Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

MzOnree

Magnificent post Aaron. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

EvenThatNameIsTaken

Thank you so much for this post, OP, and all for the reasoned responses in this thread.

Like a previous poster, I have no interest in getting into this discussion with those who says things like 'aspartame is a neurotoxin,' or 'that stuff is bad for you' without any actual evidence to back it up. I drink Diet Coke daily, have for many years, and get these comments from friends and family; they mean well, but are mainly regurgitating information they heard or read from a sensationalist or unscientific source.

What this post DOES do is make me feel less "guilty" about my own use of aspartame. It's never caused me headaches, blurred vision, symptoms of fibromyalgia, or anything of the sort. And it's a hell of a lot better for me, imho, to drink 32 oz or so of Diet Coke a day than consuming the same amount in real Coke along with all the HFCS and calories. Could I quit drinking soft drinks? Sure. But I don't want to. I like the taste and enjoy it.

I have nothing against those who choose not to consume aspartame or other artificial sweeteners, that's their choice. And my choice is my choice.

Thanks again for this rational and anti-fear-mongering/anti-misinformation related post about aspartame.

MzOnree

Aaron/Or To Those Who Know:

I was just curious if you know how much WATER is in a 12 oz. can of diet soda...approximately? Also, do the ingredients chemically change the water to where the body believes it's receiving soda? Or does the body believe it is still getting water from the soda? I'm just wondering if the Diet Pepsi's I drink can be considered a portion of water. I'm not trying to add it to my water count on MFP. I've always been curious of this and never had the chance to ask anyone that may have the knowledge that many of you have. I dropped chemistry in college because I had no clue as to what was going on, lol. My questions may appear idiotic to some. I'm not too ashamed to say that I am stupid in this area and would like to know the answers. Thanks in advance!

Aaron_K123

Aaron/Or To Those Who Know:

I was just curious if you know how much WATER is in a 12 oz. can of diet soda...approximately? Also, do the ingredients chemically change the water to where the body believes it's receiving soda? Or does the body believe it is still getting water from the soda? I'm just wondering if the Diet Pepsi's I drink can be considered a portion of water. I'm not trying to add it to my water count on MFP. I've always been curious of this and never had the chance to ask anyone that may have the knowledge that many of you have. I dropped chemistry in college because I had no clue as to what was going on, lol. My questions may appear idiotic to some. I'm not too ashamed to say that I am stupid in this area and would like to know the answers. Thanks in advance!

Hi. First let me start by saying that I think whether you "count" soda towards your water goal is a rather subjective decision as is any decision relating to personal goals. If you are asking me personally I would see no reason not to count it towards water although currently I don't track my water at all.

The two things soda has that would make it less "water" than water is caffeine which is a diuretic and sodium which requires a lot of water to solubilze to the right concentration for our body and therefore can be viewed as counting negatively towards hydration. Thing is caffeine isn't such a strong diuretic that it cancels out the water and there is only something like 19mg of sodium in a can of soda which is practically nothing compared to your daily intake.

Is soda as much "water" as water? No, I'd say the caffeine and sodium have some effect towards making it less hydrating than pure water, but it isn't as different as some people might make it seem...it is pretty close. Certainly better than not drinking anything. A caffeine free soda like say a diet sprite would be pretty much water I'd think.

amwbox

Aaron/Or To Those Who Know:

I was just curious if you know how much WATER is in a 12 oz. can of diet soda...approximately? Also, do the ingredients chemically change the water to where the body believes it's receiving soda? Or does the body believe it is still getting water from the soda? I'm just wondering if the Diet Pepsi's I drink can be considered a portion of water. I'm not trying to add it to my water count on MFP. I've always been curious of this and never had the chance to ask anyone that may have the knowledge that many of you have. I dropped chemistry in college because I had no clue as to what was going on, lol. My questions may appear idiotic to some. I'm not too ashamed to say that I am stupid in this area and would like to know the answers. Thanks in advance!

The water content of a 12oz can of pop is 12oz. Ok...call it 11.98 oz of water lol. Diet pop is more than 99% water. Which is why its zero calorie.

MzOnree

[/quote]

Hi. First let me start by saying that I think whether you "count" soda towards your water goal is a rather subjective decision as is any decision relating to personal goals. If you are asking me personally I would see no reason not to count it towards water although currently I don't track my water at all.

The two things soda has that would make it less "water" than water is caffeine which is a diuretic and sodium which requires a lot of water to solubilze to the right concentration for our body and therefore can be viewed as counting negatively towards hydration. Thing is caffeine isn't such a strong diuretic that it cancels out the water and there is only something like 19mg of sodium in a can of soda which is practically nothing compared to your daily intake.

Is soda as much "water" as water? No, I'd say the caffeine and sodium have some effect towards making it less hydrating than pure water, but it isn't as different as some people might make it seem...it is pretty close. Certainly better than not drinking anything. A caffeine free soda like say a diet sprite would be pretty much water I'd think.
[/quote]

Thanks so much Aaron. I've wondered about this for years. You're a genius! I could have asked my niece this question. She has degrees in chemistry and dietetics. If I had asked her she would of given me a smart *kitten* answer and laughed at her periodic table challenged aunt, lol! Thanks again!

MzOnree

Aaron/Or To Those Who Know:

I was just curious if you know how much WATER is in a 12 oz. can of diet soda...approximately? Also, do the ingredients chemically change the water to where the body believes it's receiving soda? Or does the body believe it is still getting water from the soda? I'm just wondering if the Diet Pepsi's I drink can be considered a portion of water. I'm not trying to add it to my water count on MFP. I've always been curious of this and never had the chance to ask anyone that may have the knowledge that many of you have. I dropped chemistry in college because I had no clue as to what was going on, lol. My questions may appear idiotic to some. I'm not too ashamed to say that I am stupid in this area and would like to know the answers. Thanks in advance!

The water content of a 12oz can of pop is 12oz. Ok...call it 11.98 oz of water lol. Diet pop is more than 99% water. Which is why its zero calorie.

amwbox: Thanks so much! As I told Aaron, I've wondered about this for years. I thought it had to be mostly water...but needed to ask. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed on some things and this is one of them, lol!

MzOnree

Edit: I tried to copy and paste and something messed up along the way.

Aaron, I responded two posts above. Thank you!

EvgeniZyntx

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

Heatherybit

Agreed in that if it's used in pharma it must be safe being illogical, but that was not what I was implying. I was trying to juxtapose the ideas that if an ingredient is in diet soda it is toxic verses almost all products can be toxic or beneficial.

AMOMONAJOURNEYTOCHANGEHERLIFE

The only thing that scares me about aspartame is how bad it tastes.

This was basically what I was going to say.

What they said lol that stuff is nasty!! It leaves a nasty after taste

Aaron_K123

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

I agree with everything you say here. Of course any forum post that tries to summarize something as complex as the web of interactions between the molecules we ingest and our own biochemical pathways in our body will both be oversimplified and incomplete. In fact I would argue it is impossible to ever know the result of all possible interactions for any compound including natural ones.

As a result of our inevitably incomplete knowledge we have to treat things in terms of reasonable doubt. At this point I feel it is safe to say that aspartame has been shown safe beyond reasonable doubt and those who call it "poison" are either ignorant or being irrationally sensationalistic. I think this sort of uninformed sensationalized public opinion is not constuctive in the way that your post is. I think public research funds are squandered testing aspartame yet again for no scientifically justifiable reason while other compounds the public just hasn't heard of remain relatively untested as they get passed over for research funding.

EvgeniZyntx

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

I agree with everything you say here. Of course any forum post that tries to summarize something as complex as the web of interactions between the molecules we ingest and our own biochemical pathways in our body will both be oversimplified and incomplete. In fact I would argue it is impossible to ever know the result of all possible interactions for any compound including natural ones.

As a result of our inevitably incomplete knowledge we have to treat things in terms of reasonable doubt. At this point I feel it is safe to say that aspartame has been shown safe beyond reasonable doubt and those who call it "poison" are either ignorant or being irrationally sensationalistic. I think this sort of uninformed sensationalized public opinion is not constuctive in the way that your post is. I think public research funds are squandered testing aspartame yet again for no scientifically justifiable reason while other compounds the public just hasn't heard of remain relatively untested as they get passed over for research funding.

Yes, I agree with the bolded.
And yes, I see little need to use public funds to test further.

I would expect the public funding agencies to not carry out tests on Aspartame.
Actually, I expect agencies to not fund research on sweeteners of any type - their is sufficient profit and manufacturing interests to take care of that.
Funding focus away from large consumer additives that have no clinical value should be policy, if it isn't already. Focus to primary science, orphan drugs, etc.. seems to be where I would like to see better focus - the private sector having already a very large role in commercial applications.

PayneAS

I appreciate the post.

I just don't like the taste of it personally.

Charlottesometimes23

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

I believe that aspartame at moderate intake is considered safe during pregnancy unless the mother has PKU herself. These are current recommendations in my country, and the USA I think. It's not really about the child having PKU in utero.

Let's say that mum is a carrier and the child has PKU. As a carrier, she can still metabolise Phe, so that her blood levels are normal and the teratogenic effects don't occur in the baby. The baby's diet is then restricted at birth.

The issue is when the mum has PKU and doesn't restrict her diet through pregnancy. Blood levels of Phe are too high, it crosses the placenta and the teratogenic effects can occur. This would happen whether the child has PKU or not.

That's my understanding anyway.

EvgeniZyntx

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

I believe that aspartame at moderate intake is considered safe during pregnancy unless the mother has PKU herself. These are current recommendations in my country, and the USA I think. It's not really about the child having PKU in utero.

Let's say that mum is a carrier and the child has PKU. As a carrier, she can still metabolise Phe, so that her blood levels are normal and the teratogenic effects don't occur in the baby. The baby's diet is then restricted at birth.

The issue is when the mum has PKU and doesn't restrict her diet through pregnancy. Blood levels of Phe are too high, it crosses the placenta and the teratogenic effects can occur. This would happen whether the child has PKU or not.

That's my understanding anyway.

Makes sense and it seems I remembered the FDA reco's incorrectly. I stand corrected.
However - given that PKU carrier status is likely silent and I would be cautious here.

EricSichler

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.

DrJenO

You mean I don't have to give up my Diet Dr. Pepper?!?

Best. day. ever.

gabrielleelliott90

How funny, was just researching aspartame today.