Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I GaleHawkins wrote: »Lawyers seem to find Aspartame good for business.
nypost.com/2017/10/18/these-diet-sodas-are-actually-making-people-fat-suit/
"The companies’ diet drinks contain aspertame, a sugar substitute, which some recent studies have shown can cause cardiovascular disease and diabetes, as well as lead to weight gain, the suits claim."
"“Our case is focused on aspertame, but all artificial sweetners” behave the same in your body, said Derek Smith, whose eponymous law firm is lead counsel in all three soda cases."
Lawyers sue over all kinds of ridiculous stuff. If you avoided everything associated with lawsuits, you'd have a very constrained life.
I can agree with that. What I do know is lawyers are out to make big bucks most always. So they had evidence to take into the courtroom before it became a "news" story I am certain. But my question was what could it be?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494042/
A bitter aftertaste: unintended effects of artificial sweeteners on the gut microbiome
"The new study by Suez and colleagues (2014) described the effects of one such dietary change — increasing use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) — on host glucose tolerance. The authors found that glucose intolerance, a marker of metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus, was increased in mice by regular consumption of the sweeteners saccharin, sucralose, or aspartame (Figure 1A). These changes accompanied altered intestinal bacterial communities, including several organisms that are associated with obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disease, and were suppressed by antibiotic treatment, suggesting a direct microbial role......."
https://consumerreports.org/soda/mounting-evidence-against-diet-sodas/
It sounds like a lot of the news article was based on this Consumer Reports story.
The court case may be interesting to hear or a total bust.
Well, you see, lawyers get paid whether they win or lose. It's their job to represent the client who is paying them whether they believe their case to be weighted on their side or not. They can of course advise their client that they think they haven't got a leg to stand on but the client can insist they take it to court anyway. A court case being brought doesn't prove anything. And of course they aren't going to go in with nothing, they'll dig up whatever tenuous piece of evidence they can and build a whole case around it.
Also. Rats.
I am a lawyer. An actual litigation lawyer. And I find it hilarious that someone is trying to use what's being stated in a lawsuit as proof of a proposition.8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.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, they actually don't have studies, at least not reputable peer reviewed studies.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?14 -
Oops. Freudian slip. Proverbs 26:4.6
-
@Aaron_K123 It is good to see you posting a lot recently. I always enjoy reading your posts, and learn a lot from them. Keep up the good work.6
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.
That is totally fine, and thank you very much for not taking my request as insult or a challenge when it wasn't meant that way (so many times people get defensive). You understand however my reluctance to put a lot of personal time into something to have a discussion if that isn't going to be reciprocated.
I initially did try to do that but quickly got jaded and burned by people who would just spam links to studies they hadn't read expecting me to respond to each and everyone of them, something I won't do unless I actually read the study. What that meant is someone would take 20 seconds to spam the first 5 studies linked as hits to a google search of "Aspartame dangers" and then expect me to spend 15 hours reading them. I would actually do that and get back to them only for them to just respond by spamming the next 5 in their 20 second google search.
Since that life lesson I really don't engage unless there is some show of good faith that the other person is willing to invest the time as well. Hope you understand and cheers.10 -
Oops. Freudian slip. Proverbs 26:4.
Hey you are a fast thinker and both are great teachings.
That book has shaped me over the last 50 years but still struggle with application. I love the Wisdom of that era. I think maybe man has been devolving instead of evolving.
Proverbs 26:4King James Version (KJV)
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Thanks again so your references.3 -
This thread is just bursting with irony this evening. Almost worth the insomnia to see it in all its unfolding glory.7
-
VintageFeline wrote: »This thread is just bursting with irony this evening. Almost worth the insomnia to see it in all its unfolding glory.
This one and a couple of others have kept me reading for a couple of hours. Now I am caught up, and better yet, have learned some things.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.
That is totally fine, and thank you very much for not taking my request as insult or a challenge when it wasn't meant that way (so many times people get defensive). You understand however my reluctance to put a lot of personal time into something to have a discussion if that isn't going to be reciprocated.
I initially did try to do that but quickly got jaded and burned by people who would just spam links to studies they hadn't read expecting me to respond to each and everyone of them, something I won't do unless I actually read the study. What that meant is someone would take 20 seconds to spam the first 5 studies linked as hits to a google search of "Aspartame dangers" and then expect me to spend 15 hours reading them. I would actually do that and get back to them only for them to just respond by spamming the next 5 in their 20 second google search.
Since that life lesson I really don't engage unless there is some show of good faith that the other person is willing to invest the time as well. Hope you understand and cheers.
I agree with you about the wasting time and I have even wasted time with peer reviewed articles because of inbreeding of ideas in a closed enviroment medically speaking. Holding a terminal degree in healthcare drives home how the impact of biases can be a real problem both in the labs and reading of the research by others. I find different ways of looking at cancer risks from Europe and Asia do help see past some of AMA type biases for example. Outside of the USA there seems more thoughts as to how the big picture focuses on how our thoughts, then way of eating then our way of moving impact disease and health problems in general. Thanks again.
8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.
That is totally fine, and thank you very much for not taking my request as insult or a challenge when it wasn't meant that way (so many times people get defensive). You understand however my reluctance to put a lot of personal time into something to have a discussion if that isn't going to be reciprocated.
I initially did try to do that but quickly got jaded and burned by people who would just spam links to studies they hadn't read expecting me to respond to each and everyone of them, something I won't do unless I actually read the study. What that meant is someone would take 20 seconds to spam the first 5 studies linked as hits to a google search of "Aspartame dangers" and then expect me to spend 15 hours reading them. I would actually do that and get back to them only for them to just respond by spamming the next 5 in their 20 second google search.
Since that life lesson I really don't engage unless there is some show of good faith that the other person is willing to invest the time as well. Hope you understand and cheers.
I agree with you about the wasting time and I have even wasted time with peer reviewed articles because of inbreeding of ideas in a closed enviroment medically speaking. Holding a terminal degree in healthcare drives home how the impact of biases can be a real problem both in the labs and reading of the research by others. I find different ways of looking at cancer risks from Europe and Asia do help see past some of AMA type biases for example. Outside of the USA there seems more thoughts as to how the big picture focuses on how our thoughts, then way of eating then our way of moving impact disease and health problems in general. Thanks again.
You still haven't answered his original questions relating to the study you say supports your position in order to clarify if it is worth Aaron investing a substantial amount of time reading. If you yourself have already invested that time then you should be delighted to share some of the pertinent points you found relevant and worth looking into.7 -
A possibly devolved reference, considering it is a couple thousand years younger:
http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/what-is-man-and-other-essays-of-mark-twain/ebook-page-15.asp2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.
That is totally fine, and thank you very much for not taking my request as insult or a challenge when it wasn't meant that way (so many times people get defensive). You understand however my reluctance to put a lot of personal time into something to have a discussion if that isn't going to be reciprocated.
I initially did try to do that but quickly got jaded and burned by people who would just spam links to studies they hadn't read expecting me to respond to each and everyone of them, something I won't do unless I actually read the study. What that meant is someone would take 20 seconds to spam the first 5 studies linked as hits to a google search of "Aspartame dangers" and then expect me to spend 15 hours reading them. I would actually do that and get back to them only for them to just respond by spamming the next 5 in their 20 second google search.
Since that life lesson I really don't engage unless there is some show of good faith that the other person is willing to invest the time as well. Hope you understand and cheers.
I agree with you about the wasting time and I have even wasted time with peer reviewed articles because of inbreeding of ideas in a closed enviroment medically speaking. Holding a terminal degree in healthcare drives home how the impact of biases can be a real problem both in the labs and reading of the research by others. I find different ways of looking at cancer risks from Europe and Asia do help see past some of AMA type biases for example. Outside of the USA there seems more thoughts as to how the big picture focuses on how our thoughts, then way of eating then our way of moving impact disease and health problems in general. Thanks again.
You still haven't answered his original questions relating to the study you say supports your position in order to clarify if it is worth Aaron investing a substantial amount of time reading. If you yourself have already invested that time then you should be delighted to share some of the pertinent points you found relevant and worth looking into.VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.
That is totally fine, and thank you very much for not taking my request as insult or a challenge when it wasn't meant that way (so many times people get defensive). You understand however my reluctance to put a lot of personal time into something to have a discussion if that isn't going to be reciprocated.
I initially did try to do that but quickly got jaded and burned by people who would just spam links to studies they hadn't read expecting me to respond to each and everyone of them, something I won't do unless I actually read the study. What that meant is someone would take 20 seconds to spam the first 5 studies linked as hits to a google search of "Aspartame dangers" and then expect me to spend 15 hours reading them. I would actually do that and get back to them only for them to just respond by spamming the next 5 in their 20 second google search.
Since that life lesson I really don't engage unless there is some show of good faith that the other person is willing to invest the time as well. Hope you understand and cheers.
I agree with you about the wasting time and I have even wasted time with peer reviewed articles because of inbreeding of ideas in a closed enviroment medically speaking. Holding a terminal degree in healthcare drives home how the impact of biases can be a real problem both in the labs and reading of the research by others. I find different ways of looking at cancer risks from Europe and Asia do help see past some of AMA type biases for example. Outside of the USA there seems more thoughts as to how the big picture focuses on how our thoughts, then way of eating then our way of moving impact disease and health problems in general. Thanks again.
You still haven't answered his original questions relating to the study you say supports your position in order to clarify if it is worth Aaron investing a substantial amount of time reading. If you yourself have already invested that time then you should be delighted to share some of the pertinent points you found relevant and worth looking into.
I do not have a position to support but from the link I posted I really question that Phenylalanine consumption is a concern when it comes to premature death risks. I am not asking anyone to read anything but if one shares any interest in subjects that I am interested in I will try to discuss. I am trying to get out of changing the minds of others because it did not work out well my first 60 years so I do not plan do it my next 60 years. 7 -
A possibly devolved reference, considering it is a couple thousand years younger:
http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/what-is-man-and-other-essays-of-mark-twain/ebook-page-15.asp
That is awesome and applicable here. People post like we know the truth when the truth is never knowable. Since high school I have spent another 12 years of butt in chair/lab type of education (not counting any OJT. Now at the age of 66 most all of the facts I learned have now been proven incorrect or just no longer useful.
Proverbs has not let me down. The source of that ancient ageless wisdom boggles my mind and much of it is about diet too.7 -
alicebhsia wrote: »https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/24/aspartame-affects-brain-health.aspx random study just looked up - i am assuming mercola is a credible source. (not pushing stevia on anyone as i think it tastes even worse than aspartame) this page disagrees with you @Aaron_K123 "The amino acids in aspartame literally attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating a toxic cellular overstimulation, called excitotoxicity"
That's not a study. It's an article full of false, unfounded claims. And no...Mercola is far from a credible source. He's a total quack.6 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »If instead you are willing to claim things that you personally do not understand or really know anything about as you yourself have stated, then what is the value of this discussion?
Reminds me of people who don't like margarine because it is one molecule away from plastic. They've heard/read it somewhere, haven't got the foggiest idea what it actually means (hey @Aaron_K123, care to explain that one) but go on rants if they see someone use margarine.
Quite often it's the same people.
Water is one molecule away from Rocket fuel.8 -
This thread has become very strange indeed.
Can somebody explian why a mystic physic who died in 1945 is being held up as a source of knowledge on the topic of aspartame ??????
Am totally lost as to that line of reasoning.
11 -
1
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