Is Aspartame really THAT bad?
Options
Replies
-
I dont believe anything I read anymore. Once day eggs are good, one day eggs are bad! One day Coffee causes cancer, the next day Coffee helps fight cancer. It's all a crock of *kitten* if you ask me. Truth is, if its not from the earth, it's probably not all that great for you but guess what, in moderation I'm sure it's not gonna kill you...then again I could be wrong! I'm sure that didn't help you any...lol0
-
SO MUCH ANECDOTAL AND CORRELATION EVIDENCE UP IN HUR! LOLOLOL0
-
I should also add that it CAN be dangerous if you have phenylketonuria, and shouldn't be used in baking as heat will denature the two amino acids that make up the aspartame compound. Phenylketonuria is an allergy to phenyalanine, one of the amino acids in aspartame. All infants are now tested for this disease and must avoid not only aspartame, but most foods containing protein. Hope that helps!
I'm confused about the "most foods containing protein" what do you mean.?
Phenylalanine is an amino acid...so people with PKU need to avoid protein-rich foods to limit their possible exposure to it. They can't process it so it quickly builds up in the brain and causes damage. People without PKU don't need to worry about it.0 -
Okay... 1 more attempt to simplify things. Aspartame is a man-made, toxic chemical (I'm not saying what degree or how much exactly you need, but it is toxic - like many things, especially when taken in larger quantities). Also, keep in mind, many things in excess become more toxic - so do you want to be the guinea pig to figure out where that line is, IF you don't have to do it in the first place.
My point is this - why expose yourself to it? If it's the belief that diet products help you lose weight, then reconsider this as your motivation (since they've been shown after decades to actually cause the opposite result). Moderation and portion control are ten times more effective then just consuming diet sugar products.
That bottom line can't really be in dispute anymore.
0 -
Okay... 1 more attempt to simplify things. Aspartame is a man-made, toxic chemical (I'm not saying what degree or how much exactly you need, but it is toxic - like many things, especially when taken in larger quantities). Also, keep in mind, many things in excess become more toxic - so do you want to be the guinea pig to figure out where that line is, IF you don't have to do it in the first place.
My point is this - why expose yourself to it? If it's the belief that diet products help you lose weight, then reconsider this as your motivation (since they've been shown after decades to actually cause the opposite result). Moderation and portion control are ten times more effective then just consuming diet sugar products.
That bottom line can't really be in dispute anymore.
Ever heard of water poisoning? How about vitamin toxicity? Do you really want to be the guinea pig to know how much water or vitamin/minerals cross that line? (inb4 there's already tolerable upper limits).0 -
That documentary was made by Cori Brackett, who has a very large anti-aspartame slant. If you think objective studies are wrong because they are funded by aspartame supporters, why would you think a documentary written by someone who is anti-aspartame to be any more true? Also, neither person involved in the documentary have any kind of scientific background that I can see. They are both television personalities. Plus they are immediately wrong in just their description on the documentary in the intro. Methanol is NOT an ingredient in making aspartame. Aspartame, when hydrolyzed, can make methanol in the body, but there is no methanol used in the creation of aspartame. If they can't even get that basic fact right, why should I believe anything else in the documentary?
Was I hearing something different from you? I think they explained pretty clearly that when broken down, aspartame breaks into it's separate chemical components.
AND while you may not believe the documentary, you might want to look at "First experimental Demonstration of the multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Adminstered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats". Google it. Just in case you're rusty on statistics, it only takes a p value of .05 and UNDER to make something significant. The incidence of tumors in rats fed aspartame was p less than or equal to .01. Soo.... you don't need to believe the documentary... but you might want to consider the experimental findings of a research institution.
That was an interesting paper. Some things were misleading...a significant 'trend' is not the same thing as significance. That just means it's really close to significant, but it's not. Also, you can set P at whatever you want. It's just a measure of chance, not causation. I've seen P's at .10. P<.05 just means there's less than a 5% chance of seeing that happen randomly.
The only problem is the lack of a physiologically relevant dose. The beginning of the paper states that the average intake is 2-5mg/kg/day. The ADI is up to 20mg/kg/day. They never address the dosing of 100,000ppm in the food and water of the rats. You have no way of knowing how many mg/kg of aspartame the rats are being fed, which is the fundamental problem with these studies.
You are totally correct in pointing out that they show a significant trend and "significance", however the exact mg/kg/day is stated in the paper "In the first study, groups of 40 male and 40 female Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with 1, 2, 4, or 6–8 g/kg bw/day of APM in the diet." So in this aspect, they do not seem to be misleading anyone.
Edit: Claiming p-value is a arbitrary thing is really quite incorrect. P value standard is set a .05 for the scientific community. Some psychology studies change it due to small sample size. Just saying....0 -
That documentary was made by Cori Brackett, who has a very large anti-aspartame slant. If you think objective studies are wrong because they are funded by aspartame supporters, why would you think a documentary written by someone who is anti-aspartame to be any more true? Also, neither person involved in the documentary have any kind of scientific background that I can see. They are both television personalities. Plus they are immediately wrong in just their description on the documentary in the intro. Methanol is NOT an ingredient in making aspartame. Aspartame, when hydrolyzed, can make methanol in the body, but there is no methanol used in the creation of aspartame. If they can't even get that basic fact right, why should I believe anything else in the documentary?
Was I hearing something different from you? I think they explained pretty clearly that when broken down, aspartame breaks into it's separate chemical components.
AND while you may not believe the documentary, you might want to look at "First experimental Demonstration of the multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Adminstered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats". Google it. Just in case you're rusty on statistics, it only takes a p value of .05 and UNDER to make something significant. The incidence of tumors in rats fed aspartame was p less than or equal to .01. Soo.... you don't need to believe the documentary... but you might want to consider the experimental findings of a research institution.
That was an interesting paper. Some things were misleading...a significant 'trend' is not the same thing as significance. That just means it's really close to significant, but it's not. Also, you can set P at whatever you want. It's just a measure of chance, not causation. I've seen P's at .10. P<.05 just means there's less than a 5% chance of seeing that happen randomly.
The only problem is the lack of a physiologically relevant dose. The beginning of the paper states that the average intake is 2-5mg/kg/day. The ADI is up to 20mg/kg/day. They never address the dosing of 100,000ppm in the food and water of the rats. You have no way of knowing how many mg/kg of aspartame the rats are being fed, which is the fundamental problem with these studies.
You are totally correct in pointing out that they show a significant trend and "significance", however the exact mg/kg/day is stated in the paper "In the first study, groups of 40 male and 40 female Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with 1, 2, 4, or 6–8 g/kg bw/day of APM in the diet." So in this aspect, they do not seem to be misleading anyone.
No, that was the background. They offer a short lit review before they talk about their own study, which used ppm. Did you read the methods section? After that they describe their own results.
Edit: I found it! The ppm represented a human intake of 5,000 mg/kg, 2500, 500, 100, 20, 4, or 0. The average human intake is 2-5mg/kg. So don't eat 2,500 times that amount.0 -
oops, you're right! I grabbed the wrong reference. FYI, you might not mean it to sound that way, but you made it sound like you doubted I read the paper, which is very insulting. Anyway, it seems very straight forward to me.
"An assumed daily intake by humans of 5,000, 2,500, 500, 100, 20, 4, or 0 mg/kg bw was simulated by adding APM to the standard Corticella diet (Laboratori Dottori Piccioni, Milan Italy), used for 30 years at the CMCRC/ERF laboratory, at concentrations of 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, 2,000, 400, 80, or 0 ppm. The APM daily assumption in milligrams per kilogram body weight was calculated considering the average weight of a rat for the duration of the experiment as 400 g, and the average consumption of feed as 20 g/day, both for males and females."
They converted the intake averaged by humans of milligrams of aspartame to kg of body weight and made an equivalent to rats and put it into their food in parts per million. I'm not sure why exact grams is helpful in the study. They tell you what it means in human terms by giving the mg/kg then HOW they transferred it to the rats. Thus methods
Edit: Point being, I think it is dangerous and people should avoid it.0 -
oops, you're right! I grabbed the wrong reference. FYI, you might not mean it to sound that way, but you made it sound like you doubted I read the paper, which is very insulting. Anyway, it seems very straight forward to me.
"An assumed daily intake by humans of 5,000, 2,500, 500, 100, 20, 4, or 0 mg/kg bw was simulated by adding APM to the standard Corticella diet (Laboratori Dottori Piccioni, Milan Italy), used for 30 years at the CMCRC/ERF laboratory, at concentrations of 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, 2,000, 400, 80, or 0 ppm. The APM daily assumption in milligrams per kilogram body weight was calculated considering the average weight of a rat for the duration of the experiment as 400 g, and the average consumption of feed as 20 g/day, both for males and females."
They converted the intake averaged by humans of milligrams of aspartame to kg of body weight and made an equivalent to rats and put it into their food in parts per million. I'm not sure why exact grams is helpful in the study. They tell you what it means in human terms by giving the mg/kg then HOW they transferred it to the rats. Thus methods
Edit: Point being, I think it is dangerous and people should avoid it.
I didn't mean it that way, I was just directing you to where I found it. In any case, it's still ridiculously irrelevant to human consumption.0 -
Eating 5,000mg/kg would be equivalent to 5g/kg. So I weigh about 62 kg. 62kg*5g = 309g. That 1/3 of a kilogram. Each packet contains 0.2g of the actual aspartame and 0.8g of filler.
SO who wants to eat 1,500 packets of aspartame a day?0 -
Eating 5,000mg/kg would be equivalent to 5g/kg. So I weigh about 62 kg. 62kg*5g = 309g. That 1/3 of a kilogram. Each packet contains 0.2g of the actual aspartame and 0.8g of filler.
SO who wants to eat 1,500 packets of aspartame a day?
I was coming in to say this. Exactly. The dosage amounts that they use for these studies are ridiculous. You could force feed rats their entire body weight in water every hour and they will die of water toxicity. So should they then release a study saying that water is bad for you?0 -
You know what causes far more deaths than aspartame or any other artificial sweetener? DHMO. Dihydrogen monoxide has proven toxic limits, but no one seems to pay any attention to it even though it is found in most foods. It's widely used on crops as well.0
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
That evil, evil dihydrogen monoxide....
DRINK UP! :drinker:0 -
You know what causes far more deaths than aspartame or any other artificial sweetener? DHMO. Dihydrogen monoxide has proven toxic limits, but no one seems to pay any attention to it even though it is found in most foods. It's widely used on crops as well.
http://dhmo.org/
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
Stay away from this stuff, guys!0 -
You know what causes far more deaths than aspartame or any other artificial sweetener? DHMO. Dihydrogen monoxide has proven toxic limits, but no one seems to pay any attention to it even though it is found in most foods. It's widely used on crops as well.
I feel dumb for it taking me a few minutes to get this.0 -
I feel dumb for it taking me a few minutes to get this.
I'm a science major and it would have taken me a minute too if my high school chemistry teacher didn't show me back in the day.0 -
Seriously try stevia there is a new crystal light pure it's great. No aspartame only stevia and three grams of sugar0
-
*Evil maniacal laughter!!!!*:devil:0
-
Nothing the FDA says can be believed. Keep that in mind. Their sole purpose is to keep us eating all the foods that make corporations happy. And I'm not a huge fan of Mercola - just able to see around the little game the government is playing with us.
That said, I am a very respectful fan of Robb Wolf and Mark Sisson. They put everything into understandable language about how food affects the human body. Aspartame is highly addictive and not good for you in so many ways.
**picks up her Coke Zero for a swig**
Yeah, I'm addicted to it.0 -
Nothing the FDA says can be believed. Keep that in mind. Their sole purpose is to keep us eating all the foods that make corporations happy. And I'm not a huge fan of Mercola - just able to see around the little game the government is playing with us.
That said, I am a very respectful fan of Robb Wolf and Mark Sisson. They put everything into understandable language about how food affects the human body. Aspartame is highly addictive and not good for you in so many ways.
**picks up her Coke Zero for a swig**
Yeah, I'm addicted to it.
How come everyone hates the FDA, but no one cares about the USDA? They both regulate our food supply.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions