Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I have a friend who gets terrible stomach cramps when he eats meat. So, following the line of logic I see some people use, meat is something none of us should eat, right?
*sips diet Pepsi* This was very interesting Aaron. Maybe a little too sciency for me, but I plan to go back and look over it again a window up to run some searches and delve a little deeper. I appreciate you taking the time to write this out.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.
See what I mean about being unkind? I don't get my news from blogs, and I've read the studies at some point, but since I'm not feeling argumentative, and I have no desire to spend time trying to find copies of studies I've read in the past, I'm going to respectfully decline. I just finished a long run and hopped on here to log it, when this topic caught my eye. Note, I never claimed authority. I was sharing my person reasons for not consuming artificial sweeteners, and I acknowledged the anecdotal nature of that evidence.
As for the latter part, should you desire to look further, I believe one of the studies was from Harvard Dept. for Public Health or some such, and other avenues to whom I look for information include the American Academy of Pediatrics and similar such medical organizations.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.
See what I mean about being unkind? I don't get my news from blogs, and I've read the studies at some point, but since I'm not feeling argumentative, and I have no desire to spend time trying to find copies of studies I've read in the past, I'm going to respectfully decline. I just finished a long run and hopped on here to log it, when this topic caught my eye. Note, I never claimed authority. I was sharing my person reasons for not consuming artificial sweeteners, and I acknowledged the anecdotal nature of that evidence.
As for the latter part, should you desire to look further, I believe one of the studies was from Harvard Dept. for Public Health or some such, and other avenues to whom I look for information include the American Academy of Pediatrics and similar such medical organizations.
I simply asked you to cite your sources for your claims I do not think that makes me unkind but if I offended you I apologize it was not my intent.
My concern is that claiming study results without citing the studies is a common way for misinformation to spread. In my opinion one should either take the time to do their due diligence and find the citation or not refer to a study at all.
Personally I find the notion that you can't be bothered to locate the sources but expect me to hunt them down based on vague references to an institution a little rude and insulting.2 -
Also - this thread is totally relevant for MFP. I was going to have a snack, and then I got reading 16 pages of some pretty good discussion and forgot. Now I'm going to bed sans snack.2
-
I think this falls under the whole too much of anything is bad for you. Too much diet soda or asparatame in general seems to cause neuro issues. I've seen it first hand with people who drink 4-5 liters a day of diet soda. I'm guessing its the build up of methanol. Not drinking this many seems to resolve symptoms.
According to the China study, animal protein increases risk of some cancers. What they don't tell you is that too much plant protein increases risks for other cancers.
I think if all of us would learn moderation, none of us would get cirrhotic livers, morbid obesity or lung cancer. But since we tend to over do what we enjoy, this isn't the case. We will all die of something. My goal is to be as healthy as possible for as long as possible.
To the OP, thanks for explaining this. I also found because of this that other things in my diet, like tomatoes probably give me more asparatame than my daily coke zero.2 -
Just for the fun of it, I wanted to see how many studies I could find that show a correlation between aspartame consumption and negative health effects. Here are just a few, all found on PubMed:
Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice
Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats.
First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats.
Chronic Effect of Aspartame on Ionic Homeostasis and Monoamine Neurotransmitters in the Rat Brain
Neurobehavioral effects of aspartame consumption
Ameliorative effect of Pimpinella anisum oil on immunohistochemical and ultrastuctural changes of cerebellum of albino rats induced by aspartame
Rate of atherosclerosis progression in ApoE-/- mice long after discontinuation of cola beverage drinking
Cognitive and biochemical effects of monosodium glutamate and aspartame, administered individually and in combination in male albino mice
Aspartame-induced apoptosis in PC12 cells
Cytotoxic effect of aspartame (diet sweet) on the histological and genetic structures of female albino rats and their offspring
Shall I go on? Gosh, I love PubMEd! Incidentally, just enter the search word "aspartame" and see what comes up.2 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.2
-
You have to remember that basically anyone can do a study, even a published one and/or reviewed one. How good the results are is to be determined afterwards by the scientific community.There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.2 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.
Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?2 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.
Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?
^^^ That.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 973 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions