Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
"...Honestly, the whole thing boggles the mind. People just LOVE food boogie men to feel smug and self righteous about avoiding, regardless of the facts..."
And THAT is a ridiculous assertion. Most of us would just be happy if we could always buy food that is free of added chemicals and genetic modification. Cancer has edged out heart disease as the number one cause of death. Just how can you be certain that it is not due to changes in the food supply?2 -
I have been following this story for a number of years and I am familiar with the basis of the footnoted objections and those which are cited in the comments section under the article. But you have sidestepped my two questions. I understand that you may not have the answer to those two questions but they need to be answered before anyone can make the bold statement that "Aspartame isn't Scary". I'm not advocating that anyone should think of it as "scary" but caution may well be in order.
So far so good. Hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, have been eating the stuff for decades now to no ill effect. Longer than my entire life, worldwide, and so far no conclusive evidence of any bad health effects. Aspartame is just about the most exhaustively tested and studied food additive in existence. And still...no dice. Its been repeatedly examined, and repeatedly approved in more than 90 countries.
Just because something has been approved doesn't mean that it is safe. Thalidomide was approved in Germany and other countries worldwide (resulting in the death and deformity of about 10,000 infants). It was only an alert pharmacologist at the FDA (Frances Oldham Kelsey M.D. Ph.D) that saved the U.S. from such a clear disaster. However, since Richardson-Merrell had already distributed millions of tablets to physicians in preparation for clinical trials, it is impossible to know how many were affected, since that possible use of the drug was never tracked.
It isn't safe because its approved, its safe because its safe, and decades of time and hundreds of millions of people stand as testament to that. Unlike thalidomide, which is of course totally irrelevant to this discussion. Same goes for tuna salad, in case you were thinking of bring that up as well.0 -
And THAT is a ridiculous assertion. Most of us would just be happy if we could always buy food that is free of added chemicals and genetic modification. Cancer has edged out heart disease as the number one cause of death. Just how can you be certain that it is not due to changes in the food supply?
No, actually, its entirely correct. Every week its a new boogie man that is later found to be just fine. Butter is bad! Eat margarine!....oh wait, nevermind, transfats...our bad for killing a bunch of you. MSG is bad, don't eat it!....oh wait nevermind glutamic acid is actually an ever present amino acid, our bad...Carbs! Carbs are the devil and they're killing us all!....oh wait, nevermind,...its GLUTEN!...but nevermind that its a protein.
Oh...and don't vaccinate children!
And so on and so forth. We want to know that there are bad guys in the food world, and that we can avoid them. It makes us feel empowered and in control of our health destiny, at least to a small degree. So...things that are biochemically verified over and over again to be acceptable, especially in comparison to the other things that actually ARE bad and that we refuse to stop doing anyways, are continued to be vilified by those of us desperate to believe that we are in control of our destinies if only we eat certain things and don't eat other things...which of course are sure to change later on as the vogue continues to shift.
Personally, as to cancer rates, I suspect its more to do with a combination of increased lifespan, decreased mortality from other causes that can be more effectively treated than in the past, and all the household chemicals, industrial chemicals, air quality, pesticides, fertilizers, etc, etc, rather than the food itself. Also...scope out how the cancer rate increase correlates with everyone being massively over-chem'ed on prescription drugs. Almost 3/4 of Americans are on prescriptions drugs even as I write this.2 -
Mercola has been discredited because he has a habit of refusing to let facts get in the way of his fear mongering. He has a very specific point of view, and has been known to completely fabricate evidence in order to push his viewpoint and sell his products. He's listed on quackwatch.org for a reason. And he's not a "medical reporter." He's a merchant. He's in the business of selling products, and one way he does that is by making false claims about competitive products, so that he can then push his product as the "healthy alternative." His other method is to just make fantastical claims about his own products, that are unsupported by science.
Yes, footnoted with sources that are known to be biased, untrustworthy, and discredited. HuffPo isn't a scientific journal, it's a magazine. Any article that lists a guy like Mercola, who has been soundly discredited many times, as a source is not a valid article for debate. And Betty Martini is also a fraud.The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?
Can't comment without a citation, too vague.
People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.
If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.
Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.
Say you and your friends. G.D. Searle was similarly disposed to slander those who did not agree with them as "unscientific". I repeat: I have two questions. Why did the FDA's own toxicologist insist that aspartame was unsafe? Why are so many other neuroscientists and physicians convinced that it is harmful? There are a number of PubMed articles on its questionable safety. Here is just one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524
ETA: Why crucify medical reporters? How can Mercola be "discredited"? He, as far as I know, is not engaged in any research efforts of his own. He functions as a medical reporter who highlights news from the world of science. You may not agree with the findings of any individual researcher but you are obligated to provide your own scientific findings in refuting any individual research findings.
Here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html2 -
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.
Here is my original post citing just a small fraction of the studies available. The source for all is PubMed, so no need to waste my time posting all the links, unless you're simply too stupid or lazy to use a simple search engine.
Still waiting for the studies that DON'T involve cancer-prone rats and supraphysiological doses.1 -
And THAT is a ridiculous assertion. Most of us would just be happy if we could always buy food that is free of added chemicals and genetic modification. Cancer has edged out heart disease as the number one cause of death. Just how can you be certain that it is not due to changes in the food supply?
No, actually, its entirely correct. Every week its a new boogie man that is later found to be just fine. Butter is bad! Eat margarine!....oh wait, nevermind, transfats...our bad for killing a bunch of you. MSG is bad, don't eat it!....oh wait nevermind glutamic acid is actually an ever present amino acid, our bad...Carbs! Carbs are the devil and they're killing us all!....oh wait, nevermind,...its GLUTEN!...but nevermind that its a protein.
Oh...and don't vaccinate children!
And so on and so forth. We want to know that there are bad guys in the food world, and that we can avoid them. It makes us feel empowered and in control of our health destiny, at least to a small degree. So...things that are biochemically verified over and over again to be acceptable, especially in comparison to the other things that actually ARE bad and that we refuse to stop doing anyways, are continued to be vilified by those of us desperate to believe that we are in control of our destinies if only we eat certain things and don't eat other things...which of course are sure to change later on as the vogue continues to shift.
Personally, as to cancer rates, I suspect its more to do with a combination of increased lifespan, decreased mortality from other causes that can be more effectively treated than in the past, and all the household chemicals, industrial chemicals, air quality, pesticides, fertilizers, etc, etc, rather than the food itself. Also...scope out how the cancer rate increase correlates with everyone being massively over-chem'ed on prescription drugs. Almost 3/4 of Americans are on prescriptions drugs even as I write this.
What makes you think that we are not also concerned about many of the concerns you have expressed? I am VERY opposed to the "pill for every ill" mentality. I think it is a national disgrace that possibly 40% of the population is on prescription psychotropics. But we were looking at aspartame. It is just one more chemical (among the estimated 80,000 synthetic chemicals that we are exposed to every year). Ever wonder how all those chemicals are messing with the gene pool? The science of epigenetics looks at that and what they report isn't very encouraging.0 -
Bump* Great post!0
-
Don't bother, the OP doesn't care. He will claim you didn't actually read that study (because he's the only one that reads studies), and that the studies that support his claim, are of course, some how better than any you found.
[/quote]
Yeah....that was the impression I was getting. I find it rather obnoxious to accuse someone of not reading a study he or she references because that person doesn't agree with him, and therefore he or she MUST be a moron who is incapable of reading a scientific study. This is a diet and weight loss forum. It isn't peer-reviewed, and citations in proper format aren't required to participate. You are all allowed to chime in without writing a bloody dissertation (been there, done that....) and being subject to the inquisition (or what those of us in the scholarly community might call a dissertation defense). What I originally thought would be a interesting read has been spoiled by condescension. Good gracious...I may go find one of those forums about rating the person's picture above you that the teenagers on here make just to face a bit less criticism.2 -
Don't bother, the OP doesn't care. He will claim you didn't actually read that study (because he's the only one that reads studies), and that the studies that support his claim, are of course, some how better than any you found.Yeah....that was the impression I was getting. I find it rather obnoxious to accuse someone of not reading a study he or she references because that person doesn't agree with him, and therefore he or she MUST be a moron who is incapable of reading a scientific study. This is a diet and weight loss forum. It isn't peer-reviewed, and citations in proper format aren't required to participate. You are all allowed to chime in without writing a bloody dissertation (been there, done that....) and being subject to the inquisition (or what those of us in the scholarly community might call a dissertation defense). What I originally thought would be a interesting read has been spoiled by condescension. Good gracious...I may go find one of those forums about rating the person's picture above you that the teenagers on here make just to face a bit less criticism.
He's been debating this for nearly two weeks now and clearly stated that he was no longer able to do so in a fair and professional manner because it was becoming tiring, but sure, throw stones after he leaves.5 -
Don't bother, the OP doesn't care. He will claim you didn't actually read that study (because he's the only one that reads studies), and that the studies that support his claim, are of course, some how better than any you found.Yeah....that was the impression I was getting. I find it rather obnoxious to accuse someone of not reading a study he or she references because that person doesn't agree with him, and therefore he or she MUST be a moron who is incapable of reading a scientific study. This is a diet and weight loss forum. It isn't peer-reviewed, and citations in proper format aren't required to participate. You are all allowed to chime in without writing a bloody dissertation (been there, done that....) and being subject to the inquisition (or what those of us in the scholarly community might call a dissertation defense). What I originally thought would be a interesting read has been spoiled by condescension. Good gracious...I may go find one of those forums about rating the person's picture above you that the teenagers on here make just to face a bit less criticism.
I got the exact opposite impression.1 -
In summary:
2 -
Because gifs are more fun then getting strikes for saying what I'm really thinking.
0 -
In summary:
Fabulous!
0 -
I try to avoid it as much as possible, I get horrible migraines when I have it in a decent amount, not worth my suffering.0
-
[/quote]Don't bother, the OP doesn't care. He will claim you didn't actually read that study (because he's the only one that reads studies), and that the studies that support his claim, are of course, some how better than any you found.
Yeah....that was the impression I was getting. I find it rather obnoxious to accuse someone of not reading a study he or she references because that person doesn't agree with him, and therefore he or she MUST be a moron who is incapable of reading a scientific study. This is a diet and weight loss forum. It isn't peer-reviewed, and citations in proper format aren't required to participate. You are all allowed to chime in without writing a bloody dissertation (been there, done that....) and being subject to the inquisition (or what those of us in the scholarly community might call a dissertation defense). What I originally thought would be a interesting read has been spoiled by condescension. Good gracious...I may go find one of those forums about rating the person's picture above you that the teenagers on here make just to face a bit less criticism.
If you believe that, not only haven't you read the studies, you haven't read the thread.1 -
Don't bother, the OP doesn't care. He will claim you didn't actually read that study (because he's the only one that reads studies), and that the studies that support his claim, are of course, some how better than any you found.Yeah....that was the impression I was getting. I find it rather obnoxious to accuse someone of not reading a study he or she references because that person doesn't agree with him, and therefore he or she MUST be a moron who is incapable of reading a scientific study. This is a diet and weight loss forum. It isn't peer-reviewed, and citations in proper format aren't required to participate. You are all allowed to chime in without writing a bloody dissertation (been there, done that....) and being subject to the inquisition (or what those of us in the scholarly community might call a dissertation defense). What I originally thought would be a interesting read has been spoiled by condescension. Good gracious...I may go find one of those forums about rating the person's picture above you that the teenagers on here make just to face a bit less criticism.
He's been debating this for nearly two weeks now and clearly stated that he was no longer able to do so in a fair and professional manner because it was becoming tiring, but sure, throw stones after he leaves.
I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest, personally I avoid artificial sweeteners but am not scared of them. I also have a lot of respect for Aaron, I have never seen him not be helpful, he is normally more patient than most here and I have seen him listen to others and find common ground. He really is an asset to MFP and has some very thoughtful and helpful posts.
Now my take on it. Like I said I have been following, last night the subject had me looking for studies to show the side of aspartame being harmful. I found news articles and websites with bias, I did find studies but after reading them....well they were not conclusive and most even said so at the end. I did have one topic I searched, it was regarding kidney health and artificial sweeteners. When I was young (18) I had repeated and sserious kidney issues that were causing infections. After numerous hospital visits and the urologist, they came up with artificial sweeteners as the reason. I have no clue why (except I drank a ton of them) and I was only 19 (at this point) so I didn't think to question them. I cut all artificial sweeteners and never had an issue again. This is antidotal and have no clue how or why this was the recommendation. So I looked up this correlation last night, I found this.....
http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/6/1/160.full
Associations of Sugar and Artificially Sweetened Soda with Albuminuria and Kidney Function Decline in Women
Conclusions Consumption of ≥2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda is associated with a 2-fold increased odds for kidney function decline in women.
Now the most interesting thing about this study is not that it proved anything, but it is the only study with 1000's of humans that showed a negative. It is also amazing because the fear mongering over this study is crazy.....
Top Google headings....
"Study Links Aspartame To Fast-Paced Decline in Kidney"
"Finally, proof that aspartame will destroy your kidneys"
↑↑↑↑ These headlines do not prove anything, and can cause some to then approach a study with bias.
Quote from the study..
"Our results did not confirm the previously reported association between sugar soda and albuminuria, but we report a novel finding that ≥2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda was associated with faster kidney function decline. No association between lower levels of artificially sweetened soda intake and eGFR decline was seen, implying a threshold effect rather than one that increases linearly."
The study I linked had many issues....here is a brief quote of what the authors of the study found wrong...
"The observed association between diet soda and faster kidney function decline was not an a priori hypothesis and may be subject to incomplete adjustment for confounding despite our efforts in constructing additional models that included nutrients, foods, and diet quality. We would also emphasize that causality cannot be established from an analysis of an observational cohort study, and that higher consumption of diet soda may be a marker of unmeasured characteristics that put women at higher risk for progressive kidney function decline.
However, if there is a causal association, we cannot determine if there is a specific type of artificial sweetener that may be associated with kidney function decline or even if it is an artificial sweetener or another ingredient in diet soda not found in sugar soda. Aspartame and saccharin were the primary artificial sweeteners used in carbonated low-calorie soft drinks in the 1980s and 1990s (29), which pertain to the years assessed by the FFQs used for the kidney function decline analyses."
So even the people conducting the study do not know what ingredient may have contributed to their findings.
This study was interesting, but proved nothing against aspartame. I have no clue why doctors thought my kidney issues were related and no clue why they ended when I stopped artificial sweeteners but the issues started suddenly, it is very possible they also just ended suddenly. It is even possible I myself just have an adverse reaction.... What it isn't proof of is that others need worry about aspartame.
I am also someone who avoids artificial sweeteners because of migraine triggers. Someone above said it is a cumulative effect, maybe for some but I can assure you, if I have 1/3 of an artificial sweetened drink, I have a migraine. That is my body, not the sweetener because regular soda has this effect on me also as well as msg. Its a trigger, not a "bad" food. Videos games (watching or playing) can cause a top tier migraine in under 5 minutes....it doesn't mean others should avoid them for health. Some do have migraines that trigger by cumulative triggers, some have a near instant reaction to some triggers, and some have both....lucky me. Migraines are not like seizures with thresholds, mine have actually improved with age and disappeared during pregnancy.... If migraines had a threshold effect, they would get progressively worse through life and be more abundant during life changes like pregnancy. This subject interests me greatly since even the best neurologists have no clue what medically causes migraines. Every migraine sufferer is as different as they are alike.
The point of this post is before you insult a helpful member of the community.....Think. You said your insulted because he may have implied you didn't read the whole study. You didn't seem like you did, you didn't quote any parts of a study, speak about the particulars or most telling of all find fault. All studies are imperfect, if you read one and no aspect of it gives you pause then you are approaching it with your mind already made up to the outcome you want and will take the pieces that best suite you.
I set out to find a study to challenge Aaron, but it had to be one that I respected and I felt truly challenged his position. Unfortunately on this topic, I came up short....this study was the closest I got and honestly it has too many unknown variables to consider useful for this topic.
My view is aspartame is just like anything....fine in moderation, bad if over consumed, and some people will be sensitive and have different reactions.....same as all things consumed and considered safe.
Wanting to debate Aaron on this topic was purely for knowledge if I would have found one.....he would have given his opinion and if it actually would have put his point in doubt he would have admitted it and researched. Some of you really misjudged the OP of this thread, he only ever tries to help.....
Now I will own that some of us....can be quite "rude" & "mean".
Its late, this is long....if spelling or grammar are issues, I will try to correct but may just miss them. Sorry for the novel :ohwell:3 -
In summary:
Fabulous!
Maybe I should have clarified the point of posting my comic. The belief is aspartame is bad for you, the mountain of evidence is the evidence showing it is safe (much of which OP has very patiently provided factual explanation of and cited sources). In summary of this whole tread, people who really believe aspartame is not safe will simply ignore the mountain of evidence.
It was not intended as a summary of your feelings toward OP or your claims that ingesting artificial sweeteners will make you gain weight. Just want to make sure my intentions aren't being misunderstood.1 -
In summary:
Fabulous!
Maybe I should have clarified the point of posting my comic. The belief is aspartame is bad for you, the mountain of evidence is the evidence showing it is safe (much of which OP has very patiently provided factual explanation of and cited sources). In summary of this whole tread, people who really believe aspartame is not safe will simply ignore the mountain of evidence.
It was not intended as a summary of your feelings toward OP or your claims that ingesting artificial sweeteners will make you gain weight. Just want to make sure my intentions aren't being misunderstood.
Zero calorie additives cause weight gain (contribute to the bodies energy surplus)...WTH!?!!......oops I typed that....*kitten*........I like the comic and think I like the assumed way better :drinker:
That wasn't nice...:noway: obviously I need sleep :frown:0 -
I'm surprised OP managed to hold on for so long having to explain the same thing over and over. I tried explaining calories in vs. calories out somewhere else and got headaches after a few hours of people throwing "But I know this one guy who..." stories at me.1
-
I'm surprised OP managed to hold on for so long having to explain the same thing over and over. I tried explaining calories in vs. calories out somewhere else and got headaches after a few hours of people throwing "But I know this one guy who..." stories at me.
I know right?
It amazes that so many seem to actually prefer to think the whole world is out to get them and that everything is harmful. And not only believe all anecdotal "evidence" but also ignore anecdotal evidence that doesn't align with their beliefs1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions