Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

1…4849515354…60

Replies

  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    If you're going to pull random results to prove your point you could at least use scholar.google.com

    I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing not to eat aspartame. I do think there are problems with saying you don't eat it because it causes x, y, or z where x, y, or z equal unfounded claims. Especially in a thread where a scientist in the industry has taken his time to refute those claims for several years and over 50 pages in this thread alone.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Proverbs 6:24
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    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?

    I don't know what it is about those links, but you are freaking the hell out of our spam filters, lol. I keep having to approve your messages, lol.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    The cognitive dissonance is terrifyingly strong.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 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.

    So a dead mystic psychic and a fearmongering, woo-peddling junk science quack like MercoLOLa trump tons of scientific research?

    Sounds legit.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited October 2017
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    I will try to put it as simply as I can.

    Someone avoiding diet soda because of phenylalanine while they are eating a meal (of practically any food) that is almost guarenteed to contain much more phenylalanine than the soda would is like someone talking about how they avoid soda because of the sodium content while at the same time scarfing down potato chips.

    You don't have to go deep into the science to know why that is silly.

    For those who do want to dive deeper:

    Review and meta-analysis of the literature with regards to aspartame safety and toxicity in humans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671

    Metabolism study of aspartame:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1865825

    The only possible concern for aspartame is for phenylketonurics (PKU) who are hypersensitive to phenylalanine, but to that point look at the conclusion of the linked metabolic study

    Conclusion from the study of aspartame metabolism in humans:

    "Whereas some high-intensity sweeteners may have been subjected to more extensive animal testing for the purpose of demonstrating safety for use in the food supply, it is doubtful if any additive has received more clinical study than aspartame. As noted in this study, aspartame has been fed under a variety of conditions to normal adults, known PKU heterozygotes, 1-yr-olds, and IDDM and NIDDM subjects. Clinical tests have focused on doses of aspartame compatible with its use in the food supply in addition to its use under abuse situations. Administration of aspartame to humans occurred in the fasting state, as part of a meal, or in repeated loading studies. Pharmacokinetic data developed for plasma phenylalanine concentrations indicate that a bolus dose of 34 mg/kg body wt, the 99th percentile of projected daily intake, repeated at intervals of 2 h does not increase plasma phenylalanine concentrations above those levels experienced after ingesting a protein-containing meal. Aspartate and methanol released from aspartame under the conditions of these clinical studies did not constitute an excessive metabolic load."

    Note that 34 mg/kg for me would be 2720 mgs. There is 125mg of aspartame in a can of diet coke (which is the highest, Coke Zero is 58mg for comparison). So keep in mind they were dosing here at the equivalent of drinking 21 cans of coke per day (hence the 99th percentile of daily intake). In that study there was no significant increase of plasma phenylalanine concentraions in the blood.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    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?

    I don't know what it is about those links, but you are freaking the hell out of our spam filters, lol. I keep having to approve your messages, lol.

    I think it is triggering your spam filter because I keep linking to the same studies I have read that I have pointed to numerous times in this thread but people keep acting like no one has brought up.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,224 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    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?

    I don't know what it is about those links, but you are freaking the hell out of our spam filters, lol. I keep having to approve your messages, lol.

    I think it is triggering your spam filter because I keep linking to the same studies I have read that I have pointed to numerous times in this thread but people keep acting like no one has brought up.

    I posted a comment just before that had no links, but it got sent for approval. I can only think it's because I mentioned the big G search engine, because an almost identical message without that posted fine a minute later.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited October 2017
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    If instead you are willing to claim things that you personally do not understand or really know anything about as you yourself have stated, then what is the value of this discussion?

    Reminds me of people who don't like margarine because it is one molecule away from plastic. They've heard/read it somewhere, haven't got the foggiest idea what it actually means (hey @Aaron_K123, care to explain that one) but go on rants if they see someone use margarine.

    Quite often it's the same people.

    <shrug> never heard that one so don't know. But regardless, one molecule being "close" to another molecule doesn't really mean much unless it is converted into the exact same thing in some metabolic step.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    Proverbs 6:24

    My question how is your reference positive for the readers on My Fitness Pal and what is the objective of this post by you?

    Proverbs 6:24King James Version (KJV)

    24 To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,327 Member
    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, they actually don't have studies, at least not reputable peer reviewed studies.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    edited October 2017
    jgnatca wrote: »
    Oops. Freudian slip. Proverbs 26:4.

    Hey you are a fast thinker and both are great teachings. :) That book has shaped me over the last 50 years but still struggle with application. I love the Wisdom of that era. I think maybe man has been devolving instead of evolving.

    Proverbs 26:4King James Version (KJV)

    4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

    Thanks again so your references.

Categories