Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Just want to bump this because it never stops being awesome.6
-
How about scientific research that has been published in an accredited peer review paper?
Ciappuccini R, et al. Aspartame-induced fibromyalgia, an unusual but curable cause of chronic pain. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2010;28(63):S131-13312 -
How about scientific research that has been published in an accredited peer review paper?
Ciappuccini R, et al. Aspartame-induced fibromyalgia, an unusual but curable cause of chronic pain. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2010;28(63):S131-133
Its not even a study. Its an observation of two patients. There wasnt even a control to see if it was any other ingredient in the diet soda that was cause a flare up of the symptoms. It just assumes its aspartame. It very well could have been another ingredient, like a dye.
But to stress this again, something that is bad for two people does not mean there is application to the general populous. Hell, peanuts cause much worse effects and is a more wide spread allergy. Doesn't make it bad for everyone else.15 -
How about scientific research that has been published in an accredited peer review paper?
Ciappuccini R, et al. Aspartame-induced fibromyalgia, an unusual but curable cause of chronic pain. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2010;28(63):S131-133
Its not even a study. Its an observation of two patients. There wasnt even a control to see if it was any other ingredient in the diet soda that was cause a flare up of the symptoms. It just assumes its aspartame. It very well could have been another ingredient, like a dye.
But to stress this again, something that is bad for two people does not mean there is application to the general populous. Hell, peanuts cause much worse effects and is a more wide spread allergy. Doesn't make it bad for everyone else.
Why does it seem like it's always Italians with the bad science on aspartame?6 -
stevencloser wrote: »How about scientific research that has been published in an accredited peer review paper?
Ciappuccini R, et al. Aspartame-induced fibromyalgia, an unusual but curable cause of chronic pain. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2010;28(63):S131-133
Its not even a study. Its an observation of two patients. There wasnt even a control to see if it was any other ingredient in the diet soda that was cause a flare up of the symptoms. It just assumes its aspartame. It very well could have been another ingredient, like a dye.
But to stress this again, something that is bad for two people does not mean there is application to the general populous. Hell, peanuts cause much worse effects and is a more wide spread allergy. Doesn't make it bad for everyone else.
Why does it seem like it's always Italians with the bad science on aspartame?
IDK - maybe they used up all their scientific ability on architecture?
5 -
How about scientific research that has been published in an accredited peer review paper?
Ciappuccini R, et al. Aspartame-induced fibromyalgia, an unusual but curable cause of chronic pain. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2010;28(63):S131-133
What we're your thoughts regarding that paper after you read it? Did it cause you concern about your own health or the health of friends/family or others? If so in what way and did you have any lingering questions brought on by your reading of the cited work?3 -
I try to not consume anything with this toxic rubbish, and i can taste it in my mouth for hrs if I have sugar free products. I don't buy them at all.25
-
SarahSloth342634 wrote: »I try to not consume anything with this toxic rubbish, and i can taste it in my mouth for hrs if I have sugar free products. I don't buy them at all.
You do you, but I thank you that your bump made me read the thread, and I feel better about ingesting aspartame.14 -
Lol, love when people say "toxic" and have no idea what toxic really means.SarahSloth342634 wrote: »I try to not consume anything with this toxic rubbish, and i can taste it in my mouth for hrs if I have sugar free products. I don't buy them at all.
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
14 -
SarahSloth342634 wrote: »I try to not consume anything with this toxic rubbish, and i can taste it in my mouth for hrs if I have sugar free products. I don't buy them at all.
If aspartame really were 'toxic rubbish' don't you think that the millions of people who consume it on a daily basis would be showing some ill effects from it, like maybe falling over dead in the streets???8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions