Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

1…4748505253…60

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Who is Edgar Cayce and why does he have more of an effect on a person's fear of an additive than all of current science?

    It's better than I could have hoped.

    https://www.edgarcayce.org/

    Wait, he died in in the 40S. This is gold.

    Wonder if his psychic powers allowed him to endorse the internet?
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,342 Member
    Calliope610 wrote: »
    alicebhsia wrote: »
    @Aaron_K123 i'm sorry but chemistry is definitely not my thing. idk, i guess you just won't be able to convince me that aspartame isn't scary. i do do the pink packet in my coffee though. the safety of saccharin in moderation has been endorsed by Edgar Cayce so it is safer in my eyes and i haven't had any negative effects so far. too bad he's not around anymore to chime in on aspartame. i don't trust Splenda though. it seems to give me immediate memory problems.

    I had to Google this one...

    Edgar Cayce was an American Christian mystic who answered questions on subjects as varied as healing, reincarnation, wars, Atlantis, and future events while claiming to be in a trance.
    But somehow he missed aspartame. Shame.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    The link keeps breaking to the book chapter but I already posted a link to that a few posts up so really do I really need to repost it when the link already exists on this same page?
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,342 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    alicebhsia wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    alicebhsia wrote: »
    @Aaron_K123 i'm sorry but chemistry is definitely not my thing. idk, i guess you just won't be able to convince me that aspartame isn't scary. i do do the pink packet in my coffee though. the safety of saccharin in moderation has been endorsed by Edgar Cayce so it is safer in my eyes and i haven't had any negative effects so far. too bad he's not around anymore to chime in on aspartame. i don't trust Splenda though. it seems to give me immediate memory problems.

    I am sorry to harp but this sort of thing is just very frustrating. When someone brings up chemistry as a reason for stating that aspartame might be of concern but then when I take a long time to respond with specifics about the chemistry that they themselves brought up I am not expecting the response back to be that they don't know anything about chemistry so chemistry isn't very convincing for them.

    Then really why did you bring it up in the first place if its not something you know about or would be convinced by?

    Is there a domain of this that you do fully understand that we could talk about?

    why should i respond when what you posted seems to have no relevance whatsoever. i mean, basically, you are saying to me, because the chemical components are being described to you, aspartame is perfectly safe. it is metabolized by the body and doesn't even reach your brain so how can it affect your brain? that is hard to believe when there's purported studies that disagree.. they say it's found in the brain. you disagree, they disagree. they have studies to back them up. the aspartame people have studies that say it's been found "safe." but then fail to discredit the safety concerns of the other negative studies and focus on other things it supposedly doesn't affect. so it's probably "safe" against everything but that and that's what they don't say.

    No relevance? You claimed that the chiral form of phenylalanine in protein is the L- form while in aspartame is the D- form. I spoke specifically about the point that you yourself brought up and showed that, no, in fact both molecules have the L- form of phenylalanine.

    What is the study that disagrees with that? You linked to a blog post by Mercola. That is not a study at all. What study shows aspartame in the blood let alone in the brain after ingestion?

    Do you understand that what Mercola chooses to type out and then post on the internet on his own website does not constitute a "study"? I linked you to the orginal actual study of metabolism of aspartame as well as to a book chapter that is a review of the field that includes many citations to actual studies of radiological tracking of the metabolites of aspartame. I will provide them again:

    Metabolic breakdown of aspartame: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287397609529445

    Book chapter regarding studies done on the metabolism of aspartame:
    https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yTH1iI9ybl4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA141&dq=metabolism+of+aspartame&ots=SkJvCAv2aC&sig=U-isbqF1J4awb8iqB1nlPzECfb8#v=onepage&q=metabolism of aspartame&f=false

    I think Alice just needs to admit that she copied and pasted something from Google which she thought made her point, when she actually had no understanding of what it actually said.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,647 Member
    alicebhsia wrote: »
    i don't want to waste anyone's time here.. there's no convincing me that aspartame is safe when so many people are saying otherwise. if it's not true and it is safe, then what did i miss out on? some icky tasting sugar substitute?
    http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/vitamins-minerals/4-possible-amino-acid-side-effects.html of course, this article must be false cause i posted it!

    Wrong or not, that article was specifically about supplements. Most likely, the intent is to warn against oversupplementation. Ask a cardiac patient what happens when they oversupplement with potassium. Would you tell people not to consume anything with potassium? You are already consuming the amino acids contained in aspartame with your regular diet, and the amount in a serving of aspartame isn't remotely enough to be considered supplemental.

Categories