Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
cruisercrawler wrote: »Sounds like someone work for a soda company??
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
Since Monsanto is involved you know it can't be good.
::snort:: Quoting Mercola as "proof" of anything. That's a laugh.8 -
cruisercrawler wrote: »Sounds like someone work for a soda company??
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
Since Monsanto is involved you know it can't be good.
If anyone works for a soda company it's the guy named Mercola. I mean, it's right in his name.14 -
I don't like the after taste of aspartame0
-
cruisercrawler wrote: »Sounds like someone work for a soda company??
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
Since Monsanto is involved you know it can't be good.
Quoting Mercola as "science" is one step below using Dr. Oz as a source. He's a complete and total quack.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Some animal studies have showed it messing with the gut biome, even at normal consumption levels (not the absurd consumption levels you sometimes see in animal studies.)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109841
I'm cautious about my gut biome, I'd rather not take a substance that has been shown to mess with it if there's no good reason to take it (for example, yogurt can change your gut biome, but yogurt is delicious so I eat it anyway, antibiotics can wreck your gut biome, but if I got a gangrenous limb, hand me the antibiotics, please.)
Out of curiosity in what way specifically are you "cautious" about *your* "gut biome"? What specific species of bacteria do you promote the growth of and how do you do so? In the study you quoted all of the different diets they provided caused shifts in the population of the animals gut microbiome, why are you focusing on aspartame? If you change your diet it is going to change your gut flora, that is true...but to assume that the change is "bad" in the case of aspartame while being "good" in the case of other foods is based on what exactly?
This idea that there is some "ideal" microbiome that is typically homeostatic regardless of your diet but is somehow disrupted specifically by aspartame is false. It is not what the study you cite says, it is not what any study says that I am aware of.
All "substances" "mess" with your gut biome. Your gut biome survives off of your diet and if you change your diet at all then your gut biome will adapt accordingly and change as well. This idea that there is some perfect "gut biome" that one must preserve by eating XYZ and avoiding ABC is just made-up and not based on anything we have actually studied or understood.
We don't know enough about the microbiome yet. But, there can indeed be disorders from a messed up microbiome in extreme cases. I experienced severe medical injury which messed up my gut microbiome. I developed a malabsorption disorder. And could no longer digest foods. This led to multiple medical issues that completely changed my life and that no rational person would be ok with. Most of the time a person is healthy enough to withstand the day to day microbiome changes from diet. But, there are actually ways in which a person's microbiome can be in a very bad state. They can have bacteria which causes ulcers as an example. And more. I have been working hard to regain my gut health and it's been paying off.
Edit to add: I see people saying this on mfp. And I don't understand how people can say this. It's an oversimplification. Yes, our microbiome changes in harmless ways due to diet. Yes, we don't know enough yet about the microbiome. But, we do know quite a bit about the existence of good, bad, neutral, and unknown bacteria and fungus, etc. And about their harmlessness in small quantities and harmfulness in overgrowth. And medical research and understanding is continuing to go on and expand. As it should because it's needed.1 -
Yes, our microbiome changes in harmless ways due to diet. Yes, we don't know enough yet about the microbiome.
That is pretty much all I said. Our microbiome changes due to changes to our diet in general and we don't know enough to make claims about how "good" or how "bad" certain changes are. The poster I was responding to cited a study as evidence that aspartame negatively impacts the microbiome but in reading the study that isn't what the study actually states. It stated that in the animals tested there was a change in their microbiome when aspartame was introduced. There was also a change in their microbiome with any other shifts in their diet. None of these changes were identified as being "bad".
Sure, there is such a thing as negatively affecting your microbiome. Long course treatment with antibiotics can wipe out your native flora giving you digestive issues until you can repopulate and then at that point your gut flora might be different from what it once was. When your flora is wiped out that is clearly bad. If it is repopulated with a different population of bacteria is that "good" or "bad" or neutral...hard to say.
There is, however, quite a leap between "one can harm ones microbiome to deleterious effect" and "this specific ingredient causes harm to your microbiome because it changed your microbiome".
Aspartame itself likely had no real effect, there is very little too aspartame and the amounts used in foods and drinks are measured in small milligram quantities. It would be like claiming that a small nibble of chicken changed your microbiome significantly. The more likely cause, as stated in the study, is that the animals provided aspartame ate less of the provided food which in an of itself would cause a shift.
My point was this:
1. Changes in your diet cause shifts in your microbiome
2. Changes in your microbiome could be bad, could be good or could be neutral.
3. You cannot point to a "change in the microbiome" and attach the "bad" label to it without reason or evidence beyond just that a change occured.
A change was shown however no reason or evidence was provided in that study that that change was "bad" nor did the authors even attempt to claim it was bad. That label was applied by the poster I was responding to and I was asking for an explanation as to what particular microbiome they considered "good" and which they considered "bad" given I don't think anyone really understands that yet.
If you never eat carrots and then one day you get a liking to them and start eating them all the time then chances are your microbiome is going to change and adapt to a different nutrient profile. Is that "bad"? The only reason that one would consider it "bad" is if one pre-supposed there was a problem with carrots. The same is true with aspartame or anything else for that matter, the reason to think that a microbiome changing with aspartame is "bad" is if you presuppose a problem with aspartame and are looking for anything to justify that belief. That introduces bias. If a microbiome change is evidence aspartame is bad then anything that introduces a microbiome change is bad and that clearly isn't true. If one presupposes that aspartame is bad and looking to microbiome changes as an example of it having a bad effect then presumably one came to the conclusion that aspartame was bad from evidence other that microbiome changes and it should be that evidence that first convinced that should be put forth.
7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Yes, our microbiome changes in harmless ways due to diet. Yes, we don't know enough yet about the microbiome.
That is pretty much all I said. Our microbiome changes due to changes to our diet in general and we don't know enough to make claims about how "good" or how "bad" certain changes are. The poster I was responding to cited a study as evidence that aspartame negatively impacts the microbiome but in reading the study that isn't what the study actually states. It stated that in the animals tested there was a change in their microbiome when aspartame was introduced. There was also a change in their microbiome with any other shifts in their diet. None of these changes were identified as being "bad".
Sure, there is such a thing as negatively affecting your microbiome. Long course treatment with antibiotics can wipe out your native flora giving you digestive issues until you can repopulate and then at that point your gut flora might be different from what it once was. When your flora is wiped out that is clearly bad. If it is repopulated with a different population of bacteria is that "good" or "bad" or neutral...hard to say.
There is, however, quite a leap between "one can harm ones microbiome to deleterious effect" and "this specific ingredient causes harm to your microbiome because it changed your microbiome".
Aspartame itself likely had no real effect, there is very little too aspartame and the amounts used in foods and drinks are measured in small milligram quantities. It would be like claiming that a small nibble of chicken changed your microbiome significantly. The more likely cause, as stated in the study, is that the animals provided aspartame ate less of the provided food which in an of itself would cause a shift.
My point was this:
1. Changes in your diet cause shifts in your microbiome
2. Changes in your microbiome could be bad, could be good or could be neutral.
3. You cannot point to a "change in the microbiome" and attach the "bad" label to it without reason or evidence beyond just that a change occured.
A change was shown however no reason or evidence was provided in that study that that change was "bad" nor did the authors even attempt to claim it was bad. That label was applied by the poster I was responding to and I was asking for an explanation as to what particular microbiome they considered "good" and which they considered "bad" given I don't think anyone really understands that yet.
If you never eat carrots and then one day you get a liking to them and start eating them all the time then chances are your microbiome is going to change and adapt to a different nutrient profile. Is that "bad"? The only reason that one would consider it "bad" is if one pre-supposed there was a problem with carrots. The same is true with aspartame or anything else for that matter, the reason to think that a microbiome changing with aspartame is "bad" is if you presuppose a problem with aspartame and are looking for anything to justify that belief. That introduces bias. If a microbiome change is evidence aspartame is bad then anything that introduces a microbiome change is bad and that clearly isn't true. If one presupposes that aspartame is bad and looking to microbiome changes as an example of it having a bad effect then presumably one came to the conclusion that aspartame was bad from evidence other that microbiome changes and it should be that evidence that first convinced that should be put forth.
I understand what you are saying. But, if a person develops problems from consuming certain foods and this is demonstrated to be repeatable and connected we can say the change was negative for that person. In my particular situation I was overtreated with antibiotics. It did change my microbiome. But, I had no GI problems. Just a very mild histamine reaction to a very small amount of foods. Six months later I was recovering great. A dermatologist wrongly prescribed a topical vasoconstrictor. This was because of the histamine reaction which was mild and had only happened a few times and lasted a couple minutes causing a very light flush to my face. The vasoconstrictor stopped blood flow to the trigeminal nerves and damaged them and caused a severe rebound disorder. So, when I ate food I had severe nerve pain in my face. I could barely eat. I rapidly became underweight because I was already lean and fit. I had muscle loss. I went from professional dancer to sedentary. I was barely able to sleep for four hours a night because lying down increased the pain. And severe stress from the severe pain and sleep deprivation. I mention these things because they must be contributing factors in what happened to my microbiome. And my diet changed. I could no longer eat the foods that had been helping me: fermented foods as an example because it increased nerve pain. I couldn't eat meat because the histamine reaction increased the nerve pain. I started eating a lot of grains such as quinoa and rice. I wanted to gain weight so I ate a lot of starchy vegetables (higher in calories). I ate a lot of beans. My microbiome became completely messed up. I had a number of severe health problems from it. And even though I was eating 2500 to 3000 calories a day I couldn't gain past 95 pounds (food passed through me undigested in five hours after eating). I had to keep a food diary to track my symptoms. I had to re-add foods that increased my nerve pain. And I had to eliminate a lot of foods such as grains, starches, and fodmaps. I improved immediately, dramatic change within a month, and much more change by three months. It wasn't the antibiotics that caused the severe problems. It was the diet six months later (due to the medical injury) which did. Though I assume I was more susceptible because of the antibiotics. And this is individual to me because I now have a malabsorption disorder we are still trying to figure out. So, I am just saying we can see positive and negative changes in the microbiome influenced by diet. I have gained weight and can keep the bad symptoms mostly away by sticking to a strict diet which helps me and doesn't hurt me. I hope eventually my microbiome and intestinal inflammation will heal and I will be able to expand my diet again. First I had to eliminate the foods which caused malabsorption and I improved significantly. Then I added good quality fermented foods and had even more improvement. We do at least know enough that I was able to make these choices towards improvement. I am now able to function again and dance. I still have pain and not all better. But, I am continuing to recover by sticking to the helpful diet. It's been ten months since the dermatology injury from the topical med. It's been three months since I began recovering.
Edit to add: we don't know enough yet. But, there is still stuff we know. We know about some of the bacterias and fungus, etc which is beneficial and some which is harmful. And we can make educated guesses to be able to help people that are suffering like I was.1 -
cruisercrawler wrote: »Sounds like someone work for a soda company??
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
Since Monsanto is involved you know it can't be good.
Quoting Mercola as "science" is one step below using Dr. Oz as a source. He's a complete and total quack.
Sorry, don't know anything about him, but I also don't know anything about the OP ethier.
1 -
cruisercrawler wrote: »cruisercrawler wrote: »Sounds like someone work for a soda company??
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
Since Monsanto is involved you know it can't be good.
Quoting Mercola as "science" is one step below using Dr. Oz as a source. He's a complete and total quack.
Sorry, don't know anything about him, but I also don't know anything about the OP ethier.
Well, now you at least know that he's a quack.
ETA: I took a look at your link to see how Monsanto is involved with aspartame. Aspartame was discovered in 1965, Monsanto didn't have anything to do with it until 1985. Say what you will about Monsanto, but you can't say aspartame is bad simply because Monsanto is in the picture.3 -
cruisercrawler wrote: »cruisercrawler wrote: »Sounds like someone work for a soda company??
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
Since Monsanto is involved you know it can't be good.
Quoting Mercola as "science" is one step below using Dr. Oz as a source. He's a complete and total quack.
Sorry, don't know anything about him, but I also don't know anything about the OP ethier.
Any source which demonizes an industry, an ingredient (regardless of application) or Monsanto is immediately suspicious.1 -
hi, i have a question about another sweetner that i thought of using instead of aspartame, but after reading your study and realising aspartame is safe i think i will just go with that, anyway. my question is concerning stevia. is it a good sweetner too compared to aspartame? i have read that not many studies have been done on it and that they concluded it was safe when people owning the brand paid scientist to do test on the product.. which seems shady0
-
Why would that be shady? Who else is supposed to pay for the study?2
-
alex111444 wrote: »hi, i have a question about another sweetner that i thought of using instead of aspartame, but after reading your study and realising aspartame is safe i think i will just go with that, anyway. my question is concerning stevia. is it a good sweetner too compared to aspartame? i have read that not many studies have been done on it and that they concluded it was safe when people owning the brand paid scientist to do test on the product.. which seems shady
Many companies pay to have their product tested. That's not odd. You have to do your due diligence and review who did the testing itself and determine their reliability.1 -
That's different that what the general population goes through. A diabetic can't consume sugar the same way someone in general population can who doesn't have a disease. That doesn't mean sugar is bad.Lourdesong wrote: »
Why did he tell you that? How did the subject of aspartame come up?My neurologist told me to stop using it. That's good enough for me. The man saved my life and I trust him completely.
I mean, if you told him you get headaches or something after consuming aspartame and he then advised "alrighty, then stop consuming aspartame", that would be very different advice than telling you to stop because he has a solid belief that consumption poses real health risks.
I have Multiple Sclerosis. I am very careful about what I consume. I am not saying Aspartame caused it (neither did my Dr) but I had been consuming a lot of it. I was advised to stop using it and that's what I did.
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 -
You'd have to back up why you think it's "bad". So feel free to post info that can contradict what peer reviewed clinical studies have been posted on here. If you in fact drink any protein shakes, the majority of them use artificial sweeteners to reduce calories.spkout2005 wrote: »Its bad, worse then we have been lead to believe..christ even the evil soda companys arnt using it anymore, diet soda is bad period..dont drink it, the less sugar, reql or fake in yoir body the better Period
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
2 -
That's different that what the general population goes through. A diabetic can't consume sugar the same way someone in general population can who doesn't have a disease. That doesn't mean sugar is bad.Lourdesong wrote: »
Why did he tell you that? How did the subject of aspartame come up?My neurologist told me to stop using it. That's good enough for me. The man saved my life and I trust him completely.
I mean, if you told him you get headaches or something after consuming aspartame and he then advised "alrighty, then stop consuming aspartame", that would be very different advice than telling you to stop because he has a solid belief that consumption poses real health risks.
I have Multiple Sclerosis. I am very careful about what I consume. I am not saying Aspartame caused it (neither did my Dr) but I had been consuming a lot of it. I was advised to stop using it and that's what I did.
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
It's still helpful when people share their experience since a lot of the population does have auto-immune diseases such as MS, and then people could check with their own doctor about their own symptoms.1 -
If someone has a disease though, shouldn't it be their responsibility to inquire about this before ingesting aspartame? Instead of just taking the "well I'll try it and see what happens"?BinaryPulsar wrote: »
That's different that what the general population goes through. A diabetic can't consume sugar the same way someone in general population can who doesn't have a disease. That doesn't mean sugar is bad.Lourdesong wrote: »
Why did he tell you that? How did the subject of aspartame come up?My neurologist told me to stop using it. That's good enough for me. The man saved my life and I trust him completely.
I mean, if you told him you get headaches or something after consuming aspartame and he then advised "alrighty, then stop consuming aspartame", that would be very different advice than telling you to stop because he has a solid belief that consumption poses real health risks.
I have Multiple Sclerosis. I am very careful about what I consume. I am not saying Aspartame caused it (neither did my Dr) but I had been consuming a lot of it. I was advised to stop using it and that's what I did.
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
It's still helpful when people share their experience since a lot of the population does have auto-immune diseases such as MS, and then people could check with their own doctor about their own symptoms.
The response was to "my neuro told me know and that was good enough for me" without stating she had a health issue. Had that info been divulged before the response, I would have likely agreed.
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 -
If someone has a disease though, shouldn't it be their responsibility to inquire about this before ingesting aspartame? Instead of just taking the "well I'll try it and see what happens"?BinaryPulsar wrote: »
That's different that what the general population goes through. A diabetic can't consume sugar the same way someone in general population can who doesn't have a disease. That doesn't mean sugar is bad.Lourdesong wrote: »
Why did he tell you that? How did the subject of aspartame come up?My neurologist told me to stop using it. That's good enough for me. The man saved my life and I trust him completely.
I mean, if you told him you get headaches or something after consuming aspartame and he then advised "alrighty, then stop consuming aspartame", that would be very different advice than telling you to stop because he has a solid belief that consumption poses real health risks.
I have Multiple Sclerosis. I am very careful about what I consume. I am not saying Aspartame caused it (neither did my Dr) but I had been consuming a lot of it. I was advised to stop using it and that's what I did.
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
It's still helpful when people share their experience since a lot of the population does have auto-immune diseases such as MS, and then people could check with their own doctor about their own symptoms.
The response was to "my neuro told me know and that was good enough for me" without stating she had a health issue. Had that info been divulged before the response, I would have likely agreed.
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
I only saw the comment where she said she had MS. Maybe there was another comment I didn't see. I'm not completely sure what you are saying exactly. There are lots of things people don't know could be an issue. They need info just like anyone else. If everyone says aspartame is always harmless why would they consider otherwise and bother their doctor with an unnecessary question in their 15 minute time slot in which they are addressing a lot of serious symptoms that they run out of time to address and have to wait three months until their next appointment. And end up with a doctor angry at them for wasting their time. Maybe it's different in the US. In Canada it's difficult to get any time with doctors and sometimes have to wait a year for an appointment with a specialist.2 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »
If someone has a disease though, shouldn't it be their responsibility to inquire about this before ingesting aspartame? Instead of just taking the "well I'll try it and see what happens"?BinaryPulsar wrote: »
That's different that what the general population goes through. A diabetic can't consume sugar the same way someone in general population can who doesn't have a disease. That doesn't mean sugar is bad.Lourdesong wrote: »
Why did he tell you that? How did the subject of aspartame come up?My neurologist told me to stop using it. That's good enough for me. The man saved my life and I trust him completely.
I mean, if you told him you get headaches or something after consuming aspartame and he then advised "alrighty, then stop consuming aspartame", that would be very different advice than telling you to stop because he has a solid belief that consumption poses real health risks.
I have Multiple Sclerosis. I am very careful about what I consume. I am not saying Aspartame caused it (neither did my Dr) but I had been consuming a lot of it. I was advised to stop using it and that's what I did.
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
It's still helpful when people share their experience since a lot of the population does have auto-immune diseases such as MS, and then people could check with their own doctor about their own symptoms.
The response was to "my neuro told me know and that was good enough for me" without stating she had a health issue. Had that info been divulged before the response, I would have likely agreed.
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
I only saw the comment where she said she had MS. Maybe there was another comment I didn't see. I'm not completely sure what you are saying exactly. There are lots of things people don't know could be an issue. They need info just like anyone else. If everyone says aspartame is always harmless why would they consider otherwise and bother their doctor with an unnecessary question in their 15 minute time slot in which they are addressing a lot of serious symptoms that they run out of time to address and have to wait three months until their next appointment. And end up with a doctor angry at them for wasting their time. Maybe it's different in the US. In Canada it's difficult to get any time with doctors and sometimes have to wait a year for an appointment with a specialist.
Just because someone has MS doesn't mean that aspartame is going to be a problem so why should that be placed out there as some type of warning just because one person says it's a problem for them? A co-worker of mine has MS and she drinks Diet Coke every day without issues.
The point is, while everyone is different, to the population at large aspartame is harmless. Anecdotal "evidence" isn't always helpful and can actually muddy the waters for the average person. Anything can be harmful to any one person which doesn't affect anyone else. Peanuts, watermelon and wheat are perfectly harmless to the vast majority of the population but could kill anyone with a severe allergy to them. Should we really go around telling everyone to be wary of eating those things because they affect a small minority?1 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »
If someone has a disease though, shouldn't it be their responsibility to inquire about this before ingesting aspartame? Instead of just taking the "well I'll try it and see what happens"?BinaryPulsar wrote: »
That's different that what the general population goes through. A diabetic can't consume sugar the same way someone in general population can who doesn't have a disease. That doesn't mean sugar is bad.Lourdesong wrote: »
Why did he tell you that? How did the subject of aspartame come up?My neurologist told me to stop using it. That's good enough for me. The man saved my life and I trust him completely.
I mean, if you told him you get headaches or something after consuming aspartame and he then advised "alrighty, then stop consuming aspartame", that would be very different advice than telling you to stop because he has a solid belief that consumption poses real health risks.
I have Multiple Sclerosis. I am very careful about what I consume. I am not saying Aspartame caused it (neither did my Dr) but I had been consuming a lot of it. I was advised to stop using it and that's what I did.
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
It's still helpful when people share their experience since a lot of the population does have auto-immune diseases such as MS, and then people could check with their own doctor about their own symptoms.
The response was to "my neuro told me know and that was good enough for me" without stating she had a health issue. Had that info been divulged before the response, I would have likely agreed.
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
I only saw the comment where she said she had MS. Maybe there was another comment I didn't see. I'm not completely sure what you are saying exactly. There are lots of things people don't know could be an issue. They need info just like anyone else. If everyone says aspartame is always harmless why would they consider otherwise and bother their doctor with an unnecessary question in their 15 minute time slot in which they are addressing a lot of serious symptoms that they run out of time to address and have to wait three months until their next appointment. And end up with a doctor angry at them for wasting their time. Maybe it's different in the US. In Canada it's difficult to get any time with doctors and sometimes have to wait a year for an appointment with a specialist.
Just because someone has MS doesn't mean that aspartame is going to be a problem so why should that be placed out there as some type of warning just because one person says it's a problem for them? A co-worker of mine has MS and she drinks Diet Coke every day without issues.
The point is, while everyone is different, to the population at large aspartame is harmless. Anecdotal "evidence" isn't always helpful and can actually muddy the waters for the average person. Anything can be harmful to any one person which doesn't affect anyone else. Peanuts, watermelon and wheat are perfectly harmless to the vast majority of the population but could kill anyone with a severe allergy to them. Should we really go around telling everyone to be wary of eating those things because they affect a small minority?
I actually wasn't trying to say any of that. I didn't even intend to get into this conversation. I really didn't understand the reply, so I didn't really know how to respond to it (honestly). The only thing I was actually trying to say is that on mfp people often say to people that they have no place posting in the threads and sharing if it's about having a medical condition which is different from the general population. I was only saying that I personally think it's ok for people to share about that in mfp threads. That was actually all I was trying to say. I don't really have an argument or a conversation to get into. And I really don't care beyond that one thing. I don't have any reason to discuss aspartame because I don't like the taste of it. And if people enjoy it, I don't have an issue with that either. I really have no investment in this conversation or issue of aspartame. And my second reply was also not about the main topic. It was a confused reply to a comment about being medically responsible for oneself that I didn't understand. I never said the entire population should make decisions based on some people having negative reactions (or even people that share the medical issues). Just that it's ok to acknowledge if a person has a negative reaction due to personal circumstances. I know it's individual. And I hope most people can have that reasonable understanding.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions