is actually quite good. And without any damage to DNA from things like radiation, and chemicals, and a whole bunch of other scary words, there would never be any change, and we would have never moved out of the primordial ooze. And that's still not epigenetics.
Well then, let's just pollute willy-nilly and hope for the best shall we? Who knows, maybe we will become a race of super-humans. And just think, all it took to raise life up out of the primordial ooze was damage to DNA! The only thing is, the overwhelming number of mutations are BAD. Since this is not a thread on evolution, I will quit there.
Before you talk in vague generalized terms about the dangers of polluting our environment or food supply you should first bother to establish that the topic at hand, aspartame, is a pollutant. I have yet to see you do anything other than to assert it is unnatural which of course doesn't automatically make it dangerous.
Speak in specifics. I think aspartame posses a risk to our health and/or environment because...
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit and walk away because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious. Every post of yours on this roll-over thread was directed towards either myself or a person, none to the topic.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
No I don't see a contradiction. I wanted to get it off my recent posts list at the time because at the time I was frustrated with it and wanted to give it a rest which is what I did, I took a break. In my original post on this thread stating this intention I said I was going to "take a break" and that is what I did. In my PM to you I said I was frustrated, not sure why people were making this about me and not the topic but stated numerous times that I was not mad nor did I feel like people such as yourself had insulted me. If you read "upset" into it then all I can do is <shurg> and say thats the issue with reading text instead of talking to a person directly and seeing their emotions.
On your first post on this thread you basically pointed a finger at me and laughed for my returning to the thread after saying I was taking a break. Since the thread had rolled and I hadn't posted on the rolled thread yet I figured rather than respond to you on the thread which would put it back on my list when I wanted to break from it I would instead PM you so I did. In that PM I asked you if you "thought that was funny" because your post implied you were laughing. In your response you said no you didn't think it was funny.
I was not upset, I asked a question...you answered a question. I agreed with you that I should walk away for a bit, and I walked away for a bit. You said you would never post on this thread again, I never said anything of the sort.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.
You are reading emotion where there wasn't emotion, I was not trying to make you feel bad...I asked you why you were niggling me on the thread because you were the one posting about me rather than about the topic. Flip back to the beginning of this rolled thread. Notice what everyone else is talking about? Notice what your posts are about? So yeah, I wrote you a PM and asked what you find funny and why you were niggling me rather than posting on the topic.
I still wonder that. I came back and what did I do when I came back. I resumed talking on the topic. You came back and what did you do...resume talking about me. When did I come back? When someone said something about the topic that I thought worth commenting on. When did you come back...when I came back.
What is your fascination with me exactly? Why are you here? Again, no anger...not upset...just curious at this point because its a bit odd. If you are hear because you find pestering me or others on this thread to be "amusing" then yes that is likely to annoy me because no one likes to be randomly pestered for no apparent reason for the amusement of another. If you are here to discuss the topic then discuss the topic I have no issue with that.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.
You are reading emotion where there wasn't emotion, I was not trying to make you feel bad...I asked you why you were niggling me on the thread because you were the one posting about me rather than about the topic. Flip back to the beginning of this rolled thread. Notice what everyone else is talking about? Notice what your posts are about? So yeah, I wrote you a PM and asked what you find funny and why you were niggling me rather than posting on the topic.
I still wonder that. I came back and what did I do when I came back. I resumed talking on the topic. You came back and what did you do...resume talking about me. When did I come back? When someone said something about the topic that I thought worth commenting on. When did you come back...when I came back.
What is your fascination with me exactly? Why are you here? Again, no anger...not upset...just curious at this point because its a bit odd. If you are hear because you find pestering me to be "amusing" then yes that is likely to annoy me because no one likes to be randomly pestered for no apparent reason for the amusement of another. If you are here to discuss the topic then discuss the topic I have no issue with that.
All of my posts were not about you personally, they just mostly disagreed with you. I didn't have a problem with you before...now, I really don't like you.*shrug* I guess we can't all get along. I doubt there will be any more PMs from you, but if there are, I will know not to respond again. Good day.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.
You are reading emotion where there wasn't emotion, I was not trying to make you feel bad...I asked you why you were niggling me on the thread because you were the one posting about me rather than about the topic. Flip back to the beginning of this rolled thread. Notice what everyone else is talking about? Notice what your posts are about? So yeah, I wrote you a PM and asked what you find funny and why you were niggling me rather than posting on the topic.
I still wonder that. I came back and what did I do when I came back. I resumed talking on the topic. You came back and what did you do...resume talking about me. When did I come back? When someone said something about the topic that I thought worth commenting on. When did you come back...when I came back.
What is your fascination with me exactly? Why are you here? Again, no anger...not upset...just curious at this point because its a bit odd. If you are hear because you find pestering me to be "amusing" then yes that is likely to annoy me because no one likes to be randomly pestered for no apparent reason for the amusement of another. If you are here to discuss the topic then discuss the topic I have no issue with that.
All of my posts were not about you personally, they just mostly disagreed with you. I didn't have a problem with you before...now, I really don't like you.*shrug* I guess we can't all get along. I doubt there will be any more PMs from you, but if there are, I will know not to respond again. Good day.
All of your posts on the rolled thread (which is what I said) were either about me personally or about someone else personally. You seemed to stick around in your own words for your "amusement" to poke fun at people which yeah I felt warranted a PM asking you why you were doing that. If you wish to leave and not discuss the topic that is fine. If you do not like me that is also fine. If you do not wish me to PM you I will not. I have no desire to follow you around. I have no feelings towards you whatsoever, upset or otherwise...I just don't know why you are here and so far the only answer you have given is "for your personal amusement"
About the topic?This is getting quite comical. I'm leaving...no wait, I'm back...no, I'm leaving again. I, for one am just going to continue to lurk and be amused.
About the topic?Didn't you read? No non-expert opinions allowed! You must have at least a PhD to play...
About the topic?You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? noway
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I'm going to go ahead and go back to discussing the topic now.0 -
And ginger is a COX-2 inhibitor (same action as manufactured drugs like Celebrex and Vioxx), and can also cause bleeding disorders. Products that have been around for much longer than a few decades and aren't synthetic can do the same things.There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?Perhaps you are right and aspartame is harmless (I said perhaps--I remain unconvinced). But, I still prefer to avoid the addition of synthetic chemicals to my food and I would suggest that others do the same. No one has the knowledge of how all of these various synthetic materials act in the long term and certainly not in combination.
Again, why is this limited to synthetic chemicals? Countless combinations of natural consumable substances have never been tested for long term safety. What about something like Chia seeds? It's a newer "fad" in the culinary world. Why shouldn't we be studying it to death before consuming any more of it? Where do we draw the line and decide something is safe enough or has been studied enough to no longer worry about it? You can fear-monger about ANYTHING, synthetic or not.0 -
Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
I love you, because epigenetics is a huge obsession of mine now, and because you're able to objectively take a look at aspartame, which most people are not able to do.
#allthelove1 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.
You are reading emotion where there wasn't emotion, I was not trying to make you feel bad...I asked you why you were niggling me on the thread because you were the one posting about me rather than about the topic. Flip back to the beginning of this rolled thread. Notice what everyone else is talking about? Notice what your posts are about? So yeah, I wrote you a PM and asked what you find funny and why you were niggling me rather than posting on the topic.
I still wonder that. I came back and what did I do when I came back. I resumed talking on the topic. You came back and what did you do...resume talking about me. When did I come back? When someone said something about the topic that I thought worth commenting on. When did you come back...when I came back.
What is your fascination with me exactly? Why are you here? Again, no anger...not upset...just curious at this point because its a bit odd. If you are hear because you find pestering me to be "amusing" then yes that is likely to annoy me because no one likes to be randomly pestered for no apparent reason for the amusement of another. If you are here to discuss the topic then discuss the topic I have no issue with that.
All of my posts were not about you personally, they just mostly disagreed with you. I didn't have a problem with you before...now, I really don't like you.*shrug* I guess we can't all get along. I doubt there will be any more PMs from you, but if there are, I will know not to respond again. Good day.
All of your posts on the rolled thread (which is what I said) were either about me personally or about someone else personally. You seemed to stick around in your own words for your "amusement" to poke fun at people which yeah I felt warranted a PM asking you why you were doing that. If you wish to leave and not discuss the topic that is fine. If you do not like me that is also fine. If you do not wish me to PM you I will not. I have no desire to follow you around. I have no feelings towards you whatsoever, upset or otherwise...I just don't know why you are here and so far the only answer you have given is "for your personal amusement"
About the topic?This is getting quite comical. I'm leaving...no wait, I'm back...no, I'm leaving again. I, for one am just going to continue to lurk and be amused.
About the topic?Didn't you read? No non-expert opinions allowed! You must have at least a PhD to play...
About the topic?You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? noway
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
LOLZ You were so worried about people thinking you're a jerk....
I wonder why they might think that??
ETA: And keep editing your posts after I respond to them...haha0 -
And ginger is a COX-2 inhibitor (same action as manufactured drugs like Celebrex and Vioxx), and can also cause bleeding disorders. Products that have been around for much longer than a few decades and aren't synthetic can do the same things.There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?Perhaps you are right and aspartame is harmless (I said perhaps--I remain unconvinced). But, I still prefer to avoid the addition of synthetic chemicals to my food and I would suggest that others do the same. No one has the knowledge of how all of these various synthetic materials act in the long term and certainly not in combination.
Again, why is this limited to synthetic chemicals? Countless combinations of natural consumable substances have never been tested for long term safety. What about something like Chia seeds? It's a newer "fad" in the culinary world. Why shouldn't we be studying it to death before consuming any more of it? Where do we draw the line and decide something is safe enough or has been studied enough to no longer worry about it? You can fear-monger about ANYTHING, synthetic or not.
Not to mention that aspirin is the natural product acetylsalicylic acid, its an extract from willow bark that is now synthesized. Its the same chemical structure so whether its an extract from willow bark or synthesized and mass produced it does the same thing. Bayer of coursed patented it under the name "Asprin" even though it is a natural product because there is nothing saying you cannot patent a natural product.0 -
Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
I love you, because epigenetics is a huge obsession of mine now, and because you're able to objectively take a look at aspartame, which most people are not able to do.
#allthelove
I don't think you understand what the bolded word means.1 -
OP you're my hero. ALso I highly recommend the Respectful Insolence blog by Orac for any like minded people. Its David Gorski's "other" blog. lots of lols. Also lots of science. I like science. Although my expertise lie in social work and military history.0
-
OMG! You high-brows have waaaaay too much time on your hands! Y'all need to chill yourselves out! Have a drink.....with or without aspartame......relax.....and let it go!0
-
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Actually no, he didn't agree with what you said at all. He was talking about BPA and Agouti mice and he explained that it didn't appear to extrapolate to humans. Instead, it acts as an endocrine disruptor by mimicking oestrogen.
I understand epigenetics pretty well, and in my opinion it is highly unlikely that aspartame would have a negative effect on the epigenome. Nobody can say 100%, but it's unlikely. Whether something occurs in nature, or not, makes little difference as far as epigenetics goes. In fact, even starvation can have an effect. If you are interested, read up about the Dutch Hunger Winter.
Anyway, I can't believe that this thread is still going1 -
I will say I have not read every single reply, but I do love the way this has been explained. My great grandmother will be 107 on August 6 and she has put Equal in her coffee every day for as long as I can remember. That in itself has been proof enough for me.
My grandmother ingested an incredible amount of saccharin in her day. She NEVER used real sugar in her coffee, and was always eating some awful prepackaged 'diet' food. She died at the age of 98 of natural causes.
Anecdotal, I know. But still.
0 -
I apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread, but it's a lot to jump into.
I don't know about you guys but I refuse to consume something that gives rats cancer. I'll stick to my birch xylitol and my stevia. Better to drink a tall glass of water than to drink a tall glass of diet coke, too. There isn't nearly as much aspartame in gum as there is in coke so I'll have a stick of gum every once in a while.1 -
I apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread, but it's a lot to jump into.
I don't know about you guys but I refuse to consume something that gives rats cancer. I'll stick to my birch xylitol and my stevia. Better to drink a tall glass of water than to drink a tall glass of diet coke, too. There isn't nearly as much aspartame in gum as there is in coke so I'll have a stick of gum every once in a while.
I can understand you not wanting to take the time to read the entire thread but that study has been addressed multiple times in this thread. They used Sprague-Dawly rats which are abline of rats that spontaneously form tumors. 35% of the control rats (the ones that did not recieve aspartame) developed tumors while 29% of the ones who recieved a relevant dosage of aspartame developed tumors. At a dosage equivalent to 2000 diet sodas a day for a lifetime 43% develooed tumors. They tried a large number of different dosages and the percent that developed tumors did not correlate to dosage (meaning a higher dosage did not necessarily mean higher tumor percentage).
I suggest you read the actual study rather than internet stories referencing the study. I linked to it within the thread. If that is your only reason for avoiding aspartame it should alleviate your concern.0 -
I would like to say several things. This is my first forum post on MFP and honestly, I was just bored this evening and decided to browse the threads. I read all of these messages, although not the ones from the previous thread. Here's my anecdote:
I'm in my 4th year of my Ph.D. studying conservation and ecology. Although I am an ecologist, I am much better read than most ecologists in molecular work.
Scientifically, I agree with those who say that aspartame, as far as science knows, is harmless.
Personally, fake sugars irritate my migraines. Included in my list of triggers are also: getting a sunburn, prolonged periods of loud noises, sleeping too long, not sleeping enough, not napping when my body says to, napping when my body says to, stress, not drinking enough water, drinking too much water, the smell of red onions, eating red onions, pulling a muscle, wearing my contacts too long, not wearing my contacts, having cold feet for too long, being hot too long, and thinking too long about my migraine triggers (jk, but seriously...)
You get the idea. Basically, if something is out-of-routine, I get a migraine. These migraines, by the way, got 10x worse when I entered grad school. Probably from a mix of stress and lifestyle changes. Mostly stress.
Way back when, before grad school, I switched from regular soda to diet soda and lost 20 lbs. It was amazing. I miss those days. I switched back after grad school because the migraines were getting awful and severely disrupting my work. I had gained those 20 back and now have another 30 post-grad school entry.
My point is that the neurological diseases like migraine, for which aspartame is a common trigger, are a mix of physiology, environmental changes, and nocebo effects. And unfortunately, it doesn't matter if we recognize that a trigger "sounds crazy," or if we know about nocebos. Once we've assigned meaning to a trigger, our messed up and overactive brains latch onto it.
In conclusion, I agree, as a scientist, that there are no studies to date conclusively linking fake sugars to diseases. But I also recognize that in some cases, like migraine, there is a real effect. Unfortunately for me, even a 12-oz stevia-sweetened soda causes a 3 day ordeal, so fake sugars are out. So I think, unfortunately, the answer will always be anecdotal. If you can eat it, great. If not, well, too bad.
EDITED: changed a typo "feed" to "feet"0 -
It's an interesting thread thanks. I was wondering if anyone had an informed opinion about saccharin, as I prefer it's flavour to aspartame. I assume it's safe from what I've seen, and I'll probably keep consuming it in my coffee regardless, though I'm curious. I believe It was involved in another rat cancer scare, though it's since been shown to be safe for humans? I can't say I've looked into it properly.0
-
It's an interesting thread thanks. I was wondering if anyone had an informed opinion about saccharin, as I prefer it's flavour to aspartame. I assume it's safe from what I've seen, and I'll probably keep consuming it in my coffee regardless, though I'm curious. I believe It was involved in another rat cancer scare, though it's since been shown to be safe for humans? I can't say I've looked into it properly.
I was wondering this as well, I also prefer saccharin and consume it daily in my coffee. I remember back when Sweet n Low had a warning label, which wasn't that long ago, and I'm sure had a lot to do with people's aversion and distrust of artificial sweeteners. Heck, I remember going to restaurants and the packets of sweeteners would be there on the table, and the warning label would be a conversation piece while we waited for our meals.0 -
Just adding a comment for any who suspect it's not safe in general because it's a migraine trigger for some:
My migraine trigger is more-than-usual (note: not necessarily excessive) exertion in the sun.
Migraine triggers can be a whole lotta things, and it doesn't make sense for other people to avoid things that trigger migraines in certain people. Everyone should still get their recommended dose of sunlight-induced vitamin D and plenty of healthy exertion. 1 -
Thank you for speaking on aspartame in an educated way. Since we aren't farmers much anymore, like me and my grandpa, too much wrong has been done to our food. Cancer is widespread and not only pollution but our food supply is the problem I believe.0
-
but why you don't want to try a product which is 100% natural and work in a similar way ? i lost 10kg in 3 weeks, and before that i tried everything, different pills, different diets - nothing have worked for me. I tried this extract for free (free trial - my friend showed it to me) and was really happy with the results, which are also achieved in a healthy way.. i know you can't promote any products here, so if you have any questions about the product or my experience - feel free to contact me via sonyalowell(at)gmail.com-1
-
And this is why a number of scientists believe that Aspartame IS scary:
"Aspartame is primarily made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine—the latter of which has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group. This is what provides the majority of the sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak, allowing the methyl group on the phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol.
You may have heard the claim that aspartame is harmless because methanol is also found in fruits and vegetables. However, in these whole foods the methanol is firmly bonded to pectin, which allows it to be safely passed through your digestive tract. This is not the case for the methanol created by aspartame. There, it's not bonded to anything that can help eliminate it from your body. That's problem number one...
Problem number two relates to the fact that humans are the only mammals who are NOT equipped with a protective biological mechanism that breaks down methanol into harmless formic acid. This is why animal testing of aspartame does not fully apply to humans.
According to Dr. Monte, the fact that methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in humans compared to other animals has been known since 1940. And according to the featured paper, rhesus monkeys do not appear to have the same defenses against methanol toxicity as mice do. This basically negates much of the animal research that has been used to 'prove' aspartame's safety."
Go!
ETA: Methanol is toxic to the liver and kidneys as well as being neurotoxic.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions