Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
Uhm... has monsanto even anything to do with aspartame? Like, at all?0
-
They used to own nutrasweet but that was in the 90s ...pretty sure they sold it more than a decade ago
Still aspartame is one of the most tested foodstuffs ever so the I can't even on conspiracy theorists
0 -
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »booksandchocolate12 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »mrshollamby2015 wrote: »Aspartame almost killed me I ended up with blood poisoning and it's because of this! I went into anaphylactic shock I don't care what anyone says it's dangerous
That just means it's dangerous to you.
Exactly. My daughter's friend has a peanut allergy. Consuming peanuts might result in anaphylactic shock for her.
So, I guess that means that peanuts are dangerous and should be avoided by everyone?
Of course! Much easier than expecting the allergic person to simply avoid their allergen or carry an Epi-Pen.
I'm allergic to wasps. Yes, deathly allergic. I carry an Epi-Pen, but I would happily have wasps eradicated off the planet because I've never found a good or irreplaceable need for them in nature's food chain anyway.
Eradicate wasps and say good bye to figs!
Okay, eradicate wasps in Canada, then, because we don't grow any figs here.
0 -
I guess I missed the post about where the "only naturally occurring" eaters harvest their ice cream and butter.1
-
Cream comes from my friends milk cow. I can choose to put it in my coffee, shake it in a jar to make a nice little lump of butter, or blend it with sugar and vanilla and run it through my old fashioned crank ice cream maker. But of course I know that is not possible for everyone. I love my life! I am never sure why the statement "naturally occurring" seems to get people's panties in a bunch. It is not a difficult way to live, even if you cannot grow your own. I did not say ONLY, I ate sour patch kids, Dairy Queen cake, all sorts of other things I don't typically choose yesterday. But that is the point, I can choose right? I don't see why my choice cannot be met with the same respect given to vegetarians and vegans.0
-
If it caused insulin issues, diet sodas wouldn't be a recommended option for diabetics according to the American Diabetics Association.Are there any studies about the effects of aspartame (and other sweeteners I guess) on dental hygiene?
Also, I've heard that artificial sweeteners can increase insulin production unnecessarily; are there studies of such things, and if so do you know of any you can point out to those of us that are curious?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
The issue is the source your boyfriend is getting the info from. Dentists are experts on teeth............................not cancer.So what's the difference in aspartame and sucralose? My boyfriend just got chewed out by his dentist for using splenda... he was told he would get cancer. I obviously know this isn't going to happen, but I'm still curious.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
youngmomtaz wrote: »Cream comes from my friends milk cow. I can choose to put it in my coffee, shake it in a jar to make a nice little lump of butter, or blend it with sugar and vanilla and run it through my old fashioned crank ice cream maker. But of course I know that is not possible for everyone. I love my life! I am never sure why the statement "naturally occurring" seems to get people's panties in a bunch. It is not a difficult way to live, even if you cannot grow your own. I did not say ONLY, I ate sour patch kids, Dairy Queen cake, all sorts of other things I don't typically choose yesterday. But that is the point, I can choose right? I don't see why my choice cannot be met with the same respect given to vegetarians and vegans.
If your choice is based on an irrational fear that is completely unfounded by any science to date since they started checking it back in the 70s or so, wouldn't you want to know that? I know I would.0 -
msheskajones wrote: »Seriously what do you work for MOnsanto????? Its bad for you...Are you one of their Scientists that just lies to people.It was Proven its harmful.Monsanto was called out for Lieing to Congress.Seriously!!!
Although I am flattered that you made an entire profile for the sole purpose of posting on this thread I don't agree with you. Yes I am a scientist, a molecular biologist specifically, no...I do not work for Monsanto nor do I understand why that would even be relevant. Aspartame has not been "proven harmful", every study conducted testing safety in humans has shown no harm....that is a fact. Not only that but biochemically speaking the metabolic products of aspartame are no different than what you get eating any number of whole foods. If you wish to refer to a study in humans that DOES show harm please reference it and we can discuss. What people say online or what people say to Congress is just what people say, it is anecdote and it doesn't particularly interest me. People say lots of things and if your information is grounded on what people say, it is easy to be misled.0 -
youngmomtaz wrote: »I am never sure why the statement "naturally occurring" seems to get people's panties in a bunch. It is not a difficult way to live, even if you cannot grow your own.
I suppose as a scientist it gets my "panties in a bunch" because the opposite of a "naturally" occuring food would be a "supernaturally" occuring food. What foods are supernatural? We exist in nature, we are confined by the laws of nature. If we make something, it is bound by those laws. There is nothing supernatural about what we make, it isn't somehow existing outside of nature. Chemistry is chemistry, whether a molecule comes from an plant or it comes from a synthesis in a lab says absolutely nothing about its safety, its efficacy, its usefulness, its harm, its benefits or anything. People seem to use the word natural to mean something else which is not man-made, of course in my opinion they should just say not man-made because that is what they mean but regardless this idea that it being "natural" or not man-made somehow indicates it is better is not founded on anything. Pretty much nothing in our civilization is not man-made and the reason we made those things like clothes, shelters, fruit and vegetables that are larger and easier to eat, was because it improved our quality of life.
1 -
So you take ingredients that are found "naturally" and combine them with other "naturally" occurring items. Kinda like, well, aspartame.youngmomtaz wrote: »Cream comes from my friends milk cow. I can choose to put it in my coffee, shake it in a jar to make a nice little lump of butter, or blend it with sugar and vanilla and run it through my old fashioned crank ice cream maker. But of course I know that is not possible for everyone. I love my life! I am never sure why the statement "naturally occurring" seems to get people's panties in a bunch. It is not a difficult way to live, even if you cannot grow your own. I did not say ONLY, I ate sour patch kids, Dairy Queen cake, all sorts of other things I don't typically choose yesterday. But that is the point, I can choose right? I don't see why my choice cannot be met with the same respect given to vegetarians and vegans.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »youngmomtaz wrote: »Cream comes from my friends milk cow. I can choose to put it in my coffee, shake it in a jar to make a nice little lump of butter, or blend it with sugar and vanilla and run it through my old fashioned crank ice cream maker. But of course I know that is not possible for everyone. I love my life! I am never sure why the statement "naturally occurring" seems to get people's panties in a bunch. It is not a difficult way to live, even if you cannot grow your own. I did not say ONLY, I ate sour patch kids, Dairy Queen cake, all sorts of other things I don't typically choose yesterday. But that is the point, I can choose right? I don't see why my choice cannot be met with the same respect given to vegetarians and vegans.
If your choice is based on an irrational fear that is completely unfounded by any science to date since they started checking it back in the 70s or so, wouldn't you want to know that? I know I would.
Who said anything about fear?
I am choosing "non-man made" items to eat. That is the same when I am prescribed a drug, when given the option of a few that serve the same purpose I am likely to choose the one with the least amount of side affects or the one whose side affects will not increase symptoms I already have. When artificial sweeteners give me an almost instant headache there is something wrong and that is a side affect I will avoid when possible. I am likely to make choices daily on inane things like heating my food in glass instead of plastic, if and when I will apply sunscreen, if I think the benefits of a meal containing soy products outweigh the risks of hormone disruption. And it goes on. All choices that may or may not affect my health. I don't really think food should be made in a lab, it should be grown. Personal opinion there and I am thankful every day to be able to express it. But this is just a choice the same as any other. I can read studies the same as you can. And I can read about the science that evolves to be smarter than the science before it. That is the nature and the point of scientific study I would assume. They determined that BPA was unsafe, they assess the drugs that were released to the public and later killed, maimed and otherwise harmed.
If I have made a choice to eat food not chemically manipulated though structurally the same, I am not losing out. Nobody is adversely affected. I would say my food tastes good, we are well fed, possibly have saved some money, and we made a choice.
0 -
The issue is the source your boyfriend is getting the info from. Dentists are experts on teeth............................not cancer.So what's the difference in aspartame and sucralose? My boyfriend just got chewed out by his dentist for using splenda... he was told he would get cancer. I obviously know this isn't going to happen, but I'm still curious.
This brings up an interesting and important point. People tend to put great stock into what their doctors (or dentists!) tell them. But the fact is that doctors know very little about nutrition because that's not a major part of becoming a physician. And those "facts" that they do know are often based on pop medicine from 10+ years ago.
My own doctor told me that I should cut down on meat because of elevated cholesterol. Literally NO ONE who reads scientific literature has believed that dietary cholesterol affects blood cholesterol levels for a decade. So instead I worked out more and my levels are fine now.
If you want to know what to believe about nutrition, do your own research. PubMed and Google Scholar have all the into you need. Most doctors -- especially Doctor Oz -- do not.
And yes, there's zero peer-reviewed evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer.
0 -
I am choosing "non-man made" items to eat.
What did you find in a supermarket that was not man-made youngmomtaz? Could you give some examples of foods that would exist without human intervention that can be found in a grocery store?
This idea that somehow an apple or almonds or a bananna or corn or anything else you find in a store came into being from natural processes rather than through manipulation by our civilization by our own hands. Those things are as man-made as anything else in our civilization. We made apples, we made almonds, we made banannas...they do not exist in that form anywhere in the wild. We altered the wild versions using our technology of the time in order to make what we felt were improvements in them for our wellbeing. This is a good thing, and this anti-humanity pro-anything-natural attitude I really do not understand. If you found and ate a handful of wild almonds you would be dead. Nature does not have your interests in mind, it doesn't have a mind....humanity does.
So then we have to revise this again. By "natural" not only do you mean "not man-made" you also mean "not man-made by this one particular modern technique". You draw this arbitrary line in the sand. If it was man-made by selective breeding over 2 thousand years I guess that is okay despite the fact that the end product does not resemble anything found in actual nature.
Why is something made "in a lab" the line that you have drawn? What is the actual difference? You might point out that selective breeding uses natural processes. Well guess what so does genetic engineering and so do labs, or are labs and genetic engineering somehow supernatural and unbound by natural laws?
What harm does this attitude cause? It perpetuates a false and misleading worldview that ends up leading to governments defunding scientific endevours based not on research or study of benefit demonstrated but rather on the whim of public opinion on the basis of beliefs garnered from stories on the internet. It makes decisions regarding the development of foods for deployment in developing countries where most of the population suffers vitamin deficiencies (such as Golden Rice) dependent on the approval of a fickle first-world public who aren't sure they should trust the source of the caramel food coloring in their double-carmel frappacino. If you think the anti-GMO sentiment in the United States has no impact on charitable non-profit developments that utilize GE then you are just ignorant. I don't use the word ignorant to offend, I'm just saying you are unaware of it but being unaware of it doesn't make it somehow okay or not harmful. As a scientist it is incredibly frustrating and gets my "panties" into that aforementioned "bunch".0 -
Again, from where do you harvest your ice cream and butter? Aren't they man-made?youngmomtaz wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »youngmomtaz wrote: »Cream comes from my friends milk cow. I can choose to put it in my coffee, shake it in a jar to make a nice little lump of butter, or blend it with sugar and vanilla and run it through my old fashioned crank ice cream maker. But of course I know that is not possible for everyone. I love my life! I am never sure why the statement "naturally occurring" seems to get people's panties in a bunch. It is not a difficult way to live, even if you cannot grow your own. I did not say ONLY, I ate sour patch kids, Dairy Queen cake, all sorts of other things I don't typically choose yesterday. But that is the point, I can choose right? I don't see why my choice cannot be met with the same respect given to vegetarians and vegans.
If your choice is based on an irrational fear that is completely unfounded by any science to date since they started checking it back in the 70s or so, wouldn't you want to know that? I know I would.
Who said anything about fear?
I am choosing "non-man made" items to eat.
0 -
You cannot judge the safety of something solely on the basis of the process or tool used to make it. Selective breeding can be used to make something beneficial or it could be used to make something harmful. Genetic engineering can be used to make something beneficial or it could be used to make something harmful. Chemistry can be used to make something beneficial or it could be used to make something harmful. A hammer can be used to make something beneficial or it could be used to make something harmful. These are just tools and there is nothing inherent about them that sets a standard by which we can evaluate safety.
Saying I avoid anything made with genetic engineering because of safety concerns makes about as much sense as saying I avoid anything made with hammers because of safety concerns. I can certainly think of things you could make with a hammer that would be harmful but is that a logical reason to avoid anything made with hammers? What does the tool used in a products production have to do with its safety?
Tools don't influence safety. Safety has to be evaluated at the level of the actual product on a product by product basis. Avoiding things on the basis of what tool was used in part in their production makes no sense to me.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »You cannot judge the safety of something solely on the basis of the process or tool used to make it. Selective breeding can be used to make something beneficial or it could be used to make something harmful. Genetic engineering can be used to make something beneficial or it could be used to make something harmful. Chemistry can be used to make something beneficial or it could be used to make something harmful. A hammer can be used to make something beneficial or it could be used to make something harmful. These are just tools and there is nothing inherent about them sets a standard by which we can evaluate safety.
Saying I avoid anything made with genetic engineering because of safety concerns makes about as much sense as saying I avoid anything made with hammers because of safety concerns. I can certainly think of things you could make with a hammer that would be harmful but is that a logical reason to avoid anything made with hammers? What does the tool used in a products production have to do with its safety?
Tools don't influence safety. Safety has to be evaluated at the level of the actual product on a product by product basis. Avoiding things on the basis of what tool was used in part in their production makes no sense to me.
I appreciate your well thought out and very logical posts.
Thank you.
I'll refrain from quoting everything you've said, but I was sorely tempted.0 -
Well good or bad for you?? Don't really know. All I know is if I have something with aspartame in it, I get really sick. So that makes me stay away.0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I am choosing "non-man made" items to eat.
What did you find in a supermarket that was not man-made youngmomtaz? Could you give some examples of foods that would exist without human intervention that can be found in a grocery store?
This idea that somehow an apple or almonds or a bananna or corn or anything else you find in a store came into being from natural processes rather than through manipulation by our civilization by our own hands. Those things are as man-made as anything else in our civilization. We made apples, we made almonds, we made banannas...they do not exist in that form anywhere in the wild. We altered the wild versions using our technology of the time in order to make what we felt were improvements in them for our wellbeing. This is a good thing, and this anti-humanity pro-anything-natural attitude I really do not understand. If you found and ate a handful of wild almonds you would be dead. Nature does not have your interests in mind, it doesn't have a mind....humanity does.
So then we have to revise this again. By "natural" not only do you mean "not man-made" you also mean "not man-made by this one particular modern technique". You draw this arbitrary line in the sand. If it was man-made by selective breeding over 2 thousand years I guess that is okay despite the fact that the end product does not resemble anything found in actual nature.
Why is something made "in a lab" the line that you have drawn? What is the actual difference? You might point out that selective breeding uses natural processes. Well guess what so does genetic engineering and so do labs, or are labs and genetic engineering somehow supernatural and unbound by natural laws?
What harm does this attitude cause? It perpetuates a false and misleading worldview that ends up leading to governments defunding scientific endevours based not on research or study of benefit demonstrated but rather on the whim of public opinion on the basis of beliefs garnered from stories on the internet. It makes decisions regarding the development of foods for deployment in developing countries where most of the population suffers vitamin deficiencies (such as Golden Rice) dependent on the approval of a fickle first-world public who aren't sure they should trust the source of the caramel food coloring in their double-carmel frappacino. If you think the anti-GMO sentiment in the United States has no impact on charitable non-profit developments that utilize GE then you are just ignorant. I don't use the word ignorant to offend, I'm just saying you are unaware of it but being unaware of it doesn't make it somehow okay or not harmful. As a scientist it is incredibly frustrating and gets my "panties" into that aforementioned "bunch".
You, sir, are awesome.
0 -
1
-
youngmomtaz wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »youngmomtaz wrote: »Cream comes from my friends milk cow. I can choose to put it in my coffee, shake it in a jar to make a nice little lump of butter, or blend it with sugar and vanilla and run it through my old fashioned crank ice cream maker. But of course I know that is not possible for everyone. I love my life! I am never sure why the statement "naturally occurring" seems to get people's panties in a bunch. It is not a difficult way to live, even if you cannot grow your own. I did not say ONLY, I ate sour patch kids, Dairy Queen cake, all sorts of other things I don't typically choose yesterday. But that is the point, I can choose right? I don't see why my choice cannot be met with the same respect given to vegetarians and vegans.
If your choice is based on an irrational fear that is completely unfounded by any science to date since they started checking it back in the 70s or so, wouldn't you want to know that? I know I would.
Who said anything about fear?
I am choosing "non-man made" items to eat. That is the same when I am prescribed a drug, when given the option of a few that serve the same purpose I am likely to choose the one with the least amount of side affects or the one whose side affects will not increase symptoms I already have. When artificial sweeteners give me an almost instant headache there is something wrong and that is a side affect I will avoid when possible. I am likely to make choices daily on inane things like heating my food in glass instead of plastic, if and when I will apply sunscreen, if I think the benefits of a meal containing soy products outweigh the risks of hormone disruption. And it goes on. All choices that may or may not affect my health. I don't really think food should be made in a lab, it should be grown. Personal opinion there and I am thankful every day to be able to express it. But this is just a choice the same as any other. I can read studies the same as you can. And I can read about the science that evolves to be smarter than the science before it. That is the nature and the point of scientific study I would assume. They determined that BPA was unsafe, they assess the drugs that were released to the public and later killed, maimed and otherwise harmed.
If I have made a choice to eat food not chemically manipulated though structurally the same, I am not losing out. Nobody is adversely affected. I would say my food tastes good, we are well fed, possibly have saved some money, and we made a choice.
What is the reasoning if not fear?
Fear of "man-made" foods being inferior, or even dangerous to you when they're not.0 -
Aaron, you're a gentleman and a scholar and your way with words is extremely sexy.1
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I am choosing "non-man made" items to eat.
What did you find in a supermarket that was not man-made youngmomtaz? Could you give some examples of foods that would exist without human intervention that can be found in a grocery store?
This idea that somehow an apple or almonds or a bananna or corn or anything else you find in a store came into being from natural processes rather than through manipulation by our civilization by our own hands. Those things are as man-made as anything else in our civilization. We made apples, we made almonds, we made banannas...they do not exist in that form anywhere in the wild. We altered the wild versions using our technology of the time in order to make what we felt were improvements in them for our wellbeing. This is a good thing, and this anti-humanity pro-anything-natural attitude I really do not understand. If you found and ate a handful of wild almonds you would be dead. Nature does not have your interests in mind, it doesn't have a mind....humanity does.
So then we have to revise this again. By "natural" not only do you mean "not man-made" you also mean "not man-made by this one particular modern technique". You draw this arbitrary line in the sand. If it was man-made by selective breeding over 2 thousand years I guess that is okay despite the fact that the end product does not resemble anything found in actual nature.
Why is something made "in a lab" the line that you have drawn? What is the actual difference? You might point out that selective breeding uses natural processes. Well guess what so does genetic engineering and so do labs, or are labs and genetic engineering somehow supernatural and unbound by natural laws?
What harm does this attitude cause? It perpetuates a false and misleading worldview that ends up leading to governments defunding scientific endevours based not on research or study of benefit demonstrated but rather on the whim of public opinion on the basis of beliefs garnered from stories on the internet. It makes decisions regarding the development of foods for deployment in developing countries where most of the population suffers vitamin deficiencies (such as Golden Rice) dependent on the approval of a fickle first-world public who aren't sure they should trust the source of the caramel food coloring in their double-carmel frappacino. If you think the anti-GMO sentiment in the United States has no impact on charitable non-profit developments that utilize GE then you are just ignorant. I don't use the word ignorant to offend, I'm just saying you are unaware of it but being unaware of it doesn't make it somehow okay or not harmful. As a scientist it is incredibly frustrating and gets my "panties" into that aforementioned "bunch".
Marry me.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »booksandchocolate12 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »mrshollamby2015 wrote: »Aspartame almost killed me I ended up with blood poisoning and it's because of this! I went into anaphylactic shock I don't care what anyone says it's dangerous
That just means it's dangerous to you.
Exactly. My daughter's friend has a peanut allergy. Consuming peanuts might result in anaphylactic shock for her.
So, I guess that means that peanuts are dangerous and should be avoided by everyone?
Of course! Much easier than expecting the allergic person to simply avoid their allergen or carry an Epi-Pen.
I'm allergic to wasps. Yes, deathly allergic. I carry an Epi-Pen, but I would happily have wasps eradicated off the planet because I've never found a good or irreplaceable need for them in nature's food chain anyway.
Eradicate wasps and say good bye to figs!
Okay, eradicate wasps in Canada, then, because we don't grow any figs here.
I'm in. You start from out west and I'll start frrom the east coast and we'll meet in Ontario.0 -
Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?
The substance doesn't need a defense like that, the people running around screaming "POISON! POISON IN THE SODA!!!" need it, although as we have seen, even facts won't sway some people.
That made me laugh so hard Also, thanks Aaron, for helping me enjoy my diet coke without worry. 0 -
If it caused insulin issues, diet sodas wouldn't be a recommended option for diabetics according to the American Diabetics Association.Are there any studies about the effects of aspartame (and other sweeteners I guess) on dental hygiene?
Also, I've heard that artificial sweeteners can increase insulin production unnecessarily; are there studies of such things, and if so do you know of any you can point out to those of us that are curious?
Ok, so what are the studies that the ADA refered to when they made their decision to recommend diet sodas?0 -
Mind blowing fact: cooking alters the chemical composition of foods.1
-
allaboutthefood wrote: »Well good or bad for you?? Don't really know. All I know is if I have something with aspartame in it, I get really sick. So that makes me stay away.
There are some people with what is basically an allergy/sensitivity to it, like many other foods. You definitely are one of those who needs to stay away from it. It is perfectly safe for the majority of the population.0 -
bikinilinds wrote: »Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.
Your diet is probably loaded with plenty of naturally-occurring carcinogens. See:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2002/11/01/naturally-occurring-mutagens-and-carcinogens-found-foods-and-beverages
0 -
If it caused insulin issues, diet sodas wouldn't be a recommended option for diabetics according to the American Diabetics Association.Are there any studies about the effects of aspartame (and other sweeteners I guess) on dental hygiene?
Also, I've heard that artificial sweeteners can increase insulin production unnecessarily; are there studies of such things, and if so do you know of any you can point out to those of us that are curious?
Ok, so what are the studies that the ADA refered to when they made their decision to recommend diet sodas?
ADA - we are research leaders
Here's the research they are funding, which is more focused on finding a cure
A literature review and conclusion from the ADA and the American Heart Association.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/8/1798.short
In other words, Aspartame is not scary. I for one am glad the ADA is focusing it's research elsewhere.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions