Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
Promoting soda is not promoting health. It might not make you gain weight or get cancer but soda itself has some drawbacks. It is still not great for your teeth. It's still not ideal for your heart to have a two liter of diet soda. It isn't scary in the same way drinking a ton of coffee everyday isn't scary. A cup or two a day is fine. A whole pot or two is dangerous no matter what "science" you want to use to defend your addiction to caffeine (a drug).
This is not a responsible post for people who were or are overweight and likely already suffering some consequences of that weight like high blood pressure. This is just a go ahead to indulge that sweet tooth instead of trying to figure out why you crave so much sugary stuff and fix the problem. MFP should promote health, not just getting a hot body. I agree that aspartame isn't "scary" but it isn't health food either.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.
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:
I'm so glad you're on my friends list right now! :flowerforyou:
This is much better (and nicer) than anything I was about to say last night, hence I went to bed. :laugh:0 -
Promoting soda is not promoting health. It might not make you gain weight or get cancer but soda itself has some drawbacks. It is still not great for your teeth. It's still not ideal for your heart to have a two liter of diet soda. It isn't scary in the same way drinking a ton of coffee everyday isn't scary. A cup or two a day is fine. A whole pot or two is dangerous no matter what "science" you want to use to defend your addiction to caffeine (a drug).
This is not a responsible post for people who were or are overweight and likely already suffering some consequences of that weight like high blood pressure. This is just a go ahead to indulge that sweet tooth instead of trying to figure out why you crave so much sugary stuff and fix the problem. MFP should promote health, not just getting a hot body. I agree that aspartame isn't "scary" but it isn't health food either.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of healthy people on MFP that drink both regular and diet soda. There are also plenty of people on this thread who have thanked the OP for this information because it has helped them to not feel guilty for the one or two diet sodas they may consume. There's a hell of a lot more caffeine in my cappuccino this morning then in any of the possible sodas I could imbibe as an alternative and it's not exactly helping my tooth enamel either, yet I and millions of others somehow still manage to remain perfectly healthy.2 -
Your post was absolutely spot on, kpost. I'm just quoting a small part to try to help add a bit of context for those who are unfamiliar with how this type of science usually works: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.."
What they mean when they're saying it was not an a priori hypothesis is that they didn't expect to find this link before the study began. It means after looking at the data, they just happened to find a connection between those two things.
What's the issue with that? Well the issue lies with how we determine if two things are linked. It's impossible to do this with 100% certainty, so what we do is we look at two sets of data and try to quantify how different they are and whether they're different enough to be significant. This type of analysis uses a tool from statistics called a confidence interval. If we say there's a difference between two things with 95% confidence, it means there's still a 5% chance of there being no difference and we just happened to look at funny data.
Again, what's the problem with that? The problem is when you make a LOT of comparisons, you're going to find funny data simply by coincidence. If we use the 95% confidence from before, that means about 1 in 20 comparisons will show a difference when there actually isn't one.
It troubles me when they say it wasn't an a priori hypothesis and that they're not really certain if they correctly accounted for that.
XKCD actually has a good comic explaining this sort of thing:
Promoting soda is not promoting health. It might not make you gain weight or get cancer but soda itself has some drawbacks. It is still not great for your teeth. It's still not ideal for your heart to have a two liter of diet soda. It isn't scary in the same way drinking a ton of coffee everyday isn't scary. A cup or two a day is fine. A whole pot or two is dangerous no matter what "science" you want to use to defend your addiction to caffeine (a drug).
This is not a responsible post for people who were or are overweight and likely already suffering some consequences of that weight like high blood pressure. This is just a go ahead to indulge that sweet tooth instead of trying to figure out why you crave so much sugary stuff and fix the problem. MFP should promote health, not just getting a hot body. I agree that aspartame isn't "scary" but it isn't health food either.
Nobody has ever advocated drinking soda of any type. The OP has clearly stated, multiple times, that he is not advocating for drinking it. He's simply showing why aspartame won't cause your face to explode when you drink it. That's it.
It's not healthy. It's not un-healthy. It's basically water. Drink it if you want. Don't drink it if you don't want. It doesn't matter. Just don't spread lies about how dangerous it is. That's the entire point of the thread.1 -
Your post was absolutely spot on, kpost. I'm just quoting a small part to try to help add a bit of context for those who are unfamiliar with how this type of science usually works: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.."
What they mean when they're saying it was not an a priori hypothesis is that they didn't expect to find this link before the study began. It means after looking at the data, they just happened to find a connection between those two things.
What's the issue with that? Well the issue lies with how we determine if two things are linked. It's impossible to do this with 100% certainty, so what we do is we look at two sets of data and try to quantify how different they are and whether they're different enough to be significant. This type of analysis uses a tool from statistics called a confidence interval. If we say there's a difference between two things with 95% confidence, it means there's still a 5% chance of there being no difference and we just happened to look at funny data.
Again, what's the problem with that? The problem is when you make a LOT of comparisons, you're going to find funny data simply by coincidence. If we use the 95% confidence from before, that means about 1 in 20 comparisons will show a difference when there actually isn't one.
It troubles me when they say it wasn't an a priori hypothesis and that they're not really certain if they correctly accounted for that.
XKCD actually has a good comic explaining this sort of thing:Promoting soda is not promoting health. It might not make you gain weight or get cancer but soda itself has some drawbacks. It is still not great for your teeth. It's still not ideal for your heart to have a two liter of diet soda. It isn't scary in the same way drinking a ton of coffee everyday isn't scary. A cup or two a day is fine. A whole pot or two is dangerous no matter what "science" you want to use to defend your addiction to caffeine (a drug).
This is not a responsible post for people who were or are overweight and likely already suffering some consequences of that weight like high blood pressure. This is just a go ahead to indulge that sweet tooth instead of trying to figure out why you crave so much sugary stuff and fix the problem. MFP should promote health, not just getting a hot body. I agree that aspartame isn't "scary" but it isn't health food either.
Nobody has ever advocated drinking soda of any type. The OP has clearly stated, multiple times, that he is not advocating for drinking it. He's simply showing why aspartame won't cause your face to explode when you drink it. That's it.
It's not healthy. It's not un-healthy. It's basically water. Drink it if you want. Don't drink it if you don't want. It doesn't matter. Just don't spread lies about how dangerous it is. That's the entire point of the thread.
I like you :flowerforyou:1 -
This whole thing has just run amok. I actually don't disagree with the OP. I simply found him to be rude to me personally, and as I read through the thread, I found a trend with other posters as well if they disagreed with any of his premise. I don't think aspartame is scary in moderate amounts (as with most things). I think it makes me sick, so I don't consume it myself. I don't care what the heck everyone else drinks, and I, too, am often frustrated with pseudoscience and sensationalism run amok from irresponsible internet shenanigans (hello...anti-vax crowd). That said, I don't know him. He doesn't know me. So, for him to assume that I didn't actually read a study I recalled reading, and that I must have read it on a blog, was rather offensive to me. That is the where I was coming from. If you think that kind of behavior is acceptable, or even remotely helpful in educating others or changing their minds, then you are also mistaken. I don't know what he goes through in his crusade to teach us all on MFP, and I'm am sure that he encounters plenty of idiocy. However, I think it is really rude to be condescending to those who say do say, "I don't drink it because it makes me feel bad". Now, were folks to react that way to someone who hopped her and began spouting sensationalist nonsense, I could understand, but why in heaven's name is there such vitriol against someone who weighs in? Anecdotal evidence may not be clinically significant, but that doesn't mean a person should be discounted if he or she says "I found it triggers migraines," because doctors will tell you if something is a common migraine trigger, you might want to think about avoiding it. Regardless of how safe aspartame is for the masses, I would then deem it unsafe for that particular user, and that particular user is still a valid part of the discussion, and ought to be allowed to share such a story, even if merely anecdotal, as part of the larger conversation, without being accused of idiocy, especially if they aren't making assertions about the overall safety of aspartame, but simply sharing why they choose not to consume it.
In conclusion, just don't be as *kitten* to be people, and everyone will get a lot further.1 -
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.
That's just it though. Of all of those thousands of chemicals that might actually be doing something, even if only in aggregate, it is absolutely bottom of the list. Its just something that its stylish to be suspicious of for no scientific reason whatsoever. Its been studied and scrutinized more than just about anything else, and passed. Over and over again for decades. But people REFUSE to listen. The desperately want to believe that it is the convenient boogie man they can avoid in order to feel better about their decision to eat other things that actually ARE scientifically linked to negative health outcomes.
I just hate the rotating cycle of irrational vilification of whatever-thing-this-month without any weight of evidence.1 -
This whole thing has just run amok. I actually don't disagree with the OP. I simply found him to be rude to me personally, and as I read through the thread, I found a trend with other posters as well if they disagreed with any of his premise. I don't think aspartame is scary in moderate amounts (as with most things). I think it makes me sick, so I don't consume it myself. I don't care what the heck everyone else drinks, and I, too, am often frustrated with pseudoscience and sensationalism run amok from irresponsible internet shenanigans (hello...anti-vax crowd). That said, I don't know him. He doesn't know me. So, for him to assume that I didn't actually read a study I recalled reading, and that I must have read it on a blog, was rather offensive to me. That is the where I was coming from. If you think that kind of behavior is acceptable, or even remotely helpful in educating others or changing their minds, then you are also mistaken. I don't know what he goes through in his crusade to teach us all on MFP, and I'm am sure that he encounters plenty of idiocy. However, I think it is really rude to be condescending to those who say do say, "I don't drink it because it makes me feel bad". Now, were folks to react that way to someone who hopped her and began spouting sensationalist nonsense, I could understand, but why in heaven's name is there such vitriol against someone who weighs in? Anecdotal evidence may not be clinically significant, but that doesn't mean a person should be discounted if he or she says "I found it triggers migraines," because doctors will tell you if something is a common migraine trigger, you might want to think about avoiding it. Regardless of how safe aspartame is for the masses, I would then deem it unsafe for that particular user, and that particular user is still a valid part of the discussion, and ought to be allowed to share such a story, even if merely anecdotal, as part of the larger conversation, without being accused of idiocy, especially if they aren't making assertions about the overall safety of aspartame, but simply sharing why they choose not to consume it.
In conclusion, just don't be as *kitten* to be people, and everyone will get a lot further.
Against my better judgement I am going to respond to this. The way I am going to respond is to collect the sum total of our interaction on this thread unedited and quote it directly here so that people can see what was said and decide for themselves if I was being an *kitten* who accused you of not reading studies or if, from my perspective, I was tired after two straight weeks of spending hours of my time per day reading to address claims of studies only to find out those mentioning them hadn't read them themselves so before I went on to discuss I wished to first ascertain A) if you had read the study and
if you could cite and link the study so that I may read it myself. It was not a personal attack, I don't even know you so how could it be personal. At no point did I ever say that you hadn't read the studies I said that I had issues with people in this thread who hadn't read the studies they were referencing and therefore asked if you had. Asking someone if they have done something is not the same thing as an accusation. That is all. Rather than respond with a link to the study you responded with butthurt. At that point there was no reason for further interaction so I withdrew from the conversation as I cannot comment on what I cannot read and my interest is in the studies not in discussing what it is to be rude online. Apparently you decided to stick around and make daily accusations about me being biased and unfair.
I am tired of posting here and I'd rather not continue especially if what it is going to devolve into is he-said-she-said. If you don't actually disagree with the points in my original post I'm not sure why we are even having this discussion. If I offended you in any way I apologize it was not my intention. If you actually wish to discuss a particular study then I of course would need to be able to read it myself which would require a citation.
Here is the unedited conversation, I leave this here so people can make their own judgements about my behavior:rumezzo:
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.
Aaron_K123:
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.rumezzo::
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.Aaron_K123:
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.Aaron_K123:
I'm probably going to take a break from this thread. Wasn't expecting to still be at it this long and I feel like I'm mostly just repeating myself. If I keep at it I will likely become more clipped more terse and more annoyed and just be accused of bullying or ignoring or bias.
Need a break at least.rumezzo:
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.2 -
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.
Right now this is how I feel about this thread. Going to step out again, really would appreciate it if I could leave without having stones thrown at me as soon as I do.
Can we return to the topic at hand being aspartame not how rude I am. I promise I will leave and not ask rude questions like "have you read the study?" Or make unreasonable demands of people such as "could you cite the study you claim supports your opinion so that others may read it for themselves"1 -
Rumezzo, I think you are massively over reacting to what was a very reasonable question from Aaron, not an accusation at all.
Nobody, including Aaron, has said anybody should not avoid aspartame, or anything else, if it causes individual adverse effects, such as migraines.
and nobody was an *kitten* to you either.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.
Darlin I'm aware of your intention. I just thought the comic was funny and applied to a lot of different scenarios and conspiracy theories. Note, I never claimed artificial sweeteners caused weight gain. There HAVE however been studies that have suggested a correlation between them when compared to ingesting water, which is what I shared. I didn't claim ****. I'm not really sure why you're taking anything I say (or in this case don't say, but you decide I mean) so personally. That I found the OP rude, had nothing to do with you, until you started being rude as well. Anyway, I'm out of this. Good luck to you and your fitness goals,0 -
Rumezzo, I think you are massively over reacting to what was a very reasonable question from Aaron, not an accusation at all.
Nobody, including Aaron, has said anybody should not avoid aspartame, or anything else, if it causes individual adverse effects, such as migraines.
and nobody was an *kitten* to you either.
I don't know. I don't think it is reasonable to ask a person if they've actually read something they've already said they've read, or imply that they might just be so ignorant they only read about it on a blog. I think that was offensive. I stand by that. I shared a personal experience and some comments, and I was insulted by him. I'm not sure why a million of you feel the need to be involved, but it's beginning to border on harassment. I'm out.0 -
I"m out too buddy. Best of luck to you.This whole thing has just run amok. I actually don't disagree with the OP. I simply found him to be rude to me personally, and as I read through the thread, I found a trend with other posters as well if they disagreed with any of his premise. I don't think aspartame is scary in moderate amounts (as with most things). I think it makes me sick, so I don't consume it myself. I don't care what the heck everyone else drinks, and I, too, am often frustrated with pseudoscience and sensationalism run amok from irresponsible internet shenanigans (hello...anti-vax crowd). That said, I don't know him. He doesn't know me. So, for him to assume that I didn't actually read a study I recalled reading, and that I must have read it on a blog, was rather offensive to me. That is the where I was coming from. If you think that kind of behavior is acceptable, or even remotely helpful in educating others or changing their minds, then you are also mistaken. I don't know what he goes through in his crusade to teach us all on MFP, and I'm am sure that he encounters plenty of idiocy. However, I think it is really rude to be condescending to those who say do say, "I don't drink it because it makes me feel bad". Now, were folks to react that way to someone who hopped her and began spouting sensationalist nonsense, I could understand, but why in heaven's name is there such vitriol against someone who weighs in? Anecdotal evidence may not be clinically significant, but that doesn't mean a person should be discounted if he or she says "I found it triggers migraines," because doctors will tell you if something is a common migraine trigger, you might want to think about avoiding it. Regardless of how safe aspartame is for the masses, I would then deem it unsafe for that particular user, and that particular user is still a valid part of the discussion, and ought to be allowed to share such a story, even if merely anecdotal, as part of the larger conversation, without being accused of idiocy, especially if they aren't making assertions about the overall safety of aspartame, but simply sharing why they choose not to consume it.
In conclusion, just don't be as *kitten* to be people, and everyone will get a lot further.
Against my better judgement I am going to respond to this. The way I am going to respond is to collect the sum total of our interaction on this thread unedited and quote it directly here so that people can see what was said and decide for themselves if I was being an *kitten* who accused you of not reading studies or if, from my perspective, I was tired after two straight weeks of spending hours of my time per day reading to address claims of studies only to find out those mentioning them hadn't read them themselves so before I went on to discuss I wished to first ascertain A) if you had read the study and if you could cite and link the study so that I may read it myself. It was not a personal attack, I don't even know you so how could it be personal. At no point did I ever say that you hadn't read the studies I said that I had issues with people in this thread who hadn't read the studies they were referencing and therefore asked if you had. Asking someone if they have done something is not the same thing as an accusation. That is all. Rather than respond with a link to the study you responded with butthurt. At that point there was no reason for further interaction so I withdrew from the conversation as I cannot comment on what I cannot read and my interest is in the studies not in discussing what it is to be rude online. Apparently you decided to stick around and make daily accusations about me being biased and unfair.
I am tired of posting here and I'd rather not continue especially if what it is going to devolve into is he-said-she-said. If you don't actually disagree with the points in my original post I'm not sure why we are even having this discussion. If I offended you in any way I apologize it was not my intention. If you actually wish to discuss a particular study then I of course would need to be able to read it myself which would require a citation.
Here is the unedited conversation, I leave this here so people can make their own judgements about my behavior:rumezzo:
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.
Aaron_K123:
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.rumezzo::
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.Aaron_K123:
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.Aaron_K123:
I'm probably going to take a break from this thread. Wasn't expecting to still be at it this long and I feel like I'm mostly just repeating myself. If I keep at it I will likely become more clipped more terse and more annoyed and just be accused of bullying or ignoring or bias.
Need a break at least.rumezzo:
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.0 -
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.
Some triggers are stronger than others and will elevate a person to their personal threshold sooner - having a near instant reaction to aspartame doesn't mean a threshold doesn't exist, it means that aspartame is a strong enough trigger to push over the threshold in and of itself.
I don't understand what the bolded part has to do with thresholds. Lots of factors work in to a person's individual threshold - they don't just get worse over time - they can wax and wane due to various things, and certain people naturally have higher thresholds than others barring any other factor (likely genetics). Pregnancy is not a trigger for everyone - in fact, for some migraine sufferers, the hormones that are elevated during pregnancy are not triggers and those that wane are triggers - creating a protective effect through the duration of the pregnancy. Same with menopause - trigger for some, alleviation for others. Anyway, off the topic of aspartame at this point anyway... the point was that aspartame causing certain health effects in certain people doesn't mean toxic, it means some people just can't handle it just like any consumable substance.0 -
I"m out too buddy. Best of luck to you.This whole thing has just run amok. I actually don't disagree with the OP. I simply found him to be rude to me personally, and as I read through the thread, I found a trend with other posters as well if they disagreed with any of his premise. I don't think aspartame is scary in moderate amounts (as with most things). I think it makes me sick, so I don't consume it myself. I don't care what the heck everyone else drinks, and I, too, am often frustrated with pseudoscience and sensationalism run amok from irresponsible internet shenanigans (hello...anti-vax crowd). That said, I don't know him. He doesn't know me. So, for him to assume that I didn't actually read a study I recalled reading, and that I must have read it on a blog, was rather offensive to me. That is the where I was coming from. If you think that kind of behavior is acceptable, or even remotely helpful in educating others or changing their minds, then you are also mistaken. I don't know what he goes through in his crusade to teach us all on MFP, and I'm am sure that he encounters plenty of idiocy. However, I think it is really rude to be condescending to those who say do say, "I don't drink it because it makes me feel bad". Now, were folks to react that way to someone who hopped her and began spouting sensationalist nonsense, I could understand, but why in heaven's name is there such vitriol against someone who weighs in? Anecdotal evidence may not be clinically significant, but that doesn't mean a person should be discounted if he or she says "I found it triggers migraines," because doctors will tell you if something is a common migraine trigger, you might want to think about avoiding it. Regardless of how safe aspartame is for the masses, I would then deem it unsafe for that particular user, and that particular user is still a valid part of the discussion, and ought to be allowed to share such a story, even if merely anecdotal, as part of the larger conversation, without being accused of idiocy, especially if they aren't making assertions about the overall safety of aspartame, but simply sharing why they choose not to consume it.
In conclusion, just don't be as *kitten* to be people, and everyone will get a lot further.
Against my better judgement I am going to respond to this. The way I am going to respond is to collect the sum total of our interaction on this thread unedited and quote it directly here so that people can see what was said and decide for themselves if I was being an *kitten* who accused you of not reading studies or if, from my perspective, I was tired after two straight weeks of spending hours of my time per day reading to address claims of studies only to find out those mentioning them hadn't read them themselves so before I went on to discuss I wished to first ascertain A) if you had read the study and if you could cite and link the study so that I may read it myself. It was not a personal attack, I don't even know you so how could it be personal. At no point did I ever say that you hadn't read the studies I said that I had issues with people in this thread who hadn't read the studies they were referencing and therefore asked if you had. Asking someone if they have done something is not the same thing as an accusation. That is all. Rather than respond with a link to the study you responded with butthurt. At that point there was no reason for further interaction so I withdrew from the conversation as I cannot comment on what I cannot read and my interest is in the studies not in discussing what it is to be rude online. Apparently you decided to stick around and make daily accusations about me being biased and unfair.
I am tired of posting here and I'd rather not continue especially if what it is going to devolve into is he-said-she-said. If you don't actually disagree with the points in my original post I'm not sure why we are even having this discussion. If I offended you in any way I apologize it was not my intention. If you actually wish to discuss a particular study then I of course would need to be able to read it myself which would require a citation.
Here is the unedited conversation, I leave this here so people can make their own judgements about my behavior:rumezzo:
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.
Aaron_K123:
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.rumezzo::
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.Aaron_K123:
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.Aaron_K123:
I'm probably going to take a break from this thread. Wasn't expecting to still be at it this long and I feel like I'm mostly just repeating myself. If I keep at it I will likely become more clipped more terse and more annoyed and just be accused of bullying or ignoring or bias.
Need a break at least.rumezzo:
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.
FWIW, in the first post as quoted above, you said "studies have shown". You did not say you read those studies. perhaps you felt it was implied by mentioning that the sources were university studies and med orgs but you just said studies. Aaron's question was perfectly fair given the vagueness of that verbiage3 -
Nobody has ever advocated drinking soda of any type. The OP has clearly stated, multiple times, that he is not advocating for drinking it. He's simply showing why aspartame won't cause your face to explode when you drink it. That's it.
It's not healthy. It's not un-healthy. It's basically water. Drink it if you want. Don't drink it if you don't want. It doesn't matter. Just don't spread lies about how dangerous it is. That's the entire point of the thread.
Exactly!1 -
By far the most *facepalm* article I've read on MFP.... Why is this flagged?
Why shouldn't this thread be flagged?1 -
Rumezzo, I think you are massively over reacting to what was a very reasonable question from Aaron, not an accusation at all.
Nobody, including Aaron, has said anybody should not avoid aspartame, or anything else, if it causes individual adverse effects, such as migraines.
and nobody was an *kitten* to you either.
I don't know. I don't think it is reasonable to ask a person if they've actually read something they've already said they've read, or imply that they might just be so ignorant they only read about it on a blog. I think that was offensive. I stand by that. I shared a personal experience and some comments, and I was insulted by him. I'm not sure why a million of you feel the need to be involved, but it's beginning to border on harassment. I'm out.
You were not insulted by him and you were not harassed.
I stand by my previous post ( as quoted above)
People 'need to be involved' because it is a public post on a public thread.
Not a private conversation.1 -
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.
Some triggers are stronger than others and will elevate a person to their personal threshold sooner - having a near instant reaction to aspartame doesn't mean a threshold doesn't exist, it means that aspartame is a strong enough trigger to push over the threshold in and of itself.
I don't understand what the bolded part has to do with thresholds. Lots of factors work in to a person's individual threshold - they don't just get worse over time - they can wax and wane due to various things, and certain people naturally have higher thresholds than others barring any other factor (likely genetics). Pregnancy is not a trigger for everyone - in fact, for some migraine sufferers, the hormones that are elevated during pregnancy are not triggers and those that wane are triggers - creating a protective effect through the duration of the pregnancy. Same with menopause - trigger for some, alleviation for others. Anyway, off the topic of aspartame at this point anyway... the point was that aspartame causing certain health effects in certain people doesn't mean toxic, it means some people just can't handle it just like any consumable substance.
Sorry for the hi-jack :flowerforyou:
I think it was a difference in verbiage. Medically I normally hear of threshold as it is applied in the cumulative effect with seizures. Most animals & humans have a seizure threshold, the more a trigger is applied, the lower the threshold becomes. For example say a certain chemical triggers a seizure, each subsequent time a seizure is triggered the threshold becomes lower and makes the animal/human increasedly prone to seizures. That is why with animals (that suffer seizures), over their lifetime their seizure threshold is lowered and at some point they normally need to be euthanized because the frequency becomes almost constant or severe enough that it causes permanent brain/organ damage.
I meant no insult, I had just never with any neurologist heard of migraines having a cumulative threshold effect. I believe we just meant different things. Sorry for the confusion, probably also makes the part that made no sense to you...make sense on what I meant. When I had read what you wrote and used the terms as I understood them, all I could think was "god, if that is true how am I not homicidal or dead by now" mine were so severe in my 20's, taking the term as I saw it would mean that by now I would be living with an IV for those damn things by now. :flowerforyou:
Now back to aspartame ending civilization as we know it.....too much, huh?!? :drinker:
Sorry again for the hi-jack0 -
Rumezzo, I think you are massively over reacting to what was a very reasonable question from Aaron, not an accusation at all.
Nobody, including Aaron, has said anybody should not avoid aspartame, or anything else, if it causes individual adverse effects, such as migraines.
and nobody was an *kitten* to you either.
I don't know. I don't think it is reasonable to ask a person if they've actually read something they've already said they've read, or imply that they might just be so ignorant they only read about it on a blog. I think that was offensive. I stand by that. I shared a personal experience and some comments, and I was insulted by him. I'm not sure why a million of you feel the need to be involved, but it's beginning to border on harassment. I'm out.
If the shoe fits.
When someone can't support their position, and just parrots talking points and copies and pastes titles found from search engine (or even worse, the references from a propaganda article), it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the person in question hasn't read the studies.
When challenged, they resort to the "you're a big meanie-head" rather than intelligently debating their position,
Yep. Didn't read it.2
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