Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
Why would there be a difference in what type of rat they used? As long as the sample size was large enough and there was a test and control group, could you not measure the difference. If 45% of the control group developed tumors and 70% of the test group showed tumors, would that not prove a direct correlation with aspartame and tumors assuming all other factors are equal.
You are absolutely right. Here is the thing though, Soffreti et al 2006 DIDNT show a difference between the control group and the test group for tumors, all groups including the control developed tumors at around the rate one would expect because they were Sprague Dawley rats regardless of aspartame dosage. Then people read the paper and said "ZOMG tumors" and hence the internet blogs citing it for aspartame being a carcinogen.
Sprague Dawley rats just get tumors. I still think it very odd that if you are going to look to see if a compound causes tumors that you would chose to test it in a specific breed of animal known for developing spontaneous tumors.
I mean honest question but if you were going to invest the time to test whether or not a molecule was carcinogenic would you opt to test it in a breed of rat that spontaneously form tumors at a rate of about 45% or would you opt to test it in a breed of rat that does not form spontaneous tumors?
By the way that upper dosage is 5 grams per kilogram. To get 5g per kilogram of aspartame as a 70kg guy I'd have to ingest 350 grams which would be about 1,950 sodas in one dosage. These rats where given that dose EVERY DAY for their ENTIRE LIVES.
If you think that the 43% tumors in the max dosage group is significant vs the 35% control then you have to also contend that the 4mg per kg group has a significantly lower tumor yield at only 29%. 4mg per kg would be about 2 soda's worth in a dose. So if someone wanted to say that the max dosage gave a significant increase in tumors they would have to also accept that a normal dose (in terms of what we actually take in) actually prevents tumors.
Of course neither is the case, the results are within error and are non-significant. The rats have tumors because those rats get tumors.
I seriously don't understand how someone could read this study and think it evidence that aspsartame is a carcinogen. In my opinion people don't read the study, they just read blogs and posts that say "ZOMG Tumors" that cite the study. I have my doubts the authors of those blogs and posts read the study either.1 -
Oh one more thing on the study using Sprague Dawley rats. Lets say they did the study and they found that there was a truly obvious significant difference between the control group and the test group (which there wasn't). What would that show. Well that would show that in rats that are prone to spontaneous tumor formation that aspartame may cause slightly more tumor formation. Does that mean that aspartame is a carcinogen? Not really.
Seriously. If you want to see if something is carcinogenic don't test it in animals that develop spontaneous tumors 45% of the time anyways.
Citation for the average spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague-Dawley rats being 45%: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
45% by the way being right around the highest they saw in their experiment.0 -
Thank you! I am so sick of my mom telling me, "The aspartame in those diet drinks is really dangerous."1
-
I don't drink aspartame because it tastes terrible, but drink whatever you want. I don't think it's likely to kill you but I also don't think it's particularly healthy. Give me unsweet iced tea over diet coke any day.
I thought that was odd as well, but some people really love their diet drinks I guess.I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?
I also thought it was odd that the article going around the other day comparing people who drank diet drinks (which included tea and flavored water) kept getting sold as 'diet SODA is healthy' when it did not isolate soda.0 -
Seriously. If you want to see if something is carcinogenic don't test it in animals that develop spontaneous tumors 45% of the time anyways.
The logic for the SD rats is that this is an animal model in which it is easy to potentiate a response. If an agent changes the response rate from 1 in a hundred and doubles the rate one isn't going to see it very often and statistical significance will remain low.
In an animal model where the base rate is high, a small induced incidence rate change will appear easily. It's one of many reasonable early level two screening model for that - even if the results had been strong, other test are needed.
THere are a variety of products that test as carcinogens in mice and rats and that are not in humans (for a variety of reasons from different biology to volumetric clearance to "unkown". These models are pretty good for genotoxic (damage to DNA or RNA) carcinogens but would be next to useless for other types of factors (immunosuppression, form factor, contact...)....
One tests with tests that have been validated by prior work, the model chosen is from a bank of succesful tools - however none is really a perfect method. Plus we are slowly trying to move away from animal models ...0 -
Seriously. If you want to see if something is carcinogenic don't test it in animals that develop spontaneous tumors 45% of the time anyways.
The logic for the SD rats is that this is an animal model in which it is easy to potentiate a response. If an agent changes the response rate from 1 in a hundred and doubles the rate one isn't going to see it very often and statistical significance will remain low.
In an animal model where the base rate is high, a small induced incidence rate change will appear easily. It's one of many reasonable early level two screening model for that - even if the results had been strong, other test are needed.
THere are a variety of products that test as carcinogens in mice and rats and that are not in humans (for a variety of reasons from different biology to volumetric clearance to "unkown". These models are pretty good for genotoxic (damage to DNA or RNA) carcinogens but would be next to useless for other types of factors (immunosuppression, form factor, contact...)....
One tests with tests that have been validated by prior work, the model chosen is from a bank of succesful tools - however none is really a perfect method. Plus we are slowly trying to move away from animal models ...
Honestly I think using a model system that is on the brink of falling over into tumor-ville is misrepresenting the carcinogenic effects of something especially if you get there by dosing at an impossibly high dose for an entire lifetime. On top of that even under those conditions I am not convinced that the results they show are really significant given the percentages in the different groups. They went from 35% in the control to 43% at the highest dosage and yet between those two dosages the tumor incidence was NOT dose dependent and ranged by a good 10%. If one was to consider 43% significant over 35% one, it seems to me, would be also stating that the 29% in the first dosage group was also significant and therefore normal aspartame intake was actually tumor repressive (which I don't think it is just to be clear).
It is not convincing to me but I encourage anyone who is interested to make their own appraisal.0 -
I don't drink aspartame because it tastes terrible, but drink whatever you want. I don't think it's likely to kill you but I also don't think it's particularly healthy. Give me unsweet iced tea over diet coke any day.
I thought that was odd as well, but some people really love their diet drinks I guess.I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?
I also thought it was odd that the article going around the other day comparing people who drank diet drinks (which included tea and flavored water) kept getting sold as 'diet SODA is healthy' when it did not isolate soda.
I would find it inappropriate if there weren't daily posts about people giving up drinks because of evil Aspartame. To me, this thread somewhat nips that in the bud (although I know we will still see them, and noobs probably won't read this).2 -
I don't drink aspartame because it tastes terrible, but drink whatever you want. I don't think it's likely to kill you but I also don't think it's particularly healthy. Give me unsweet iced tea over diet coke any day.
I thought that was odd as well, but some people really love their diet drinks I guess.I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?
I also thought it was odd that the article going around the other day comparing people who drank diet drinks (which included tea and flavored water) kept getting sold as 'diet SODA is healthy' when it did not isolate soda.
I would find it inappropriate if there weren't daily posts about people giving up drinks because of evil Aspartame. To me, this thread somewhat nips that in the bud (although I know we will still see them, and noobs probably won't read this).
Yeah I think that is the idea, just having it be reference for the times where it comes up in other threads.
I just wanted to state for emphasis that the purpose of this post was just to show why I believe current scientific evidence indicates aspartame is safe for consumption. I did NOT intend this post to be advocating soda consumption as being healthy and I don't think I ever say that anywhere in here.
There is a difference between saying something won't harm you and saying that it is "healthy".2 -
I don't drink aspartame because it tastes terrible, but drink whatever you want. I don't think it's likely to kill you but I also don't think it's particularly healthy. Give me unsweet iced tea over diet coke any day.
I thought that was odd as well, but some people really love their diet drinks I guess.I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?
I also thought it was odd that the article going around the other day comparing people who drank diet drinks (which included tea and flavored water) kept getting sold as 'diet SODA is healthy' when it did not isolate soda.
I would find it inappropriate if there weren't daily posts about people giving up drinks because of evil Aspartame. To me, this thread somewhat nips that in the bud (although I know we will still see them, and noobs probably won't read this).
Yeah I think that is the idea, just having it be reference for the times where it comes up in other threads.
I just wanted to state for emphasis that the purpose of this post was just to show why I believe current scientific evidence indicates aspartame is safe for consumption. I did NOT intend this post to be advocating soda consumption as being healthy and I don't think I ever say that anywhere in here.
There is a difference between saying something won't harm you and saying that it is "healthy".
One more time, OP. :drinker:0 -
I don't drink aspartame because it tastes terrible, but drink whatever you want. I don't think it's likely to kill you but I also don't think it's particularly healthy. Give me unsweet iced tea over diet coke any day.
I thought that was odd as well, but some people really love their diet drinks I guess.I'm not anti-aspartame, but I do find it odd, and perhaps a little inappropriate, that his is stickied on a fitness/calorie counting site. Is MFP somehow funded by an aspartame company?
I also thought it was odd that the article going around the other day comparing people who drank diet drinks (which included tea and flavored water) kept getting sold as 'diet SODA is healthy' when it did not isolate soda.
I would find it inappropriate if there weren't daily posts about people giving up drinks because of evil Aspartame. To me, this thread somewhat nips that in the bud (although I know we will still see them, and noobs probably won't read this).
Yeah I think that is the idea, just having it be reference for the times where it comes up in other threads.
I just wanted to state for emphasis that the purpose of this post was just to show why I believe current scientific evidence indicates aspartame is safe for consumption. I did NOT intend this post to be advocating soda consumption as being healthy and I don't think I ever say that anywhere in here.
There is a difference between saying something won't harm you and saying that it is "healthy".
Whatever, you're clearly an aspartame shill.
1 -
Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--
Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.
Pascals wager works for the "aspartame is bad" crowd.
"It doesn't hurt to NOT consume aspartame so why would you?"
It's used a lot when debating the existencr of a god too, but I won't go into that0 -
Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--
Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.
Pascals wager works for the "aspartame is bad" crowd.
"It doesn't hurt to NOT consume aspartame so why would you?"
It's used a lot when debating the existencr of a god too, but I won't go into that
Yeah but Pascals wager has become an example of a bad argument. People tend to bring it up to show the flaw in an argument not to say why it is a good argument.0 -
How did I miss this thread?
I don't do friend requests but am tempted to send the OP my first one ever.
I know nothing of chemistry (bio or otherwise), but this is within my area of expertise:
There are two non-fallacious readings of Pascal's wager (that I know of), and neither applies here.In Pascal's actual Wager a rational person wouldn't take the risk.... of not believing in God if (A) God exists and (B) not believing in him results in going to hell.
The first reading is that, given choices A and B of which A has no known possible negative outcomes but a possible positive one (even if remote to the point of p=0) and B has no known positive outcomes but a possible negative one, a rational man would choose A.
This doesn't apply since avoiding artificial sweeteners does have a known negative outcome: every time you want something sweet in your gullet, you have to pay calories for it.
The second reading is that, if choice A has an infinitely positive outcome of non-zero probability or choice B has an infinitely negative outcome of non-zero probability (or both), then a rational man would pick A regardless of any other finitely positive or negatice outcomes.
This doesn't apply since avoiding artificial sweeteners won't make you immortal and (as illustrated in the first post) the chance of dying from diet soda is equal to that of dying from water.1 -
This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.
Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.
Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!
So the real question would be:
"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"
Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?
Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.0 -
This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.
Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.
Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!
So the real question would be:
"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"
Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?
Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.
So, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?
Thing is, science isn't simply the best tool we have for understanding the world around us (including our own bodies), it is the ONLY tool we have for doing so. And while we probably never will know everything there is to know, and sometimes get led a little astray, science does at least tend to head us in that direction. Read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm2 -
This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.
Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.
Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!
So the real question would be:
"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"
Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?
Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.
So, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?
Thing is, science isn't simply the best tool we have for understanding the world around us (including our own bodies), it is the ONLY tool we have for doing so. And while we probably never will know everything there is to know, and sometimes get led a little astray, science does at least tend to head us in that direction. Read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
This. If you actually waited until we could scientifically "prove" that something is safe for consumption before you ingested it then you would die of starvation.
Science doesn't "prove" anything, proof is the domain of mathematics alone. Science is used to disprove things and by eliminating possibilities arrive at the most plausible explanation based on models.
There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.
The idea that science ever proves things is a misunderstanding of what science is.2 -
I was wondering about how artificial sweetener work. I'm guessing since it breaks down exactly like any food breaks down while being digested that the the reason one does not gain weight by consuming it (assuming they would gain weight from the alternative sweetener by over consuming, thus the industry making diet drinks for the new demand) would be because in this new molecular composition it tastes sweeter thus it is required to use much less of it than the alternative sweetener so not as many calories, thus not the cover consumption, thus not the weight gain? I've read some articles about artificial sweeteners (but don't even remember which ones) that seem to talk more about insulin issues than cancer or toxicity. I find this all very interesting and appreciate the conversation.
The reason diet soda is "diet" even though aspartame breaks down like anything else is because aspartame is about 700 times sweeter than sugar so you need 700 times less of it. It isn't that aspartame has zero calories it is that so little aspartame is used to sweeten a drink that its number of calories is negligible.
As I broke down in my post 180mg of aspartame is by weight about 162mg protein by weight. We know that protein is about 4 calories per gram so that means the aspartame in the soda is about 0.7 calories. That is so low they just call it zero. Actually I think with the aspartame is some carbs to bulk it when they add it so I think I've heard a can of diet soda actually has about 3 or 4 calories but that is low enough that they can call it zero.
I haven't really seen anything to support the idea that aspartame triggers insulin production. The assumption seems to be that because it tastes sweet our bodies would produce insulin but I am not sure that is actually true and not just based on "common sense" associated with how insulin is related to sugar and sugar tastes sweet and aspartame tastes sweet therefore...
I am not saying aspartame does not cause insulin production because I honestly don't know, I haven't seen anything to suggest that is true and I am skeptical since protein doesn't cause insulin production and aspartame is protein.
Protein is insulinogenic, possibly more so than carbohydrates. See here for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060863
This isn't to say aspartame is insulinogenic. I would doubt it, just because the amounts ingested are so low compared to a high protein meal.0 -
I was wondering about how artificial sweetener work. I'm guessing since it breaks down exactly like any food breaks down while being digested that the the reason one does not gain weight by consuming it (assuming they would gain weight from the alternative sweetener by over consuming, thus the industry making diet drinks for the new demand) would be because in this new molecular composition it tastes sweeter thus it is required to use much less of it than the alternative sweetener so not as many calories, thus not the cover consumption, thus not the weight gain? I've read some articles about artificial sweeteners (but don't even remember which ones) that seem to talk more about insulin issues than cancer or toxicity. I find this all very interesting and appreciate the conversation.
The reason diet soda is "diet" even though aspartame breaks down like anything else is because aspartame is about 700 times sweeter than sugar so you need 700 times less of it. It isn't that aspartame has zero calories it is that so little aspartame is used to sweeten a drink that its number of calories is negligible.
As I broke down in my post 180mg of aspartame is by weight about 162mg protein by weight. We know that protein is about 4 calories per gram so that means the aspartame in the soda is about 0.7 calories. That is so low they just call it zero. Actually I think with the aspartame is some carbs to bulk it when they add it so I think I've heard a can of diet soda actually has about 3 or 4 calories but that is low enough that they can call it zero.
I haven't really seen anything to support the idea that aspartame triggers insulin production. The assumption seems to be that because it tastes sweet our bodies would produce insulin but I am not sure that is actually true and not just based on "common sense" associated with how insulin is related to sugar and sugar tastes sweet and aspartame tastes sweet therefore...
I am not saying aspartame does not cause insulin production because I honestly don't know, I haven't seen anything to suggest that is true and I am skeptical since protein doesn't cause insulin production and aspartame is protein.
Protein is insulinogenic, possibly more so than carbohydrates. See here for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060863
This isn't to say aspartame is insulinogenic. I would doubt it, just because the amounts ingested are so low compared to a high protein meal.
Huh, was unaware...thanks.0 -
This thread is very informative! I drink diet dr pepper and have had success losing weight as long as I keep within my calories.0
-
I didn't read the whole thread, sorry.
Most articles that I have read state that with 'moderate' consumption there is no problem. Are there any recommended upper limits ? I can easily drink 2 litres of pepsi max a day, too much?
Secondly I've read that diet soda can cause dental problems (maybe nothing to do with aspartame), is this substantiated?
Thanks and again, sorry if this stuff has been covered (I only skimmed the OP).0 -
The only thing I have to add to this very very VERY long thread is.
I don't care if someone fear mongers me and tells me its going to kill me, or someone tells me it's "okay" to eat.
ITS NOT REAL FOOD. Don't eat it. Period.
End of story.
EAT REAL FOOD. All zero calorie sweeteners are not good for us, it sends mixed messages to our brains that we are eating sugar... but there are no calories. Just eat real food.
If you want a soda, drink a freaken soda. Just don't drink one everyday.
EVERYTHING in moderation.
Just eat REAL food.
Also.. come on people.. stop drinking soda. Like really you wanna lose weight, DRINK WATER. And lots of it. STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.2 -
The only thing I have to add to this very very VERY long thread is.
I don't care if someone fear mongers me and tells me its going to kill me, or someone tells me it's "okay" to eat.
ITS NOT REAL FOOD. Don't eat it. Period.
End of story.
EAT REAL FOOD. All zero calorie sweeteners are not good for us, it sends mixed messages to our brains that we are eating sugar... but there are no calories. Just eat real food.
If you want a soda, drink a freaken soda. Just don't drink one everyday.
EVERYTHING in moderation.
Just eat REAL food.
Also.. come on people.. stop drinking soda. Like really you wanna lose weight, DRINK WATER. And lots of it. STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.
Just LOL2 -
Secondly I've read that diet soda can cause dental problems (maybe nothing to do with aspartame), is this substantiated?
Not taking care of dental hygiene causing dental problems, nothing to do with aspartame.0 -
STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.
Based on what?2 -
I don't drink calories so I always have diet Dr Pepper...and while I don't drink them daily, I've always figured there's worse out there for me than a diet soda occasionally! Great informative read! Thank you!0
-
I have a condition called Interstitial Cystitis. Feels like a bladder infection where there is none. It is triggered by aspartame in many patients. My doctors told me to avoid it and I have been symptom-free ever since. However, if I drink any beverage containing it, I immediately have an acute attack.
Eliminating aspartame is usually one of the first steps in treating IC.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I got your point. I drank 6+ Diet Cokes per day for about 20 years. I then developed IC. When I eliminated aspartame, it went away. I didn't change anything else about my diet. For me, I feel like I developed a sensitivity to aspartame over time that negatively impacted my life, impacting my ability to exercise, work, etc. Enjoy it until your body says "NO!" I really don't know why such a food sensitivity would develop, but I'm not a chemist either. If the OP could shed any light on this, I'd be happy to listen :flowerforyou:0
-
Thank you so much for this post. I am SO TIRED of people scaring other people to death with unfounded statements about aspartame. There is so much NOT-SCIENCE going on in our society that is directly correlated with whack-a-doo conspiracy theory. Such as the vaccine issue. Or climate change. Or evolution. People seem to think that it is valid to respond to scientific material that is supported by facts, double-blind studies and broad consensus in the scientific communities by saying things like , "Well, what you are saying doesn't fit with my experience, so you are wrong", or "I saw a study online that said blah-blah-blah" when the studies are simply a crock. So! Thanks again! Let's hear it for science!0
-
You sound like you have no idea whatsoever how science goes about evaluating the safety of food products. If you did, you would NOT be saying, "can current science evaluate the safety of aspartame?" Instead, you would spend your time and energy on something worthwhile rather than wasting it on this silly conspiracy theory. Period.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions