Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »It wouldn't be on sale if it was bad for us. Oh wait, they sell tobacco, alcohol and a trillion other products that are bad for us. Consumed in high amounts everything is bad for us. I think that's what I'm taking away from this. I often wonder if I'm better just putting plain old sugar in my tea. At least I know where I stand with that, been around for years and....oh wait i heard that causes cancer as well. Maybe just everything in moderation and it's ok. But why risk it ? But the fact is we do. We are bombarded with stuff almost on the daily. End up not knowing who to believe
Well you could start with the original post, written by a biochemist who has studied this compound extensively and took a lot of time to patiently explain the science in not terribly scientific terms so that laypeople can understand it a little better. Or you could check out this link that Gale posted above which I thought was very helpful at assuaging any concerns that a person might have.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/aspartame.html4 -
This content has been removed.
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »It wouldn't be on sale if it was bad for us. Oh wait, they sell tobacco, alcohol and a trillion other products that are bad for us. Consumed in high amounts everything is bad for us. I think that's what I'm taking away from this. I often wonder if I'm better just putting plain old sugar in my tea. At least I know where I stand with that, been around for years and....oh wait i heard that causes cancer as well. Maybe just everything in moderation and it's ok. But why risk it ? But the fact is we do. We are bombarded with stuff almost on the daily. End up not knowing who to believe
Well you could start with the original post, written by a biochemist who has studied this compound extensively and took a lot of time to patiently explain the science in not terribly scientific terms so that laypeople can understand it a little better. Or you could check out this link that Gale posted above which I thought was very helpful at assuaging any concerns that a person might have.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/aspartame.html
Thanks, I do try to read as much as I can. Reading about cancer isn't something I want to do lol. I know, there is much more educated people than me on the subject, I just tend to go with my gut. Who knows, tomorrow asparatme or whatever it's called, probably will be bad for us ! It happens with products all the time who's to say this is any different
At this point, after 40 years of research, it's probably safe to say that aspartame is safe for consumption. What is largely more important is getting adequate nutrients, getting into a healthy weight and exercising. Aside from genetics, those are the most effective ways to prevent health issues.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »It wouldn't be on sale if it was bad for us. Oh wait, they sell tobacco, alcohol and a trillion other products that are bad for us. Consumed in high amounts everything is bad for us. I think that's what I'm taking away from this. I often wonder if I'm better just putting plain old sugar in my tea. At least I know where I stand with that, been around for years and....oh wait i heard that causes cancer as well. Maybe just everything in moderation and it's ok. But why risk it ? But the fact is we do. We are bombarded with stuff almost on the daily. End up not knowing who to believe
Well you could start with the original post, written by a biochemist who has studied this compound extensively and took a lot of time to patiently explain the science in not terribly scientific terms so that laypeople can understand it a little better. Or you could check out this link that Gale posted above which I thought was very helpful at assuaging any concerns that a person might have.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/aspartame.html
Thanks, I do try to read as much as I can. Reading about cancer isn't something I want to do lol. I know, there is much more educated people than me on the subject, I just tend to go with my gut. Who knows, tomorrow asparatme or whatever it's called, probably will be bad for us ! It happens with products all the time who's to say this is any different
At this point, after 40 years of research, it's probably safe to say that aspartame is safe for consumption. What is largely more important is getting adequate nutrients, getting into a healthy weight and exercising. Aside from genetics, those are the most effective ways to prevent health issues.
I agree. Didn't know there was 40 years research. It's just difficult accepting new things especially when they are from a scientific view point. Fear of the unknown.
This is why our emotions can be a dangerous guide to decision-making.
It's hard to keep our emotions out of things (probably impossible for most of us to do it 100%), but fear is a terrible guide in life.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Too much calories = fat
8 -
This content has been removed.
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I think aspartame breaking down inside of the body to form formaldehyde is my top health risk concern in my case
I addressed the concern about formaldehyde in my original post. Quite simply you would get much more formaldehyde from the breakdown of methanol from a glass or grapefruit juice (or any other fruit juice for that matter) than you would from a liter of diet coke. So unless you avoid fruit juice for the same reason I have to question if the levels of methanol content (and from that formaldehyde) are truly a concern.
4 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Well, whatever the amount of money they spent 'discovering' this new 'sugar' for 40 years why not spend that on finding a cure for 'cancer'
Is my honest answer
But no, let us enjoy our coka cola. C'mon guys 40 years research into what?
Couple of things. One, it isn't a sugar. Two, the 40 years of research wasn't to "discover" it it has been the amount of time we have been repeatedly testing it for safety based on the amount of unending public "concern" for aspartame safety generated by a relatively uninformed public.
Aspartame is probably the most studied food product out there, not because there was reason to study it that much but rather because of the almost urban-legend status concerns about it raised by the public constantly goading it to be tested again and again and again.
It is safe, we don't need to continue to test it over and over. I agree with you, that money would be much better directed towards cancer research. Yet the public continues to clamor for more testing because they read online it causes cancer or is toxic or whatever the fear-of-the-day is today, maybe it causes autism now.11 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Well, whatever the amount of money they spent 'discovering' this new 'sugar' for 40 years why not spend that on finding a cure for 'cancer'
Is my honest answer
But no, let us enjoy our coka cola. C'mon guys 40 years research into what?
I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you are saying.
Aspartame, like any food additive, is studied extensively to make sure it is safe for human consumption.
This does not mean that researchers are not actively working to find a cure for cancer.
In fact, artificial sweeteners, have contributed positively to the health of many individuals who rely on the consumption of them in a calorie controlled diet to help manage things like diabetes, or who have lowered their risk of heart disease by losing weight.
You mentioned not understanding a lot of the science behind what people are posting - but rather than assuming the worst - maybe try reading the original post where @Aaron_K123 patiently explained a lot of this.10 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Well, whatever the amount of money they spent 'discovering' this new 'sugar' for 40 years why not spend that on finding a cure for 'cancer'
Is my honest answer
But no, let us enjoy our coka cola. C'mon guys 40 years research into what?
Couple of things. One, it isn't a sugar. Two, the 40 years of research wasn't to "discover" it it has been the amount of time we have been repeatedly testing it for safety based on the amount of unending public "concern" for aspartame safety generated by a relatively uninformed public.
Aspartame is probably the most studied food product out there, not because there was reason to study it that much but rather because of the almost urban-legend status concerns about it raised by the public constantly goading it to be tested again and again and again.
It is safe, we don't need to continue to test it over and over. I agree with you, that money would be much better directed towards cancer research. Yet the public continues to clamor for more testing because they read online it causes cancer or is toxic or whatever the fear-of-the-day is today, maybe it causes autism now.
quickly googled that, and of course it does. 3 guesses about the quality of the source.
hint: starts with an "M" and ends with an "ercola"
8 -
This content has been removed.
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Well, whatever the amount of money they spent 'discovering' this new 'sugar' for 40 years why not spend that on finding a cure for 'cancer'
Is my honest answer
But no, let us enjoy our coka cola. C'mon guys 40 years research into what?
They have been researching cures for cancer over the past 40 years. It's not like the money that food companies are spending on developing new products would automatically be available for cancer research if it wasn't spent on sugar substitute research.
They're different sources of funding, different types of scientists, different companies/organizations.
It's like asking why we have cell phones when premature births still happen or why movie special effects have gotten so much better while people still get the flu.9 -
This content has been removed.
-
You might want to have a look at this discussion on that article.Diet sodas may be tied to stroke, dementia risk.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/health/diet-sodas-stroke-dementia-study/
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10545803/todays-news-on-diet-soda-pop
Summarizing: diet sodas correlate with obesity and lack of exercise, which also correlates with dementia and stroke.4 -
Diet sodas may be tied to stroke, dementia risk.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/health/diet-sodas-stroke-dementia-study/
Don't confuse CNN editorials based on statistical analysis of survey's for scientific studies.
Here is the source for that CNN editorial.
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/04/20/STROKEAHA.116.016027
From that paper here is what they actually did.
"We studied 2888 participants aged >45 years for incident stroke (mean age 62 [SD, 9] years; 45% men) and 1484 participants aged >60 years for incident dementia (mean age 69 [SD, 6] years; 46% men). Beverage intake was quantified using a food-frequency questionnaire at cohort examinations 5 (1991–1995), 6 (1995–1998), and 7 (1998–2001). We quantified recent consumption at examination 7 and cumulative consumption by averaging across examinations. Surveillance for incident events commenced at examination 7 and continued for 10 years. We observed 97 cases of incident stroke (82 ischemic) and 81 cases of incident dementia (63 consistent with Alzheimer’s disease)."
What that basically means is they looked at survey data for people who answered that they drank diet beverages and found that those people had a higher incidence of stroke and dementia relative to people who said on the survey that they did not drink diet beverages.. None of the variables were controlled as it was an after-the-fact evaluation of survey data to search for correlations. From that they concluded "Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia."
Note the word "associated" which is another term for it being a correlative.
Of course someone who writes for CNN picked that up and ran with it with an editorial.
People who are overweight often drink diet beverages. That doesn't mean diet beverages make you fat. Correlation is not causation, a phrase I am sure you have heard given this is one of the most abused things out there in the media's interpretation of scientific data.
To see what you can do with correlations this is a website that pulls aggregate data and uses algorithms to find correlations and then auto-produces graphs to show those correlations. If you think correlation is equivalent to cause then here might be some other things to avoid:
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Here is the thing with correlations. They are very useful in scientific study....for disproving that something is a cause of something else, but not for demonstrating cause. In otherwords if you hypothesize that A causes B you can do a correlation study and show that A correlates with B not as proof of cause but as part of due-dillegence of testing the null hypothesis. If you did the correlation study and showed A did not correlate with B that would demonstrate that A is NOT the cause of B. The reason for that is correlation is a requirement of cause but not all correlations are causes. If A causes B then A will correlate with B but many MANY things that aren't causes will also correlate with B.
The issue isn't the studies or the people doing the studies, the issue is the media picking up correlations like they are proof of causation and then writing the editorials that are the actual public exposure since the public by and large is not science-literate and does not read the actual studies.
6 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Something really is off for me, why do I need this new thing to use when I have sugar ?
Because it has zero calories and some people (especially here on MFP) are trying to reduce their total calorie consumption in order to manage their weight?9 -
This content has been removed.
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Something really is off for me, why do I need this new thing to use when I have sugar ?
You may not. But someone like a diabetic might have a lit of uses for it. The same way that I don't have any use for decaf coffee but they still sell it in stores. Different people find different things useful. Would you deny them that just because you don't choose to use it?4 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Something really is off for me, why do I need this new thing to use when I have sugar ?
Because it has zero calories and some people (especially here on MFP) are trying to reduce their total calorie consumption in order to manage their weight?
Learn to manage your weight then. Cut back. Easy peasy
This is how some people choose to cut back... by replacing foods or drinks that they consume which normally have sugar in them, with an alternative which has an artificial sweetener.
8 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Is sugar now back of the cupboard? Iv noticed these new sugars are a lot more expensive, for tiny amounts of the stuff.
I keep three kinds of sugar plus honey, molasses, and maple syrup in my pantry. I also enjoy my diet soda with aspartame as an afternoon snack. Why do you feel that having more options is a bad thing?5 -
This content has been removed.
-
diannethegeek wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Is sugar now back of the cupboard? Iv noticed these new sugars are a lot more expensive, for tiny amounts of the stuff.
I keep three kinds of sugar plus honey, molasses, and maple syrup in my pantry. I also enjoy my diet soda with aspartame as an afternoon snack. Why do you feel that having more options is a bad thing?
Pretty much the same for me. I enjoy the taste of Diet Mt. Dew and used it to cut out 700 calories from regular Mt. Dew. I do it because its the only caffeinated beverage I will drink and it increases compliance.
In my house, I have honey, maple syrup, white sugar, brown sugar and truvia... And they all serve their purpose for a variety of dishes I make.3 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »What I'm against is spending probably public money to find a 'cure' for sugar addicts. 40 years ? What do they spend 40 years testing? I mean seriously. Fizzy juice has always been bad for ya why make these things suddenly ok. Water is best, man you wouldn't give your dog cola, yet you want to drink it yourself.
Classic fear mongering. There are a lot of foods I wouldn't give a pet that I would eat myself. Being bad for a pet =/= bad for human.
10 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Something really is off for me, why do I need this new thing to use when I have sugar ?
Because some people like to use their calories for other things? If I want a coke, having one for zero calories instead of 120 . . . for me, that's a no-brainer.
(I understand some people prefer sugared soda -- that's fine if it is what you prefer. But I don't taste the difference, so I'd rather use my calories for other things).5 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »What I'm against is spending probably public money to find a 'cure' for sugar addicts. 40 years ? What do they spend 40 years testing? I mean seriously. Fizzy juice has always been bad for ya why make these things suddenly ok. Water is best, man you wouldn't give your dog cola, yet you want to drink it yourself.
Guess what the primary ingredient in diet soda is...
Water.
13 -
From an earlier post referring to aspartame as sugar thought I'd take that as a teachable moment and do a little easy intro to biochem.
Sugar are saccharides and are also known by their more scientific name of carbohydrates. Most scientific names have actual meaning and carbohydrate isn't an exception. All carbohydrates share the same basic chemical make up. They are carbon (carbo-) that is hydrated (-hydrate). So all carbohydrates (all sugars) have the molecular formula of carbon plus water times some number x so CxH2xOx.
For example glucose is C6H12O6.
This is aspartame.
Also can be written as C14H18N2O5. Not a sugar. It has nitrogen, it has a lot more carbon than it has oxygen and fewer hydrogens than an equivalent sugar.
How about maltose? C12H22O11. Yes, that is a sugar.
How about starch. Starch is a bunch of sugars linked together (also known as a polysaccharide) and with each link a water molecule is subtracted. So starch has the formula of (C6H10O5)x which if you notice is just C6H12O6 minus one water for the linkage times the number of C6H12O6 molecules linked together.
So now, in theory, you can answer for yourself if something is a sugar by just looking at its molecular formula.
But yeah, all carbohydrates are sugar. Be they in the form of a potato or pasta or table sugar its going to end up the same after digestion. Something you'd never think if you just read online articles and CNN editorials which seem to act like sugar and carbohydrates are two completely different things for some reason.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions