The Aspartame Thread

ninerbuff

I was looking for a protein powder without any artificial sweetener( I try to avoid them as they give me severe migraines, not just aspartame but suclarose as well) . I went to GNC and the guy working there said that because of all the problems people have been experiencing with aspartame most of the companies have switched over to suclarose or stevia in their products, so there must be a lot of problems with aspartame for the companies to have switched.

The "GNC" guy isn't the best resource for info. I'm sure he'll tell you that all the supplements in that store have a legitimate use even though most supplements only attribute about 1% to any diet.

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

WhittRak

There are a smattering of threads across MFP forums that touch on the benefits and detriments of aspartame. I think it would make sense to have one main thread.

What I'm hoping to start here is a conversation about the benefits and detriments of aspartame. Whether or not you think it tastes good is not particularly relevant (unless you have some larger point to make, such as your dislike of aspartame makes it difficult to buy food because so many of them contain it, or something).

Please, well thought out and considerate posts only. There are loads of conversations that casually bash aspartame with explaining or backing up the statements, or state things like "well I'm going to drink it anyway!!!" so we don't need another one!

I'm on the side of pro/wait and see. I wrote this is another thread so I'll copy it to here...

I admit that in 20 years ANYTHING could be the next asbestos (that's the point right? we don't neccesarily see it coming and the initial science can be flawed/wrong) but I found a peer-reviewed article from 2007 regarding the safety of aspartame. For those interested, here's the 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.

Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J et al. (2007). "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies". Critical Reviews in Toxicology 37 (8): 629–727. DOI:10.1080/10408440701516184. PMID 17828671.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184

to clarify, the aforementioned 50mg daily top dose "That equates to about 20 cans of 12-ounce diet soda" according to this (admittedly nonscientific) website: http://aromatherapy4u.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/diet-soda-aspartame-and-one-womans-quest-to-discover-the-truth/

anyone have different ideas? have read different things?

There are no benefits other than it has no calories. Period.

BrettPGH

I very much appreciate that you TRIED to keep this to actual scientific study only. So long as you do you'll continue to find that aspartame is harmless.

Some people don't like that answer. So they say "it has chemicals!!" as if everything doesn't have chemicals. Let me say that again so everyone understands. EVERYTHING IS MADE OF CHEMICALS.

Or they pretend that companies that make food are evil. Sorry, I don't have the time to grow everything I eat just now.

They pretend it kills people with zero evidence to back up their claim. The height of ignorance.

Anecdotal evidence = pretty much nothing.

teeley

I have an opinion on this:

First of all, whether or not something is beneficial seems like an almost orthorexic way to approach your food decisions. There's another element that should be considered when deciding what to eat or drink, and that's pleasure.

I'm not suggesting that people eat or drink with no regard to their health, far from it. But I AM suggesting that viewing food exclusively as a source of energy seems unhealthy.

There's a massive difference between something that "isn't harmful at low dosages" and something that "is beneficial". There's no harm in consuming reasonable dosages of things that are not beneficial.

Until someone has evidence that aspartame, or any other food ingredient, is harmful at even the lowest possible dose, then I wouldn't worry about it assuming you're not chugging a case of diet pop a day.

To me this is common sense.

EDIT: I have no idea what dosage threshold of aspartame (if any) is harmful, but it seems awfully unreasonable to suggest that 1 sip of diet soda will kill me.

So what you are saying is everything in moderation?

clioratha

I can't add anything other than my own self as a data point - I generally avoid aspartame in drinks because I get headaches and nausea from it. And it doesn't take much of a diet soda (or even a zero-calorie flavored water) to do that. But even things like gums and medicines have aspartame in, so I have to be mindful. Fortunately there's always the "phenylketoneurics: contains phenylalanine" warning on the label, so you don't have to weed through a billion ingredients to see if aspartame is one.

I'm not saying aspartame is good or bad, only that I personally react adversely. I can handle splenda and stevia just fine. I know people who handle aspartame fine and can't stomach splenda. So YMMV. I just avoid diet sodas and drink water or tea instead.:drinker:

(Of course, if they ever come out with a diet dr. pepper with splenda, I'm probably sunk! :laugh: )

ninerbuff

I very much appreciate that you TRIED to keep this to actual scientific study only. So long as you do you'll continue to find that aspartame is harmless.

Some people don't like that answer. So they say "it has chemicals!!" as if everything doesn't have chemicals. Let me say that again so everyone understands. EVERYTHING IS MADE OF CHEMICALS.

Or they pretend that companies that make food are evil. Sorry, I don't have the time to grow everything I eat just now.

They pretend it kills people with zero evidence to back up their claim. The height of ignorance.

Anecdotal evidence = pretty much nothing.

Lol, Brett..................people are going to hit the "ignore" button on you. I've actually had people PM telling me that when science proves statements correct.

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

_Timmeh_

I like my aspartame with a little booze mixed in it. Yum!

violetismysoul

I posted a question about this topic earlier this week and here is a copy, just an intro into what information I have discovered.

"I have been reading lately about the harm artificial sweeteners can do to your body. For example, the chemical aspartame is used in diet coke, Snapple, and other diet/healthy drinks and I have discovered several articles about, when consumed for a long period of time, the substitute builds up inside your system and begins to poison it. In one of the articles, a women had gained exessive weight, though already beinging heavy, and lost the ability of mobility. She was exhausted all of the time and was unable to accomplish simple things like walking or sitting up. She became an awake vegetable. She went to plenty of doctors and stumped them all concerning what was causing her illness. One day her sister called her after reading an article about aspartame and diet drinks like diet coke, dr. pepper, etc. The sister told her to immediatly stop drinking diet cokes. In less than 32 hours the immobile woman could walk again. What had happened was that her body had been slowly poisoned with aspartame.

Aspartame is also known to cause:
blindness in one or both eyes
dizziness
depression
virtigo
seizures
slurring of speech
high blood pressure
hives
gradual weight gain
loss of control of diabetes
exessive thirst
irreversible brain damage
birth defects
lupus
chronic fatigue syndrome
cancer
etc
the list goes on and on

So I was wondering, since I would wish and encourage others to avoid these problems, what artificial sweeteners are "okay" to
use as substitutions for sugar. Is Splenda okay? Sweet n' Low?

Here is a link to one of the websites that confronts and informs readers about aspartame, for credibility purposes.

http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html "

BrettPGH

I very much appreciate that you TRIED to keep this to actual scientific study only. So long as you do you'll continue to find that aspartame is harmless.

Some people don't like that answer. So they say "it has chemicals!!" as if everything doesn't have chemicals. Let me say that again so everyone understands. EVERYTHING IS MADE OF CHEMICALS.

Or they pretend that companies that make food are evil. Sorry, I don't have the time to grow everything I eat just now.

They pretend it kills people with zero evidence to back up their claim. The height of ignorance.

Anecdotal evidence = pretty much nothing.

Lol, Brett..................people are going to hit the "ignore" button on you. I've actually had people PM telling me that when science proves statements correct.

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

God I hope they do. I don't have time for people who ignore science on the internet.

dolldreams

Two words compelled me to look into the history of Aspartame...Donald Rumsfeld. Dude is responsible for more death and destruction than the plague.

One day, it will be common knowledge that it's harmful...just like BPA, DDT, Agent Orange, PCBs, etc etc.

Charliebarleymo

I posted a question about this topic earlier this week and here is a copy, just an intro into what information I have discovered.

"I have been reading lately about the harm artificial sweeteners can do to your body. For example, the chemical aspartame is used in diet coke, Snapple, and other diet/healthy drinks and I have discovered several articles about, when consumed for a long period of time, the substitute builds up inside your system and begins to poison it. In one of the articles, a women had gained exessive weight, though already beinging heavy, and lost the ability of mobility. She was exhausted all of the time and was unable to accomplish simple things like walking or sitting up. She became an awake vegetable. She went to plenty of doctors and stumped them all concerning what was causing her illness. One day her sister called her after reading an article about aspartame and diet drinks like diet coke, dr. pepper, etc. The sister told her to immediatly stop drinking diet cokes. In less than 32 hours the immobile woman could walk again. What had happened was that her body had been slowly poisoned with aspartame.

Aspartame is also known to cause:
blindness in one or both eyes
dizziness
depression
virtigo
seizures
slurring of speech
high blood pressure
hives
gradual weight gain
loss of control of diabetes
exessive thirst
irreversible brain damage
birth defects
lupus
chronic fatigue syndrome
cancer
etc
the list goes on and on

So I was wondering, since I would wish and encourage others to avoid these problems, what artificial sweeteners are "okay" to
use as substitutions for sugar. Is Splenda okay? Sweet n' Low?

Here is a link to one of the websites that confronts and informs readers about aspartame, for credibility purposes.

http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html "

But these side effects clearly don't affect everyone. And you see identical lists for over the counter medications like hayfever or cold relief tablets!

wolfi622

Anecdotal evidence = pretty much nothing.

Yup. Anecdotes <> data.

tigertchr23

l love apartame! It goes great with MSG.

:laugh:

dolldreams

For those of you that are influenced by what celebs have to say on things, here's what Jillian Michaels thinks about Aspartame:


"Don't touch that! Don't inhale within a foot of it!

Grabbing a sugar packet she says "that's 14 calories! That won't kill you!

Pointing to the artificial sweetener she says, "that will kill you."


From a recent interview published in July's Ladies Home Journal.

wolfi622

birth defects

My wife is a high-risk OB/GYN. Most of that list is not true, but this one, is most unambiguously NOT true. There ZERO actual evidence that aspertame causes birth defects. None!

Phoenix59

For those of you that are influenced by what celebs have to say on things, here's what Jillian Michaels thinks about Aspartame:


"Don't touch that! Don't inhale within a foot of it!

Grabbing a sugar packet she says "that's 14 calories! That won't kill you!

Pointing to the artificial sweetener she says, "that will kill you."


From a recent interview published in July's Ladies Home Journal.

Jillian Michaels? Really? Hmmmm...what about Brad Pitt or Dr. Oz? Because, you know, of course, that celebrities and quacks have all the scientific backup they need to make whatever statements they want.

MyLuvMaya

If you're drinking over 20 12 ounce cans of diet soda a day, there's an issue and will be an issue. However a couple of cans a day is fine AS LONG AS you're also supplying an efficient amount of water too and not letting diet soda be your main fluid intake.

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

My doctor said the same thing. He said unless you`re allergic, a few everyday is not unhealthy. He did tell me to avoid Splenda tho.

dolldreams

For those of you that are influenced by what celebs have to say on things, here's what Jillian Michaels thinks about Aspartame:


"Don't touch that! Don't inhale within a foot of it!

Grabbing a sugar packet she says "that's 14 calories! That won't kill you!

Pointing to the artificial sweetener she says, "that will kill you."


From a recent interview published in July's Ladies Home Journal.

Jillian Michaels? Really? Hmmmm...what about Brad Pitt or Dr. Oz? Because, you know, of course, that celebrities and quacks have all the scientific backup they need to make whatever statements they want.

Yes, really. Some people care to follow her fitness and health advice. Maybe they care what she has to say.

dolldreams

20 years from now, an advert espousing the benefits of drinking Diet Coke will seem as ridiculous.

BrettPGH

[Image]http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j217/toothru/ddt_is_good_for_me-e-e.jpg[/Image]

20 years from now, an advert espousing the benefits of drinking Diet Coke will seem as ridiculous.

A. Remove the "age". Just lowercase img.

B. Since you know the future I'd appreciate winning lotto numbers.

dolldreams

A. I forget that this forum is stone age
B. Is that your best attempt at humor?

History is usually a good place to look for indicators of future outcomes.

WaxMama

Has anyone watched Sweet Misery? It's a documentary and it's available for free on YouTube.

I aso think it's worth looking into how aspartame was passed by the FDA. It was banned for sme time before being passed and the man instrumental in passng aspartame has some very padded pockets...

Aspartame is about 200 times sweeter than sugar. Think about the way our bodies react to sugar. As soon as we taste "sweet" on our tongue, our brain sends a signal to the pancreas to create insulin in preparation. When the aspartame enters our system and the insulin realizes that it is not sugar, it doesn't know what to do with it. Now you have all this insulin "sitting around" that doesn't have a task to complete. Your pancreas cannot simply make the insulin go away, so more signals are sent out and suddenly you are craving more "sweet"- sugar, carbs...

Back to aspartame being about 200 times sweeter than sugar- as a mother, I don't want my children getting used to such a powerful and artificial sensation. I try avoid sugar as much as possible when it comes to my kids (let's be honest, it's not really possible to avoid it all together, especially with so many advertisements out there geared towards kids these days), but if sugar is an issue, than surely something 200 times sweeter than sugar should also be an issue when it comes to our little ones (and ourselves)!

That is all I have to say! Please don't be mean to me, today is my birthday :happy:

BrettPGH

A. I forget that this forum is stone age
B. Is that your best attempt at humor?

History is usually a good place to look for indicators of future outcomes.

It's funny you post that. Actually in hindsight they're recommending going back to using DDT. The problem was overuse. They were hosing kids down with it back in the day. It would actually be rather effective at fighting malaria in certain parts of the world at proper dosages. But fear mongering will prevent that from ever being a reality.

Here's an article backing up my statements. Because that's what people are looking for here. Facts. Not fear.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria

Oh and
B. I was a professional comedian for 9 years. My sense of humor is just fine.

NoAdditives

Is it possible that some of the migraines that are attributed to the aspartame are actually due to the caffeine in the drink?

Likely. Also likely is an allergic reaction. It's funny how when millions of people have severe allergic reactions to peanut, peanuts are still fine for everyone else to eat, but once one person complains of a headache from aspartame, it's suddenly poisonous for everyone else.

Because when something is natural, like peanuts, it is fine for non-allergic people. But when something is a man-made chemical, it probably is poisonous.

juliaamilee

I think there are going to be studies for and against every thing. Personally it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and if I do manage to drink it I feel dizzy especially if it is in something like crystal light and such. But to each their own. I personally will use Stevia, which I know there are studies for and against as well.

jennismagic

I don't understand why this is even an issue. If something is more than questionable, why would you consider putting it in your body? There's absolutely no justification for it. Now, if you want it, just say you want it, but don't try to defend it as a sensible choice when you're asked about it.

dolldreams

A. I forget that this forum is stone age
B. Is that your best attempt at humor?

History is usually a good place to look for indicators of future outcomes.

It's funny you post that. Actually in hindsight they're recommending going back to using DDT. The problem was overuse. They were hosing kids down with it back in the day. It would actually be rather effective at fighting malaria in certain parts of the world at proper dosages. But fear mongering will prevent that from ever being a reality.

Here's an article backing up my statements. Because that's what people are looking for here. Facts. Not fear.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria

Oh and
B. I was a professional comedian for 9 years. My sense of humor is just fine.

The back and forth is exactly what is wrong with (largely corporate sponsored) science. One minute it's good...the next it's bad.

Their motivations are highly suspect when there's money to be made for them either way. Condemn one product and roll out the next. When the newest one is condemmed, revise the science on the old one. In the mean time, public health in industrialised countries continues to decline.

Professional comedien, eh? You're a joke a minute. Cue symbol hit.

Geeky_Girl

Honestly, I don't know

Maybe it's bad for us, maybe, 20 years from now :laugh: , we'll find out there's no problems with it. Today, though, if I want a Coke to drink and I have a Diet Coke instead, I'm counting that as a win because I'm taking in 0 cals and that's important to me.

It does taste kinda funny to me sometimes though sometimes

Silverkittycat

Food scolds have been abuzz lately, promoting the scientifically questionable idea that drinking diet soda boosts the risk of heart attack and stroke. And the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has kept the heart-health-focused story alive by injecting it with a fresh dose of cancer fears.

Seemingly unable to control his urge to play on the public's fear of the dreaded "C-word," CSPI Fear-Monger-in-Chief Michael Jacobson told USA Today this week that he thinks diet drinks are better than sugar-sweetened soda—and then promptly changed the subject to begin perpetuating cancer fears both new and old:

Animal studies have raised cancer concerns about some of the artificial sweeteners in [diet] drinks, including aspartame and acesulfame potassium, he says. And the caramel coloring in colas contains two cancer-causing chemicals and should be banned, Jacobson says. There is "clear evidence of toxicity in animals."

The cancer risks in diet soda are probably small, Jacobson says,"but there is no reason to accept any cancer risk in a worthless junk food, whether it's diet soda or regular soda."

Jacobson's most recent cancer scare—over caramel coloring—was based on rodents being subjected to ultra-high doses of "chemical by-products" assured to cause "lung, liver, and thyroid tumors in laboratory rats and mice." But how risky is the coloring? It turns out that you'd have to drink 1,000 sodas a day to consume the levels that caused cancer in lab rats. That's about one soda every minute if you stayed awake for 16 hours a day. We're going to go out on a limb and say that the risk of getting cancer from caramel coloring in soda is effectively nil for people who aren't hooked up to a soda IV.

And Jacobson couldn't resist digging up two old cancer scares—aspartame and acesulfame potassium—that continue to haunt CSPI because it just can't convince the federal government to fear them. According to the National Cancer Institute, neither of these artificial sweeteners is associated with increases in cancer risks. And aspartame scaremongering has also been shot down by other "science in the public interest" entities, including the Food and Drug Administration, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and Health Canada.

Just for fun, we decided to see what else Americans shouldn't spend their precious time here on Earth needlessly worrying about. The odds of dying from an air- or space-transport accident are 1 in 7,032. By Jacobson's logic, every plane should be grounded. Thankfully, consumers who need to get somewhere have decided it's worth the minuscule risk.

Saiklor

This is a kind reminder from the OP that this thread is supposed to be a discussion of ideas and conceptualizations of aspartame. A lot of you are doing a really great job both for and against aspartame and I appreciate it, I'm learning a lot.

Comments of anecdotal evidence (unless used to illustrate something larger) are not the goal. There are other threads that will happily accept those.

I have a question for those in the "against" camp (I am obviously currently "for" aspartame camp, I don't deny it). By saying things like "there's no point in eating it" aren't you over simplifying things? The "point" is that caloric intake leads to weight gain and that weight gain is, for many of us, not desirable. IF it was harmless in terms of science (theoretically, assuming you're not allergic or anything) then would it be acceptable or would its status as a non-nutritive food position it as staunchly and irrevokably pointless?