Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
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.
I'm not a man. I don't know why you think I am. You're assuming the wrong cause and effect. It's not that scientists said "hmmm... sugar addicts exist so let's make a non-sugar sweetener." Aspartame was discovered as a by-product in creating an anti-ulcer drug and scientists recognized it could be useful. And again, there are a lot of people with a lot of conditions who benefit from having a non-sugar sweetener available.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 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.
This is wonderful. I can't even express how much I love this post. Chemistry is beautiful.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.
i don't know that sugar addiction is a thing, but i know that diabetes is a thing. i'm not against public funding to find an alternative sweetener which increases the options for diabetics.
i also wouldn't agree that 'fizzy juice' or soda is bad for you without knowing context and dosage.
i do think that at this point there may be some deliberate missing of the point of the thread.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »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.
i don't know that sugar addiction is a thing, but i know that diabetes is a thing. i'm not against public funding to find an alternative sweetener which increases the options for diabetics.
i also wouldn't agree that 'fizzy juice' or soda is bad for you without knowing context and dosage.
i do think that at this point there may be some deliberate missing of the point of the thread.
Deliberate missing the point? What ya talking about? Am talking about asparatme
Saying "XX" is bad for you because that is what you heard your entire life, while science actually says the opposite is generally the issue. There is no science that suggest fizzy drinks are bad for you.
I should also note, that while I agree that water is great for you, we all need some variety. I drink 150 to 200 oz of water a day + 40 to 60oz of diet Mt. Dew. I drink a lot of fluids... always have. But I can't just do water. It would drive me crazy.5 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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.
I'm not a man. I don't know why you think I am. You're assuming the wrong cause and effect. It's not that scientists said "hmmm... sugar addicts exist so let's make a non-sugar sweetener." Aspartame was discovered as a by-product in creating an anti-ulcer drug and scientists recognized it could be useful. And again, there are a lot of people with a lot of conditions who benefit from having a non-sugar sweetener available.
I dunno why you take it so personally, man. It's just my opinion
And I'm learning so much on this thread so thanks. Aspartame is definitely part of my life so I want to know as much as I can, to keep myself safe and the people I care about
Deliberately misgendering me after I've asked you not to? Classy. I'm going to go enjoy my aspartame-laden fizzy drink. Best of luck on your learning journey.10 -
More on the biochem.
You have probably heard of life on earth being "carbon based". That is because the basic foundational element of all biomolecules is carbon. Be it carbohydrates or proteins or fats the "backbone" of the molecules is carbon. Those molecules need to interact and be transported and as such need to be in a solubilized state and at least on this planet water has taken that function. Water both solubilizing the relevant molecules as well as being a core constituant of most of them being added and subtracted by hydrolysis reactions.
Sugars, carbohydrates, are one of the simplest examples of a biomolecule being the carbon atom and one water multiplied by some factor. Therefore in terms of metabolism (the breakdown of molecules) and catabolism (the building up of new molecules) sugars are great as they provide the most essential and basic building blocks for all the other biomolecules of life. Much of our metabolism just comes down to the exchange of carbon and oxygen through water. In fact weight loss or gain basically boils down to our respiratory action, taking in oxygen (O2) and expelling carbon dioxide (CO2) (thus a loss of carbon) balanced with the carbon and oxygen intake from food.
In comparison proteins are slightly more complicated including nitrogen atoms while fats are even simpler being comprised of just carbon and hydrogen (hence the alternate name hydrocarbon).
Aspartame is protein derived, it isn't a carbohydrate. It is basically the fusion of two amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) phenylalanine and aspartate with the carboxy terminus of the aspartate modified into an methylester instead. May have lost you there not sure.
11 -
This content has been removed.
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Apologies I didn't want to go against anyone but I do think common sense sometimes gets lost. Avoid what is bad for ya, or where you need to, limit it. Sugary stuff is quite simple. Limit it or stop it. I don't feel the need to drink 'updated drinks' because I know they are already bad for me. Why do I want to keep making the companies money when I can drink water? That's my opinion not saying it's anyone else's, sorry but some people don't even have water. I may have went a bit off topic but makes me angry to see money not spent on better things
"knowing things" without knowledge sums up the problem I was trying to address.21 -
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.
Grapes will kill your dog, do you eat grapes?8 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Apologies I didn't want to go against anyone but I do think common sense sometimes gets lost. Avoid what is bad for ya, or where you need to, limit it. Sugary stuff is quite simple. Limit it or stop it. I don't feel the need to drink 'updated drinks' because I know they are already bad for me. Why do I want to keep making the companies money when I can drink water? That's my opinion not saying it's anyone else's, sorry but some people don't even have water. I may have went a bit off topic but makes me angry to see money not spent on better things
so, the whole point of this thread is that it isn't actually bad for you. and neither is sugar (taking into consideration context, dosage and user specific health concerns). what you say is common sense - that "updated drinks" are bad for you - is not actually correct.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Grapes will kill your dog, do you eat grapes?
No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you. I wouldn't eat "updated" aspartame grapes either.11 -
This content has been removed.
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Apologies I didn't want to go against anyone but I do think common sense sometimes gets lost. Avoid what is bad for ya, or where you need to, limit it. Sugary stuff is quite simple. Limit it or stop it. I don't feel the need to drink 'updated drinks' because I know they are already bad for me. Why do I want to keep making the companies money when I can drink water? That's my opinion not saying it's anyone else's, sorry but some people don't even have water. I may have went a bit off topic but makes me angry to see money not spent on better things
This thread is about aspartame, which isn't bad for you. So why are you participating if you aren't interested in the topic? Except for research funds, which wouldn't need to be spent if the fearmongering "experts" and laypersons would quit rehashing the same old concerns that couldn't be proven after decades of research.5 -
No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you
Carbohydrates are essential for your survival, I would hardly refer to them as being "bad for you" anymore than I would refer to water as being bad for you because you can drown.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you
Carbohydrates are essential for your survival, I would hardly refer to them as being "bad for you" anymore than I would refer to water as being bad for you because you can drown.
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you
Carbohydrates are essential for your survival, I would hardly refer to them as being "bad for you" anymore than I would refer to water as being bad for you because you can drown.
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
...it can be hard to tell sometimes sadly.4 -
redacted to avoid redundancy2
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you
Carbohydrates are essential for your survival, I would hardly refer to them as being "bad for you" anymore than I would refer to water as being bad for you because you can drown.
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
...it can be hard to tell sometimes sadly.
This is true. This is why I have been working on incorporating more emoji's.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
This. This is why I love mfp.4 -
The issue with correlations isn't the correlations themselves its the confirmation bias that people aren't self-checking that influences the interpretation of those correlations.
What I mean by that is this. No correlation is proof or even really evidence of causation. Correlation is necessary for causation but it is not sufficient as evidence. For causation between A and B to be established not only do you need correlation between A and B you also need a model describing HOW A causes B, a hypothesis of what else would be true if A caused B in that specific way and then experimental tests demonstrating the emergent truth that came from that hypothesis on the basis of your experimental work.
The problem is that people have preconceived notions about what causes what and if a correlation fits that then they view that as evidence of cause in a way that they would not if the correlation did not fit their beliefs. That is the confirmation bias.
As an example if I published a very strong correlation that suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation have strong correlation to the number of lawyers in vermont (http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=3857) and implied in my "study" that this might be causative then you would rightfully be skeptical and expect to make such a claim I would need to first explain exactly HOW one would cause the other and then show secondary evidence through an actual study testing my model of cause in some way.
And yet that same person who exhibited that reasonable about of skepticism read another article talking about a published a correlation that people who ingest aspartame have higher incidences of cancer if they already believed that aspartame was dangerous or toxic or carcinogenic would probably just accept that as evidence of cause without applying the same skeptical rigor. Shouldn't that person also expect before cause is declared that there first needs to be an explanatory model showing exactly HOW one would cause the other and then observational data backing up hypothesis based on that model?
Someone being skeptical to correlations they don't already believe are causative while accepting as "proof" correlations that support their beliefs about causation is a common example of confirmation bias and that is the problem with correlations. Publishing correlations isn't a problem because it IS information. Its how people choose to interact with that data reinforced by sensationalistic media that is the problem.
Correlations aren't evidence of cause and are rightfully viewed with skepticism if they are put forth as evidence of cause. The problem is that many people who recognize that fact still accept correlations as evidence in the cases where those correlations support their preconceived notions.
16 -
Two things can also be related without either one causing the other. Often that happens when some important third factor causes one or both. For example, suppose someone surveyed the shirt sizes of all men who have entered the Boston marathon for the past 20 years and discovered that no one who wears a size XXL or larger has ever been one of the first 10 finishers. Bigger shirt sizes correlate to slower finish times, but it doesn't mean big shirts are slowing the runners down. It also doesn't mean that someone can get better at marathon running by buying smaller shirts.Aaron_K123 wrote: »As an example if I published a very strong correlation that suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation have strong correlation to the number of lawyers in vermont (http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=3857) and implied in my "study" that this might be causative then you would rightfully be skeptical and expect to make such a claim I would need to first explain exactly HOW one would cause the other and then show secondary evidence through an actual study testing my model of cause in some way.
4 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Something really is off for me, why do I need this new thing to use when I have sugar ?
Because for people like my grandparents, or some of the people in my church, or some of the people I know in the community around me they have diabetes and either has the choice of only having non-sweet things, or find a non-sugar sweetener. The other group is those looking to lose weight, this is zero calories allowing them to have the mental enjoyment of a sweet drink or food without having the calories that sugar would add.
Frankly, I prefer diet sodas. Occasionally I have a sugar sweetened one, and find I just don't like it. On the other hand, a diet Pepsi I quite enjoy, and I find if I have a craving for something sweet, that diet Pepsi will satisfy that craving for me without the calories.2 -
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.
It seems you while claiming you don't know much about science, you at the same time are willing to make statements like this that really are not supported by science. Others have responded already, but realize while I like water and drink a lot of it, drinking a diet soda or fizzy drink is not in and of itself, unhealthy. In fact, it brings some enjoyment to me mentally that makes sticking to my calories much easier. Heath includes that mental health as well. I think you need to realize that just because the money was spent on studying aspartame doesn't mean if it wasn't it would have been spent on say cancer research.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you
Carbohydrates are essential for your survival, I would hardly refer to them as being "bad for you" anymore than I would refer to water as being bad for you because you can drown.
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
...it can be hard to tell sometimes sadly.
MFP really need a sarcasm font
4 -
rileysowner wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you
Carbohydrates are essential for your survival, I would hardly refer to them as being "bad for you" anymore than I would refer to water as being bad for you because you can drown.
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
...it can be hard to tell sometimes sadly.
MFP really need a sarcasm font
4 -
How I feel sometimes when people proclaim how they love science while linking to some blog posts or media editorial that has a click-bait headline matching that posters preconceived belief that they had before they even read the article. That the link is cited as being a "scientific study" despite the fact that it's a blog or article written by someone who just claims what they are saying is based on a scientific study. A study that, chances are, neither the author of the post nor the author of the editorial actually bothered to read or are likely knowledgeable enough in the feild to judge or interpret.
Sorry, sometimes amusing cartoons inspire me to rant at the fact that this is actually a problem.27
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