Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

Options
1…5657596162…89

Replies

  • brentfostwood904
    brentfostwood904 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).


    Soo...... i think i am good.

    they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.

    Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.

    I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.

    Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.

    None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?

    It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.
  • brentfostwood904
    brentfostwood904 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    malibu927 wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    aspartame overexcites neurons in the brain, causing them to die, in specific areas such as the hippocampus. Animal studies with aspartame have shown a hole in the hippocampus being caused by aspartame. My ex girlfriend who is now 21 used to drink about 8 cans of diet coke every day for years since the age of 12, and her memory is terrible, I fully believe the link to neuron death due to aspartame and I've seen how addictive it can get (she could not deal with not having diet coke at all and any aspartame free substitute did not work). It is something which is both addictive and causes death of neurons. Best avoided.

    Do you have a source for this claim?

    go and check out the animal model studies on aspartame and the hippocampus, theres a lot more than one out there. Read the long term studies because a lot of the short term studies say there is no effect.. but they are done over a stupid amount of time like 2 days.. so these ones are hardly well designed studies.

    The studies that implicate aspartame causing problems in animals use such ridiculous quantities of aspartame that you'd have to drink thousands of gallons of diet soda per day in order to get a comparable amount in your diet.

    Even if humans would suffer the same side effects that the mice did in these studies (which we don't even know that we would), if you drink enough diet soda to attain sufficient aspartame to see those side effects, you would die the first day due to over-hydration flushing your body of electrolytes.

    no you are wrong, there are many out there which specifically use the amount that the FDA says is safe for human consumption. Actually any study which used a stupid amount should be ignored. But most of the ones I've read did not use a ridiculous amount.
  • brentfostwood904
    brentfostwood904 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    For your reading pleasure:

    http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-399/pdf

    The first one you linked is by "scientists" from "Research and Development, The NutraSweet Company," Meaning there is a very strong research bias. Meaning I know that the study is worthless before even continuing to read beyond the first few lines. If you want to find a decent study on anything then try to find one where there is no research bias or conflict of interest in the people involved. (These people get paid by NutraSweet to produce research which says that NutraSweet products are safe, this is something you must be aware of when reading any kind of research).

    The second one I dont have time to read through right now but I might get back to you later.







  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    This thread.

    post-21789-Corgi-running-training-for-the-lITy.gif

    But not as cute.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited November 2016
    Options
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    Oh God, not another rat brain study. You have to be VERY careful about those studies, although they can be useful markets there have been no studies that have actually shown these neurotoxic issues in humans who consume artificial sweetners unlike, for instance, studies of those who play contact sports or drink large amounts of alcohol yet we see a lot less panic in those. The primary suspicion is on methanol and it's metabolites, which are known already to be problematic but as mentioned by the OP, aspartame is a very small contributor to methanol in the body and increases in free radicals. Other foods, that nobody has an issue with, are higher as he already pointed out. Also, I notice they used mice that did not have folate production and where on a folate deficient diet (to "mimic" humans) and this itself could be an issue since they are likely aware that normal mice would not suffer from these effects. It might also not be very useful for humans who are not folate deficient.

    So, yes, we can show potential damage in lab rats but translating that information into humans in the wild is not something that has been demonstrated. The number of lab rat studies that have shown "proof" of something yet failed to show these results in humans is legion so it's an indicator of a potential but not necessarily evidence of issues in humans.

    ETA, also noticed that the dosage was really high. 40mg/kg bw is 2160 mg/day for a 120lb person and diet coke has 500mg per L (approx. 32oz). That would be a lot of diet coke to drink in a day.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,541 Member
    Options
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
    Sorry but you don't get to decide what is "scary" to others.

    But he does have the right to share valuable information regarding the reasons why there is nothing to fear.

    You don't get to decide what is scary to others. Fear is an individual feeling. No matter what information you have. And that information's "value" is also an individual opinion. Why try to force something on people who don't want it. Just carry on enjoying your aspartame. There is no reason to force others to like it also.
    Fear from misinformation should be noted though. Politicians do it all the time. There's nothing wrong with correcting wrong information so that people can make a more intelligent decision on something.

    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
    9285851.png

  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).


    Soo...... i think i am good.

    they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.

    Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.

    I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.

    Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.

    None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?

    It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.

    I fail to see how submitting humans to a study in which they are prescribed a substance in quantities deemed safe by the FDA would violate any ethical standards.
  • brentfostwood904
    brentfostwood904 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    For your reading pleasure:

    http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-399/pdf

    The first one you linked is by "scientists" from "Research and Development, The NutraSweet Company," Meaning there is a very strong research bias. Meaning I know that the study is worthless before even continuing to read beyond the first few lines. If you want to find a decent study on anything then try to find one where there is no research bias or conflict of interest in the people involved. (These people get paid by NutraSweet to produce research which says that NutraSweet products are safe, this is something you must be aware of when reading any kind of research).

    The second one I dont have time to read through right now but I might get back to you later.

    Discrediting science based on funds shows a lack of understand for how research is conducted. You need to understand the parameters of the study and evaluate the techniques... not the source of money. All studies must receive funding somehow. You really should watch the video I posted. Layne Norton is a very well respected scientist and has first hand knowledge. He even addresses your fund concerns.


    And under the parameters of your study, it would never translate to humans.

    one of the first things you learn when learning how to read and interpret papers is to look at who has written the paper and to see if there is an agenda there. One of the things I learnt in even the first year of my degree is how corrupt the FDA is and how corrupt a lot of research is, believe it or not. It is very bad to start reading papers about aspartame where all the researchers are working for and paid by nutrasweet haha. This is just really basic seriously, it's bad that you didnt know that and would just read anything without thinking about who is writing it and why. It is completely discredited due to a thing called conflict of interest/research bias. Even if you decided to reference that paper in an essay you would probably be marked down badly for choosing such a biased example.

    I dont know where you got the idea that the parameters of the study I chose to link it would never translate to humans. This just seems like very wishful thinking because you want your opinion to be correct, probably because you dont want to look bad for having been promoting aspartame as safe for so long then having to go back on what you were saying. The parameters of the study were actually very good. The research methods were nice.
  • brentfostwood904
    brentfostwood904 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    aspartame overexcites neurons in the brain, causing them to die, in specific areas such as the hippocampus. Animal studies with aspartame have shown a hole in the hippocampus being caused by aspartame. My ex girlfriend who is now 21 used to drink about 8 cans of diet coke every day for years since the age of 12, and her memory is terrible, I fully believe the link to neuron death due to aspartame and I've seen how addictive it can get (she could not deal with not having diet coke at all and any aspartame free substitute did not work). It is something which is both addictive and causes death of neurons. Best avoided.

    You have two big holes in your brain, they are called ventricles. By what mechanism is this neurotoxicity inferred? I have a degree in neuroscience so I'm pretty confident I can evaluate the research.

    The "holes" were caused by neuron death, not ventricles lol. Did you read what I linked before? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
  • brentfostwood904
    brentfostwood904 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    Oh God, not another rat brain study. You have to be VERY careful about those studies, although they can be useful markets there have been no studies that have actually shown these neurotoxic issues in humans who consume artificial sweetners unlike, for instance, studies of those who play contact sports or drink large amounts of alcohol yet we see a lot less panic in those. The primary suspicion is on methanol and it's metabolites, which are known already to be problematic but as mentioned by the OP, aspartame is a very small contributor to methanol in the body and increases in free radicals. Other foods, that nobody has an issue with, are higher as he already pointed out. Also, I notice they used mice that did not have folate production and where on a folate deficient diet (to "mimic" humans) and this itself could be an issue since they are likely aware that normal mice would not suffer from these effects. It might also not be very useful for humans who are not folate deficient.

    So, yes, we can show potential damage in lab rats but translating that information into humans in the wild is not something that has been demonstrated. The number of lab rat studies that have shown "proof" of something yet failed to show these results in humans is legion so it's an indicator of a potential but not necessarily evidence of issues in humans.

    ETA, also noticed that the dosage was really high. 40mg/kg bw is 2160 mg/day for a 120lb person and diet coke has 500mg per L (approx. 32oz). That would be a lot of diet coke to drink in a day.

    there will NEVER be a study on humans like this because it will never meet the ethical approval. It's not allowed to purposely harm people for research. The dosage was specifically chosen because it is what the FDA says is safe for human consumption...
  • brentfostwood904
    brentfostwood904 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    anyway really, I dont have time to talk to people on the internet about this, I actually have work to do... if people want to read more about it then it's on them.
  • brentfostwood904
    brentfostwood904 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).


    Soo...... i think i am good.

    they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.

    Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.

    I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.

    Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.

    None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?

    It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.

    I fail to see how submitting humans to a study in which they are prescribed a substance in quantities deemed safe by the FDA would violate any ethical standards.

    well firstly if the research hypothesis states that they predict neuron damage or anything like this will occur, then the study wont be approved for humans. Secondly the brains of the rats were dissected to be properly studied because how are you going to study the effect on the brain in the human subjects?
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited November 2016
    Options
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    Oh God, not another rat brain study. You have to be VERY careful about those studies, although they can be useful markets there have been no studies that have actually shown these neurotoxic issues in humans who consume artificial sweetners unlike, for instance, studies of those who play contact sports or drink large amounts of alcohol yet we see a lot less panic in those. The primary suspicion is on methanol and it's metabolites, which are known already to be problematic but as mentioned by the OP, aspartame is a very small contributor to methanol in the body and increases in free radicals. Other foods, that nobody has an issue with, are higher as he already pointed out. Also, I notice they used mice that did not have folate production and where on a folate deficient diet (to "mimic" humans) and this itself could be an issue since they are likely aware that normal mice would not suffer from these effects. It might also not be very useful for humans who are not folate deficient.

    So, yes, we can show potential damage in lab rats but translating that information into humans in the wild is not something that has been demonstrated. The number of lab rat studies that have shown "proof" of something yet failed to show these results in humans is legion so it's an indicator of a potential but not necessarily evidence of issues in humans.

    ETA, also noticed that the dosage was really high. 40mg/kg bw is 2160 mg/day for a 120lb person and diet coke has 500mg per L (approx. 32oz). That would be a lot of diet coke to drink in a day.

    there will NEVER be a study on humans like this because it will never meet the ethical approval. It's not allowed to purposely harm people for research. The dosage was specifically chosen because it is what the FDA says is safe for human consumption...

    That's a useful excuse but as someone posted above, it wouldn't violate ethics to administer safe dosages to subjects. It wasn't just chosen for that reason, it was chosen because they wanted as high a dosage as possible to show effects. This is ok, but has to be interpreted in such context. You are missing a lot of points made.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).


    Soo...... i think i am good.

    they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.

    Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.

    I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.

    Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.

    None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?

    It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.

    I fail to see how submitting humans to a study in which they are prescribed a substance in quantities deemed safe by the FDA would violate any ethical standards.

    well firstly if the research hypothesis states that they predict neuron damage or anything like this will occur, then the study wont be approved for humans. Secondly the brains of the rats were dissected to be properly studied because how are you going to study the effect on the brain in the human subjects?

    Except that there are thousands of studies showing safety, and you just dismiss all of those for ONE study that was conducted on rats and showed what we all would have expected. Again, it's fine within that context but cannot be extrapolated to say it's dangerous to humans in established safe dosages because most of us actually aren't completely deficient in folic acid and most of us don't come anywhere near the high dosages.

    More useful would be a follow up study to show what level of folic acid are required to fomate the added methanol and what the effects are at various dosage levels. If 40 is too high then is 20 ok? 30? People have been consuming this product for years so as the steroid advocate in Bigger, Faster, Stronger said, show me the bodies.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    brentfostwood904 wrote: »
    here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640

    Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).


    Soo...... i think i am good.

    they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.

    Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.

    I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.

    Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.

    None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?

    It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.

    I fail to see how submitting humans to a study in which they are prescribed a substance in quantities deemed safe by the FDA would violate any ethical standards.

    well firstly if the research hypothesis states that they predict neuron damage or anything like this will occur, then the study wont be approved for humans. Secondly the brains of the rats were dissected to be properly studied because how are you going to study the effect on the brain in the human subjects?

    I didn't realize we still lived in the 1800's when the only way to see the brain was dissection.

    Well, there are a lot of things you still can't see in imaging, no matter how good it is so dissection is still the method of choice. Well not the choice of the subject because they aren't getting anything useful out of it but... well you know what I mean! :p

Categories