Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
It’s not natural. It’s a chemical. If you feel like it’s a dietary help for losing weight...it’s not. It gives me migraines. Judge for yourself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame
Well, for me it IS a dietary help for losing/maintaining weight - as it contains almost no calories which cannot be said for the alternatives i drank before - ie sugar containing sodas.
Of course if it gives you Migraines, you dont consume it. Common sense.
* Repeats oft told tale of Husband and cats, apologies to those who have read this before...
Husband is allergic to cats
Gets sneezing, runny nose, weepy eyes, itchy hives
I doubt anyone would dispute he should not have a pet cat. Common sense
But everybody should not have cats because one person allergic? - Silly.
11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'll admit it gets frustrating.
Just know that you are one of the most respected and appreciated posters I know. And I know a lot of others that feel that way.
Respect my kitten post!
Sorry, don't know how to appropriately deal with compliments, usually comes out as sarcasm.
I thoroughly respect and also want to hug this post.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »It’s not natural. It’s a chemical. If you feel like it’s a dietary help for losing weight...it’s not. It gives me migraines. Judge for yourself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame
I don't know how @aaron_k123 does it. Probably has explained the issue a dozen times (at least) in this thread and explained, in very clear laymans terms why it is not a problem. Backed by appropriate research and actual science. And, it's clear, it's a topic he knows an awful lot about. But still someone has to come in with a wikipedia article and make pronouncements.
If there is anything that is giving someone a migraine....
More times than that, countless more if you count other threads. And I don't copy paste my response either, I type it out again and again explaining in my own words tailored to whomever I am responding to and providing whatever sources I might reference. It is time consuming and 99% of the time I do it the person I am responding to doesn't respond back. They put their 30 seconds in to type out an opinion with no reference or a google/wiki link and I spend 30 minutes to respond and get nothing.
I'll admit it gets frustrating.
And even though it's frustrating, you continue to respond to others with patience and respect. I think that's pretty awesome.6 -
clicketykeys wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »It’s not natural. It’s a chemical. If you feel like it’s a dietary help for losing weight...it’s not. It gives me migraines. Judge for yourself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame
I don't know how @aaron_k123 does it. Probably has explained the issue a dozen times (at least) in this thread and explained, in very clear laymans terms why it is not a problem. Backed by appropriate research and actual science. And, it's clear, it's a topic he knows an awful lot about. But still someone has to come in with a wikipedia article and make pronouncements.
If there is anything that is giving someone a migraine....
More times than that, countless more if you count other threads. And I don't copy paste my response either, I type it out again and again explaining in my own words tailored to whomever I am responding to and providing whatever sources I might reference. It is time consuming and 99% of the time I do it the person I am responding to doesn't respond back. They put their 30 seconds in to type out an opinion with no reference or a google/wiki link and I spend 30 minutes to respond and get nothing.
I'll admit it gets frustrating.
And even though it's frustrating, you continue to respond to others with patience and respect. I think that's pretty awesome.
Oh I vent....just elsewhere
Nothing too bad in here anyways, thing that really hurts is spending hours or days on reading a posted citation someone gives in order to respond only to have them say nothing or worse the entire thread gets deleted so next time someone asks the same question I can't even reference what I said before.
Anyways I appreciate the support and the chance to vent a bit but I don't want to derail the thread too much so last I'll respond to these kind of posts for now.5 -
The lurkers luv ya - gotta know it.
Well, except for those that finally get the guts to post a sentence and link to Wikipedia, and then go back to lurking.
Maybe not so much in that case.
But you brought them out!6 -
For all of those of you have quoted me, fine. If you have lost weight, great. As for what I put in my coffee...nothing. I have also lost weight.
Semantics. I’m not a chemist. I just don’t like artificial sweeteners, I found this topic one night and I disagreed. One post and one response is it for me.18 -
I put nothing in my coffee either - well just a dash of milk, no sweeteners.
I'm sure people have lost weight drinking unsweetened drinks, artificially sweetened drinks, sugar sweetened drinks.
As long as they eat less than they burn.
However point of thread isn't whether we have same personal choices as others but whether aspartame is safe or scary.
Not about whether we personally like it or consume it.9 -
For all of those of you have quoted me, fine. If you have lost weight, great. As for what I put in my coffee...nothing. I have also lost weight.
Semantics. I’m not a chemist. I just don’t like artificial sweeteners, I found this topic one night and I disagreed. One post and one response is it for me.
I'm not sure what relevance our personal likes and dislikes have when evaluating the safety of artificial sweeteners.14 -
For all of those of you have quoted me, fine. If you have lost weight, great. As for what I put in my coffee...nothing. I have also lost weight.
Semantics. I’m not a chemist. I just don’t like artificial sweeteners, I found this topic one night and I disagreed. One post and one response is it for me.
But you stated it doesn't help with weight loss. And you are wrong.
No issue that you don't like it and that it gives you migraines so YOU should avoid it, but to say it doesn't help with weight loss, it's a chemical etc. and then link to a wiki article should be challenged every time. And, those topics had already been debunked by an actual chemist in this very thread.
I take nothing in my coffee. I drink very little diet drinks and drink mostly water or coffee. But I also read through this very thread and took the time to learn something about the topic from someone who understands the science behind it.
So, you have and expressed an opinion (trying to couch it as a fact). You are welcome to your opinion, and are welcome to express it. But to expect it to go unchallenged by folks who know something on the topic is one place where you went wrong. The other is not being open to reading the thread to challenge your own opinion.
But yeah. We're mean.
I really do feel bad for Aaron some days.10 -
For all of those of you have quoted me, fine. If you have lost weight, great. As for what I put in my coffee...nothing. I have also lost weight.
Semantics. I’m not a chemist. I just don’t like artificial sweeteners, I found this topic one night and I disagreed. One post and one response is it for me.
I'm a bit confused as to what you disagree with. I was stating why there is no reason to be afraid of aspartame, I wasn't making any claims about whether or not it tastes good or whether or not you personally should put it in your coffee. I hope you understand I mean no offense when I say I don't personally care what you do or do not put into your coffee....doesn't affect me at all. What I care about is misinformation and fear mongering that make people feel like they have to go out of their way to avoid something for health reasons despite there really not being a reason do so. I care because it sows irrational doubt and fear about "chemicals" and science in general.
I'm not saying you must have artificial sweeteners in your drinks....I'm saying that claims that aspartame causes cancer/autism/diabetes etc etc are baseless and you shouldn't base your decisions in your life around such claims.
I tend to have my coffee with a packet of aspartame and some cream because I like it that way. But that isn't relevant to whether or not aspartame poses a health risk that is only relevant to what I personally enjoy so it is only important to me which is why I haven't mentioned it at all.22 -
Wow, this post has been going strong for four years! I love science. I only have an associates degree in computer science, but I understood every bit of your explanation, well done. Too bad there is no such thing as a "hobbyist" biochemist. This stuff is very fascinating.5
-
Aaron, thanks so much for not only posting this in the first place, but for continuing, for over 4 years, to keep it informational not confrontational. (Wish everyone else could do the same! ROFL)2
-
“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.18 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.
Your conspiracy theories still don't trump the science...9 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.
Your conspiracy theories still don't trump the science...
It’s a timeline of events - Time isn’t a conspiracy theory.
Rumsfeld’s not going down in history as an honest and ethical man, anyway.6 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.
Your conspiracy theories still don't trump the science...
It’s a timeline of events - Time isn’t a conspiracy theory.
Rumsfeld’s not going down in history as an honest and ethical man, anyway.
Read this thread from the beginning.3 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »“In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame’s clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it “might induce brain tumors.” The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. Here’s how it happened:
Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan’s transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
One of Hayes’ first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI’s recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
It scares me.
Yes, I realize there are lots of things on the internet that are written in such a way as to scare you in order to get those clicks. For what it is worth I am sorry that this particular op-ed article scared you. That is why I made this post in the first place. Is there anything I actually said in this post that you disagree with?
Also if you are going to copy paste from an article you should include a link to that article so people know your source and so that the original source gets the appropriate credit. In this case an Op-Ed written in the "Blog" section of HuffPost India written by a " music, author, educator,bodyboarder, orchardist and piano/keyboard enthusiast"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
Pounding out a quick Op-Ed and getting it published on the internet on a website that publishes Op-Eds is not hard to do and they don't vet or check sources. I know because I've done it.9 -
BeccaLoves2lift wrote: »
I just think it tastes gross.
This is me too. TBH it was always really easy for me to believe it was bad because of the taste but I never researched it because I was never going to use it anyway. This thread is interesting.2 -
BeccaLoves2lift wrote: »
I just think it tastes gross.
This is me too. TBH it was always really easy for me to believe it was bad because of the taste but I never researched it because I was never going to use it anyway. This thread is interesting.
...and that is totally fair...I certainly hope I don't give any impression that I am somehow advocating for the stuff, I just think the fearmongering present on the internet got way out of hand and I am trying to explain why there isn't any reason to think aspartame is dangerous. I certainly don't care if anyone uses it or not...it isn't bad for you, but it isn't good for you either...it just is. It is certainly not a necessary part of anyone's diet and not liking the taste is a perfectly valid reason to avoid it altogether.3 -
I didn't get that impression. It seemed matter-of-fact to me which is how I like new information. One of these days I might research why I am one of the people that doesn't like the taste.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