Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

EvanKeel

Oh wow! Very informative. I had been wondering about aspartame myself. A guy I know said he cut out aspartame and sucralose and what he calls "fake sugars" and claimed to lose 40 pounds in a month. (He was about 290.) I didn't tell him this, but I think he lost that weight because he cut way down on calories, but he attributed the loss to the cutting out of fake sugars instead.

And if he weighed the same as a duck, he'd be made of wood. Thus, we could burn him as a witch...if we were in the business of burning witches, that is.

bikinilinds

There has been too much debate over whether or not artificial sweeteners can cause disease, so I simply stay away. Makes sense to me.

redversustheblue

Yeah, Mr. White, science!

This is a great post, thanks!

Aaron_K123

Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.

The only thing arguably toxic in the byproducts of aspartame is methanol which you can find much more of in fruit than in a can of diet soda. So unless you are avoiding fruit because "why risk it?" I have to question your logic there.

rduhlir

There has been too much debate over whether or not artificial sweeteners can cause disease, so I simply stay away. Makes sense to me.

So...then...by your words you would then be avoiding pretty much every food available...which was the point of his thread. All the makings of Aspartame all ready happen naturally in all the food you eat.

Aaron_K123

There has been too much debate over whether or not artificial sweeteners can cause disease, so I simply stay away. Makes sense to me.

Same like how there is lots of "debate" about evolution so best not to "believe" in it amiright?

There is no "debate" about the toxicity or carcinogenicity of aspartame. There are the facts and there are people making blog posts on the internet saying "why risk it?"

EvanKeel

Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.

The only thing arguably toxic in the byproducts of aspartame is methanol which you can find much more of in fruit than in a can of diet soda. So unless you are avoiding fruit because "why risk it?" I have to question your logic there.

It isn't logical. It's pascal's wager. Whether or not that's a problem is a larger question.

jrose1982

All I know is that artificial sweeteners (not just aspartame, but sucrolose, sorbitol, xylitol, and some others as well) all make me feel yucky. And I'm not talking big quantities either: one squirt of Mio in my water, one piece of sugar-free chewing gum. I get bloated, and a little nauseous. More than that can lead to some intense headaches. Years ago, I managed to quit drinking soda by switching to diet. It made me sick enough to avoid it all for good.

Nectresse is one that doesn't seem to bother me.

Maybe I'm just more sensitive to it. I'm a big fan of the N=1 experiment. If you're curious if a food is good or bad for you, cut it out completely for about a month. Then try some and pay attention to how you feel afterwards. You might notice a difference, you might not.

Aaron_K123

Can no longer edit my original post so here is a graphic of the metabolic breakdown of aspartame into phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol.

Having real issues to get those images to resize to look good here but that last one is its breakdown to those three metabolites and the first one is where those metabolites come from in the original molecule.

juggernaut1974

There has been too much debate over whether or not artificial sweeteners can cause disease, so I simply stay away. Makes sense to me.

So you just avoid anything that anyone debates over?

Good heavens, girl. What do you possibly eat??

Meat? No some vegans debate that. Better cross it off the list.
Dairy? Good heavens no.
Sugar? Egads.
Non-organic produce? Forget about it.
Organic Produce? Nuh-uh
Carbs? Wrong answer

spoonful

Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?

tedrickp

A logical, scientific defense? Those are my favorite kinds...

thesupremeforce

Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?

It hardly "needed" a defense like that. Sometimes, it's just fun when science buries an irrational witch hunt "argument" that has no basis in facts nor in reality.

agrafina

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

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

redversustheblue

Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?

It needs a defense because people don't understand science and just fear-monger when they don't even know what they're talking about, nor do they try to understand it.

No one will take my diet dr. pepper away from me, no one.

juggernaut1974

Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?

Explaining facts =/= defense.

As I said if someone can give me FACTS as to what aspartame does that is not good for me I will make more of an effort to avoid it. Like I said before, I don't really ingest that much in the first place as I don't drink soda and simply prefer the flavor of sugar.

Logical fallacies are not facts.

Aaron_K123

Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?

It hardly "needed" a defense like that. Sometimes, it's just fun when science buries an irrational witch hunt "argument" that has no basis in facts nor in reality.

It only "need" a defense" because there are people fear mongering it for no reason in the internet.

This by the way was the only reason it has been so extensively tested. Any chemist can just look at that molecule and say "nope, not toxic" and we could have just run one study and bam done. But no, the public wants it tested again and again and again. Results are the same over and over and over, not toxic...not carcenoginic, no mechanism by which it would be and yet we keep testing it.

This is incredibly frustrating to a scientist because right now NIH funding levels are at an all time low, money is very scare for much needed research and many labs are closing because they could not get the funding they needed to continue. But hey, lets through another 20 million dollars at running yet another epidemological study of aspartame toxicity because the internet wants it.

MsMaryMac48

Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.

Exactly. Why risk it? Healthy living is about choosing wisely. Making good choices for your overall health.

AND why in the heck does it even matter. If you prefer not to use those artificial products for WHATEVER reason more power to you. and if you do use them well.... best of luck..... for your sake, I hope you are right.

Aaron_K123

Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.

Exactly. Why risk it? Healthy living is about choosing wisely. Making good choices for your overall health.

AND why in the heck does it even matter. If you prefer not to use those artificial products for WHATEVER reason more power to you. and if you do use them well.... best of luck..... for your sake, I hope you are right.

It matters because this sort of fearmongering results in the waste of a lot of money in science, millions of dollars. It also results in people focusing on the wrong things, ignoring their calories and instead avoiding soda because apparently it is dangerous.

Misinformation is ALWAYS dangerous.