Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
VintageFeline 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?4 -
VintageFeline 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.
She has to have been joking. Please tell me she was joking.5 -
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.
7 -
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.18 -
But somehow he missed aspartame. Shame.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.
4 -
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.
Who are "they" that you talk about?6 -
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. I was expecting you to respond because you were the one who brought it up in the first place.
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
12 -
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?1
-
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?
All the work you've put into this discussion, you dont need to do jack at this point. It's grest that you stick around, though.6 -
The Mercoli article you linked to claimed aspartame as a "neurotoxin" because it has "excitotoxicity".
Do you know why it has exicitotoxicity? It has exicitotoxicity because it has amino acids, and amino acids, like aspartate, have excitotoxicity. Do you know what else has amino acids? All of your food. It is a absolutely ridiculous claim to make that the amount of aspartate or phenylalanine contained within aspartame is somehow dangerous when much MUCH more of those molecules is found in almost anything else that you eat on a daily basis because they are present in larger amounts in all protein sources, be they animal or plant based.
Even the Mercola article you linked to doesn't claim aspartame somehow gets into your brain, the claim it is making is that the amino acids that it is metabolically broken down into are somehow toxic. But that is just patently ridiculous when you consider the amount of amino acid contained in a can of soda relative to practically anything else.
You keep talking about "negative studies" but have yet to link to even one study yet.10 -
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.2 -
I think Alice just needs to admit that she copied something off a search result with no understanding of what it said, because she thought it made her point.6
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »I think Alice just needs to admit that she copied something off a search result with no understanding of what it said, because she thought it made her point.
I tend to believe that is likely true given if you type "Aspartame is dangerous" into google that Mercola article is the very first link,5 -
I am going to try to pin you down on this and see if we can get to the bottom of the issue here.
Aspartame is broken down immediately into phenylalanine, aspartate and methanol upon ingestion. Even the Mercola article that you linked to agrees with that.
This is a statement from Mercola from the very article you linked to:
"Aspartame is composed of three ingredients -- two amino acids (phenylalanine and aspartic acid) and a methyl ester bond". "
The methyl ester bond is hydrolized into methanol.
So. You have three ingredients to which you can point at and say that is the thing that is dangerous.
You have aspartate, an amino acid. You have phenylalanine, an essential amino acid and you have methanol, an alcohol.
Which of those ingredients is the one that is dangerous? When you pin that down maybe we can talk about that.
Or, alternatively, do you disagree that aspartame is metabolized into aspartate phenylalanine and methanol before entering the blood in which case what is your basis for that disagreement?7 -
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.
Please give @Aaron_K123 a break and just accept you are wrong.
5 -
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!
eta- for whoever asked, by "they" i meant the people who were publishing the negative studies15 -
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!
Articles do not = science. You seem to have a disconnect between actual science and studies, and how they are interpreted and spread in the media.
If science can't convince you something is safe but an article (or a psychic) can convince you it is, you are doing it wrong.12 -
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.2 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »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!
Articles do not = science. You seem to have a disconnect between actual science and studies, and how they are interpreted and spread in the media.
If science can't convince you something is safe but an article (or a psychic) can convince you it is, you are doing it wrong.
well, i figure there must be something to back up what they are saying. if it was of major importance i would look for confirmation elsewhere9 -
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!
There's no convincing you of anything because you don't know the difference between actual science and any damn thing that pops out of someone's head. You're deficient in a critical life skill and that's going to be a real issue for you in the future when you're faced with a crises that requires a verifiable answer.15
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 388 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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions