Aspartame????

islandjumper

This topic....AGAIN! It's obvious there are 2 distinct sides to this, and I highly doubt this arguing is going to change anyone's mind one way or another. I personally avoid the stuff like the plague...and it works for me, but for those of you who "have never seen a study implicating aspartame" here's a few

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21176433
Study of 2 individuals with chronic pain where aspartame was exposed as the the cause

n=2 doesn't even come close to statistical significance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21376768
Liver damage due to long term use to aspartame

LULZ

Eighteen adult male Wistar rats, weighing 150-175 g, were randomly divided into three groups as follows: first group was given aspartame dissolved in water in a dose of 500 mg/kg b.wt.; the second group was given a dose of 1000 mg/kg b.wt.; and controls were given water freely.

A single diet soda contains 180mg of aspartame. So for a 75kg adult, that's the equivalent of 200 - 400 sodas per day.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21855599
Defects and brain inflammation in zebra fish given aspartame vs. saccharin and control groups

Zebra fish? Really?

Edited to add: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418
Shows aspartame as a carcinogen, and lifelong exposure starting in the womb increases carcinogenic effects

Again, rats, supraphysiological doses, and results which barely met statistical significance.

Like it or not these studies are going to be done on animals...and human participants are going to be limited (and while yes, 2 is a non-significant population there was a strong link in both patients between their chronic pain and aspartame usage) ....being unethical to do studies like these on actual humans. And yes it's true, some large doses are used...but if you read the set up, the researchers are trying to determine long term usage in a 180 day time span. Do you have a better method for demonstrating long term exposure? Creating a study with human long term aspartame user volunteers is inconclusive seeing as there is no control and too many possibilities for overlapping substance and lifestyle effects (hence the rats). And yes...zebra fish... they are biological organisms with sensitive biological processes, while it wouldn't have been my choice there are effects there.

CuteAndCurvy83

LOL I love how people think things are OK just cause the FDA said so. Do you realize how many chemicals, toxins, and poisons the FDA says are considered safe?

lucyford22

My chemistry professor was a retired food chemist, formerly employed by the FDA. She said the only reason it's on the market is for long term wide range studies. She said we are in fact human guinea pigs. I don't know why so many people trust the FDA in the first place. All they care about is profit. It is clear by the plethora of foods that are okay by them but banned by several other countries.

Aspartame is garbage.

islandjumper

http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm a bit of history on aspartame and how it wasn't actually fda approved initially

HeidiRene

I heard aspartame causes mass hysteria in people that believe everything they read. Is it true?

What he said!

HeidiRene

I am taking a bootcamp class and part of it is nutrition information... well I found out that aspartame (in diet pop, crystal light, equal packets, etc). can cause blindness and paralysis!!!!

I googled it and found this website...



Excuse me while I throw out my crystal light packets! Yikes!!!!

I am on a strict budget and I hate FL water (it tastes icky compared to the Memphis water I grew up on) so can you send me that Crystal Light?

2Phat1

With everything you can find research to back up the positives and negatives... However, my new years resolution was to drink more water... well that is hard for me so I decided to buy Crystal Light packets to help... I am talking daily.. After my nutrition session I googled side effects and I have a ton of them! I am going off Crystal Light and see if any of my symptoms improve...

I also have difficulty with drinking straight tap water. I buy mineral water. The taste is tio my liking and I have the added benefit of taking in additional minerals.

RonSwanson66

Like it or not these studies are going to be done on animals...and human participants are going to be limited (and while yes, 2 is a non-significant population there was a strong link in both patients between their chronic pain and aspartame usage) ....being unethical to do studies like these on actual humans. And yes it's true, some large doses are used...but if you read the set up, the researchers are trying to determine long term usage in a 180 day time span. Do you have a better method for demonstrating long term exposure? Creating a study with human long term aspartame user volunteers is inconclusive seeing as there is no control and too many possibilities for overlapping substance and lifestyle effects (hence the rats). And yes...zebra fish... they are biological organisms with sensitive biological processes, while it wouldn't have been my choice there are effects there.

Except we HAVE long term human studies which show no effect. And DOSAGE MATTERS.

By your rationale we should avoid almonds, since they contain trace amounts of cyanide.

The Zebra fish study is a ****ing joke. They have absolutely NO physiological similarities to human beings. If you're going to start avoiding substances that will kill fish, I suggest you stop breathing air.

tigersword

My chemistry professor was a retired food chemist, formerly employed by the FDA. She said the only reason it's on the market is for long term wide range studies. She said we are in fact human guinea pigs. I don't know why so many people trust the FDA in the first place. All they care about is profit. It is clear by the plethora of foods that are okay by them but banned by several other countries.

Aspartame is garbage.

Can you name something that's legal in the US and banned everywhere else? Most examples I find actually show the opposite, things that are banned in the US are legal in other countries. Find me some real examples, and maybe you might have an argument.

islandjumper

Like it or not these studies are going to be done on animals...and human participants are going to be limited (and while yes, 2 is a non-significant population there was a strong link in both patients between their chronic pain and aspartame usage) ....being unethical to do studies like these on actual humans. And yes it's true, some large doses are used...but if you read the set up, the researchers are trying to determine long term usage in a 180 day time span. Do you have a better method for demonstrating long term exposure? Creating a study with human long term aspartame user volunteers is inconclusive seeing as there is no control and too many possibilities for overlapping substance and lifestyle effects (hence the rats). And yes...zebra fish... they are biological organisms with sensitive biological processes, while it wouldn't have been my choice there are effects there.

Except we HAVE long term human studies which show no effect. And DOSAGE MATTERS.

By your rationale we should avoid almonds, since they contain trace amounts of cyanide.

The Zebra fish study is a ****ing joke. They have absolutely NO physiological similarities to human beings. If you're going to start avoiding substances that will kill fish, I suggest you stop breathing air.

Really...you want to go with "breathing air" kills fish...oxygen is diffused into to water and their gills pull it out. They breathe air just like we do....fish just get it in a different way. Stagnant water with low dissolved oxygen content kills fish. Have you ever studied biology? Really?
Please...show me these "long term human studies" link me PEER REVIEWED studies on long term effects on humans. I'd be interested to read them.

islandjumper

Searching pub-med for your long-term human studies (still haven't come across any of those) I found this one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418
once again demonstrates aspartame as a carcinogen, only this time with LOW DOSE levels over a lifetime. and those results are significant.

RonSwanson66

Searching pub-med for your long-term human studies (still haven't come across any of those) I found this one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418
once again demonstrates aspartame as a carcinogen, only this time with LOW DOSE levels over a lifetime. and those results are significant.

In 2007, the same Italian researchers published a follow-up study that began exposing rats to aspartame in utero. This study found that aspartame caused leukemias/lymphomas and mammary (breast) cancer.[39] It is likely that the new studies found problems and the earlier company-sponsored studies did not because the Italian researchers monitored the rats for three years instead of two. The Italian tests remain controversial, with the industry contending that they were flawed in several ways and with the FDA stating that iits scientists could not evaluate the studies because the researchers refused to provide their original data.

Telling.

A huge body of evidence showing that Aspartame is safe, and a single study showing that it isn't. But where did the data go??

Whoops!

islandjumper

Searching pub-med for your long-term human studies (still haven't come across any of those) I found this one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418
once again demonstrates aspartame as a carcinogen, only this time with LOW DOSE levels over a lifetime. and those results are significant.

In 2007, the same Italian researchers published a follow-up study that began exposing rats to aspartame in utero. This study found that aspartame caused leukemias/lymphomas and mammary (breast) cancer.[39] It is likely that the new studies found problems and the earlier company-sponsored studies did not because the Italian researchers monitored the rats for three years instead of two. The Italian tests remain controversial, with the industry contending that they were flawed in several ways and with the FDA stating that iits scientists could not evaluate the studies because the researchers refused to provide their original data.

Telling.

A huge body of evidence showing that Aspartame is safe, and a single study showing that it isn't. But where did the data go??

Whoops!

You keep mentioning these studies but you have yet to provide one...so please, instead of coming up with some lame comeback for each of the studies I've posted (and there are plenty more)...PLEASE link me to one of yours. And please make it a peer reviewed article with an actual study involved, not an FDA sponsored statement that basically brushes everything under the rug.

RonSwanson66

Searching pub-med for your long-term human studies (still haven't come across any of those) I found this one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418
once again demonstrates aspartame as a carcinogen, only this time with LOW DOSE levels over a lifetime. and those results are significant.

In 2007, the same Italian researchers published a follow-up study that began exposing rats to aspartame in utero. This study found that aspartame caused leukemias/lymphomas and mammary (breast) cancer.[39] It is likely that the new studies found problems and the earlier company-sponsored studies did not because the Italian researchers monitored the rats for three years instead of two. The Italian tests remain controversial, with the industry contending that they were flawed in several ways and with the FDA stating that iits scientists could not evaluate the studies because the researchers refused to provide their original data.

Telling.

A huge body of evidence showing that Aspartame is safe, and a single study showing that it isn't. But where did the data go??

Whoops!

You keep mentioning these studies but you have yet to provide one...so please, instead of coming up with some lame comeback for each of the studies I've posted (and there are plenty more)...PLEASE link me to one of yours. And please make it a peer reviewed article with an actual study involved, not an FDA sponsored statement that basically brushes everything under the rug.

Meta-analysis, with several studies linked:

Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies.
Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J, Kroes RM, Marsh GM, Pariza MW, Spencer PS, Waddell WJ, Walker R, Williams GM.
Source

Burdock Group, Washington, DC, USA. bmagnuso@umd.edu
Abstract

Aspartame is a methyl ester of a dipeptide used as a synthetic nonnutritive sweetener in over 90 countries worldwide in over 6000 products. The purpose of this investigation was to review the scientific literature on the absorption and metabolism, the current consumption levels worldwide, the toxicology, and recent epidemiological studies on aspartame. Current use levels of aspartame, even by high users in special subgroups, remains well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority established acceptable daily intake levels of 50 and 40 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. Consumption of large doses of aspartame in a single bolus dose will have an effect on some biochemical parameters, including plasma amino acid levels and brain neurotransmitter levels. The rise in plasma levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid following administration of aspartame at doses less than or equal to 50 mg/kg bw do not exceed those observed postprandially. Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day. Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671


From the full-text

ninerbuff

LOL I love how people think things are OK just cause the FDA said so. Do you realize how many chemicals, toxins, and poisons the FDA says are considered safe?

Probably the same amount that many peer reviewed clinical studies do. Practically every food we eat can be an allergy to some, and cause issues for others.



A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

maidentl

LOL I love how people think things are OK just cause the FDA said so. Do you realize how many chemicals, toxins, and poisons the FDA says are considered safe?

Probably the same amount that many peer reviewed clinical studies do. Practically every food we eat can be an allergy to some, and cause issues for others.

I am allergic to penicillin, I think it should be banned for everyone.

karisma81

Antibiotics are heavily used as growth promoters in the US but has been banned in the EU except for treatment of sick animals. Needless to say, un-necessary antibiotics are bad for our health.

I don't think artificial sweeteners in moderation have dire acute effects like blindness but the jury is till out about whether it's a good idea to constantly trick you body into thinking you just ate something sweet. Apart from the sweet receptors in your mouth, you have sweet receptors in your gut and they stimulate insulin production.