Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
@lilenatalem, diet soda is most definitely NOT the worst thing you can eat or drink. While I generally agree with you that unprocessed foods are the best, there is NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER that diet soda is a great product for diabetics and pre-diabetics. Of course, in moderation. While many people think there is proof that artificial sweeteners somehow trick our brains, there is no actual evidence for this idea. Someone postulated this as an idea, but it has NOT been proven by large, double-blind studies. Until it is, it is nothing more than speculation.2
-
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:
Im admittedly unfamiliar with the condition let alone its connection to aspartame. Is there any medical or scientific literature on this topic you could point me to? If I had a study to read I could comment but can't really comment towards your personal experience.0 -
um...no0
-
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.
@richardheathSo, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?
That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before!
The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon.
We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
But now is sad how we surrendered our will to the power of big corporations, their funded "scientific" studies and the media.
Just about a month ago, saccharin was quietly reinstated in Canada after 37years ban. Within months we will see the market flooded with saccharin products. And the sad thing is that people will start consuming them without even thinking whether they actually need them in first place!
Now, only two newspapers, including The Global and Mail, published something about it. So, I wrote about this: http://www.thingest.org/saccharin-reinstated-in-canada/
Then, we wonder why there is an epidemic of diabetes, obesity and cancer.
@Aaron_K123There 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.
I read this and couldn't stop thinking about the parallel with Simon Newcomb's statement, astronomer and mathematician, around 1906:
"...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air... "
History repeats itself!1 -
@lilenatalem, diet soda is most definitely NOT the worst thing you can eat or drink. While I generally agree with you that unprocessed foods are the best, there is NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER that diet soda is a great product for diabetics and pre-diabetics. Of course, in moderation. While many people think there is proof that artificial sweeteners somehow trick our brains, there is no actual evidence for this idea. Someone postulated this as an idea, but it has NOT been proven by large, double-blind studies. Until it is, it is nothing more than speculation.
I 100% agree that there is a need for diet soda. I also agree 100% with every in moderation. I had a diet coke the other day while at a restaurant. Why? because I really wanted a soda, but I didn't wanna go over my calories for the day. But that is the first soda of any kind I've had in 2 months I think.
I DO NOT agree with people putting that crap in their body on a daily basis. Nothing will convince me other wise that it's "okay". People should be drinking water. Period.
I just really believe in eating real food. (and I say that knowing anyone can look at my food and see I've been bad about putting steiva in my coffee lol)
I just think it's a bad idea to tell a community dedicated to losing weight/ getting healthy that is okay to keep putting that crap into your body. I guess I'm the odd one out for thinking this.1 -
I take it you don't see the irony of using a computer that couldn't be built using craftsmanship alone to post this on a website which seeks to help people make food choices based on a scientific understanding of nutrition rather than intuition and personal observation.That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before! The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon. We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
ETA : and, for the record, we're still very far from "explaining" gravity.0 -
I take it you don't see the irony of using a computer that couldn't be built using craftsmanship alone to post this on a website which seeks to help people make food choices based on a scientific understanding of nutrition rather than intuition and personal observation.That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before! The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon. We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
ETA : and, for the record, we're still very far from "explaining" gravity.
Of course not! I love my computer, a pretty advanced piece of technology, and love science which helps me understand the world and the universe. I just don't fall (or rather, try not to) in these traps sustained in the name of science. In the particular case of artificial sweeteners and aspartame, I am wary of names such as Monsanto or Ajinomoto behind them.
BTW, despite that only craftsmanship was available at that time, this didn't stop Charles Babbage from making his Analytical Engine (thus establishing the foundations of programmable computers) one hundred years before Konrad Zuse created the first electro-mechanical programmable computer!0 -
STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.
Based on what?
The fact that it is not REAL FOOD, of course!!
Derr.0 -
@lilenatalem, diet soda is most definitely NOT the worst thing you can eat or drink. While I generally agree with you that unprocessed foods are the best, there is NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER that diet soda is a great product for diabetics and pre-diabetics. Of course, in moderation. While many people think there is proof that artificial sweeteners somehow trick our brains, there is no actual evidence for this idea. Someone postulated this as an idea, but it has NOT been proven by large, double-blind studies. Until it is, it is nothing more than speculation.
I 100% agree that there is a need for diet soda. I also agree 100% with every in moderation. I had a diet coke the other day while at a restaurant. Why? because I really wanted a soda, but I didn't wanna go over my calories for the day. But that is the first soda of any kind I've had in 2 months I think.
I DO NOT agree with people putting that crap in their body on a daily basis. Nothing will convince me other wise that it's "okay". People should be drinking water. Period.
I just really believe in eating real food. (and I say that knowing anyone can look at my food and see I've been bad about putting steiva in my coffee lol)
I just think it's a bad idea to tell a community dedicated to losing weight/ getting healthy that is okay to keep putting that crap into your body. I guess I'm the odd one out for thinking this.
Just being a little melodramatic about it is all. Not sure what you mean by "real" food but your implication seems to be that aspartame isn't "real" somehow. Do I think soda is nutritious? No I don't, but it isn't crap either. Diet soda is pretty much flavored carbonated tap water with a little acid thrown in for tang. Its not nutritious but it is hydrating and there is nothing wrong with it.
This notion that it isn't "real" and therefore it is crap is both vague and overly dramatic in my opinion.4 -
I take it you don't see the irony of using a computer that couldn't be built using craftsmanship alone to post this on a website which seeks to help people make food choices based on a scientific understanding of nutrition rather than intuition and personal observation.That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before! The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon. We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
ETA : and, for the record, we're still very far from "explaining" gravity.
Of course not! I love my computer, a pretty advanced piece of technology, and love science which helps me understand the world and the universe. I just don't fall (or rather, try not to) in these traps sustained in the name of science. In the particular case of artificial sweeteners and aspartame, I am wary of names such as Monsanto or Ajinomoto behind them.
BTW, despite that only craftsmanship was available at that time, this didn't stop Charles Babbage from making his Analytical Engine (thus establishing the foundations of programmable computers) one hundred years before Konrad Zuse created the first electro-mechanical programmable computer!
Okay. So what was the "trap" in my original post. What did I get wrong? What did I omit? What specific non-vague reason do we have to fear specifically the molecule aspartame?0 -
STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.
Based on what?
The fact that it is not REAL FOOD, of course!!
Derr.
Define what you mean by "real food" for me please.0 -
STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.
Based on what?
The fact that it is not REAL FOOD, of course!!
Derr.
Define what you mean by "real food" for me please.
Was a sarcastic answer in response to PP's|."Just don't drink it !! It's bad!! It's Not REAL FOOD!!"
I don't personally believe artificially sweetened food/ drink items are not real at all.1 -
STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.
Based on what?
The fact that it is not REAL FOOD, of course!!
Derr.
Define what you mean by "real food" for me please.
Was a sarcastic answer in response to PP's|."Just don't drink it !! It's bad!! It's Not REAL FOOD!!"
I don't personally believe artificially sweetened food/ drink items are not real at all.
Ah gotcha. Sarcasm is hard to read sometimes in text. Forgive the misunderstanding then.
Still would like an answer to what is meant by "real" food by someone who means it.0 -
STOP DRINKING SODA, it's the worst thing for you ever.
Based on what?
The fact that it is not REAL FOOD, of course!!
Derr.
It is as real as any of the other food consume. Derr! Derr! :bigsmile:0 -
IMHO, it tastes like crap.What is wrong with saccharine?
1 -
I believe a molecule is removed from sucrose to make sucralose, and the process to do it uses chlorine. That said, I like splenda.Side question so what does science say about Splenda? Is the a derivative of chlorine and sugar? I love Coke Zero and Splenda but have heard mixed reports.
Honestly don't kniw a thing about Splenda but knowing what kind if rigor it takes to get FDA approval I personally would trust in its safety until I saw convincing evidence that it was somehow unsafe.
Not knowing anything about it not sure what you mean about chlorine and sugar.0 -
:flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou:
YES! I was just about to make a similar post, and then I saw this. There is so much false and biased information out there, I'm happy someone has finally set it straight 0 -
I agree with you that aspartame is not to be scared of, same as many other foods they've said "Ooooh beware of that it's like poison to your body!",natural things like milk, butter, etc. Anyway, I've a question for you, I've been reading that aspartame sometimes acts like sugar when ingested with things like diet pop, causing your body to store fat. You're a very intelligent person, could you please put my mind at rest, so I can go back to diet pop or Aloe juice instead of carbonated water? (yuck!) Another question is have you heard of Dreamfields pasta? It has only 5 grams of digestible carbs per serving instead of 42 and twice the fiber of regular pasta. I'd like to know what your thoughts are on it.1
-
Your studies are well researched, but unfortunately it is only a very small piece of this very complex puzzle as it does not disprove previous studies of aspartame's danger. It's lab code is E951. It was discovered by accident in 1965 when James Schlatter, a chemist of G.D. Searle Company, was testing an anti-ulcer drug.
What is dangerous for some may only pose a minor risk to others.
There have been too many studies that show aspartame causes cancerous growths in laboratory mice,rats and humans. I don't really hear of anyone suggesting that aspartame is a foreign substance, but rather a laboratory experiment of natural ones (Fake Sugar with bleach) Not pure cane. Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr. John W. Olney and consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974, as well as investigations of G.D. Searle's research practices caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries.
Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious, including seizures and death. there is cause for concern, don't take that risk. Better safe than sorry.
Anything related to Monsanto should show you a huge red flag!1 -
Your studies are well researched, but unfortunately it is only a very small piece of this very complex puzzle as it does not disprove previous studies of aspartame's danger. It's lab code is E951. It was discovered by accident in 1965 when James Schlatter, a chemist of G.D. Searle Company, was testing an anti-ulcer drug.
What is dangerous for some may only pose a minor risk to others.
There have been too many studies that show aspartame causes cancerous growths in laboratory mice,rats and humans. I don't really hear of anyone suggesting that aspartame is a foreign substance, but rather a laboratory experiment of natural ones (Fake Sugar with bleach) Not pure cane. Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr. John W. Olney and consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974, as well as investigations of G.D. Searle's research practices caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries.
Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious, including seizures and death. there is cause for concern, don't take that risk. Better safe than sorry.
Anything related to Monsanto should give you a huge red flag!
1) Can you cite your source for the above?
2) Regarding cancer in lab rodents, the Soffritti studies had a significant number of issues with design and with ethical concerns/reporting/peer review/etc.2 -
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.
Exactly.0 -
I take it you don't see the irony of using a computer that couldn't be built using craftsmanship alone to post this on a website which seeks to help people make food choices based on a scientific understanding of nutrition rather than intuition and personal observation.That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before! The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon. We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
ETA : and, for the record, we're still very far from "explaining" gravity.
Of course not! I love my computer, a pretty advanced piece of technology, and love science which helps me understand the world and the universe. I just don't fall (or rather, try not to) in these traps sustained in the name of science. In the particular case of artificial sweeteners and aspartame, I am wary of names such as Monsanto or Ajinomoto behind them.
BTW, despite that only craftsmanship was available at that time, this didn't stop Charles Babbage from making his Analytical Engine (thus establishing the foundations of programmable computers) one hundred years before Konrad Zuse created the first electro-mechanical programmable computer!
Okay. So what was the "trap" in my original post. What did I get wrong? What did I omit? What specific non-vague reason do we have to fear specifically the molecule aspartame?
There is no "trap" in your noble attempt to give another scientific explanation of the safety of aspartame in your post. But there is a flaw in it! I explained in my first reply...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!
Also, I wrote an article about it with further details:
http://www.thingest.org/can-current-science-assess-the-safety-of-artificial-sweeteners/
Regulatory agencies are flooded with complaints related to aspartame alone. All of them are quickly disqualified with different reasons, most of the time with a simple "lack of evidence or data". No a single one has been properly explained scientifically yet we are asked to believe that current science is fully qualified to rule aspartame safety! They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!0 -
I don't see why this thread should be pinned to the top of the board.0
-
I don't see why this thread should be pinned to the top of the board.
Because it has good information.4 -
Very rarely do I read every page of a thread so kudos to all with the knowledge that kept me going :flowerforyou:
I have nothing smart to add, simply want this to stay in my topics LOL0 -
The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.
As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.
Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.0 -
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!0 -
The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.
As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.
Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.
Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.0 -
And the company that was responsible for making most of the arms for nazi Germany now makes elevators and escalators. Things change after time.The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.
As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.
Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.
Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.1 -
And the company that was responsible for making most of the arms for nazi Germany now makes elevators and escalators. Things change after time.The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.
As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.
Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.
Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.
Hm. Nazi Germany was 60 years ago. Monsanto is alive and well and still operating the same way they always have.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K 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