Aspartame in Milk?
Options
Replies
-
I just want to clarify that reduced calorie flavored milks (ie, artificially sweetened) are already on many schools. Mainstream dairies, like Borden's produce them.
The purpose of this law is to change the labels on these products, so that you have to read the ingredients list to know that it is artificially sweetened, rather than having "reduced calorie" on the front. It applies to awhile list of dairy products, as well, not just milk.
They give flavoured milk out at school there? In UK it's only real milk.
Yep. Our kids are so used to this stuff that if you take it out of the schools, average consumption drops. I don't know of any studies that were carried on long term to see if consumption adjusts over time.
That's both shocking and very sad to me. What chance to they have to grow up healthy when they are being taught at such a young age that its ok to consume high sugar products? They would be better not having it, they should pull it out of schools anyway and only give the option of plain milk. Milk is only free in schools in the UK upto the age of around 5! If they want it after then we have to pay for it......0 -
Surely a diabetic shouldn't be consuming these items at all?
I agree, but there are some diabetics out there (like my father) who think that drinking junk, as long as it doesn't have real sugar, is okay for him. If the option isn't there, often he'll buy a full-sugar version because he wants that particular food or drink.
Though if someone was diabetic and had a healthy diet and wanted chocolate milk as a 'treat' once in a blue moon, I can't imagine it would be harmful for them to have a sugar-free option.
No offense, but one of the problems with Type II diabetics is their poor compliance to what they know is right for them. I have known a number of Type IIs (my brother is one of them) and they are often like spoiled children when it comes to policing their diet and getting proper exercise---that's why they are in that fix to start with (besides having a genetic predisposition, which I also have). But I don't have Type II because I do what is necessary to keep it away.0 -
Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.
Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**
I'm sure they could do that too, if it needs sweetening at all. Nobody is forcing anybody to drink chocolate milk, just like nobody is forcing anybody to drink coke, or juice or whatever.
Just drink plain milk, problem solved. NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ASPRTAME BE ADDED TO PLAIN MILK.
They are giving it to your children!
No they bloody aren't. As you said, no schools in this country give out chocolate milk.
And schools could always but the sugar version as opposed to the apsartame version. Like I said milk, the plain white stuff continues to have nothing added to it whatsoever.0 -
Maybe I'm confused? From what I read in the original article:Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".
Isn't that what's happening? I'd like some clarification
The original article is terrible. Here is a better one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business
They are allowed to add sugar or HFCS to milk and still call it milk. For example "chocolate milk" always has HFCS or sugar added to it.
They want to be able to add zero-calorie sweeteners like aspartame, Stevia, etc, instead of HFCS/sugar and still sell the items as "chocolate milk." Right now, doing so is illegal.
I think it would be good to be able to buy "chocolate milk" that has aspartame or stevia instead of HFCS added to it.
Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! As long as it's labeled (cane sugar, HFCS, stevia, aspartame), then that's fine. As long as the consumer can see what's in the milk and decide based on that. Personally I don't consume aspartame because it gives me headaches and I try to avoid artificial sweeteners, but if someone who is, say, diabetic wants to buy chocolate milk, then it's a good option to have!
Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners. I do not use sugar, simple carbs or artificial sweeteners and I'm still here! In fact, my health has significantly improved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1946186
Also protein is highly insulinogenic, best avoid that too0 -
Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.
Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**
I'm sure they could do that too, if it needs sweetening at all. Nobody is forcing anybody to drink chocolate milk, just like nobody is forcing anybody to drink coke, or juice or whatever.
Just drink plain milk, problem solved. NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ASPRTAME BE ADDED TO PLAIN MILK.
They are giving it to your children!
No they bloody aren't. As you said, no schools in this country give out chocolate milk.
And schools could always but the sugar version as opposed to the apsartame version. Like I said milk, the plain white stuff continues to have nothing added to it whatsoever.
Ha ha sorry....I wrongly assumed that you lived in USA. No they aren't giving it to our children thank god!0 -
Oh hell no. :sick: :sick: :sick:
0 -
Surely a diabetic shouldn't be consuming these items at all?
I agree, but there are some diabetics out there (like my father) who think that drinking junk, as long as it doesn't have real sugar, is okay for him. If the option isn't there, often he'll buy a full-sugar version because he wants that particular food or drink.
Though if someone was diabetic and had a healthy diet and wanted chocolate milk as a 'treat' once in a blue moon, I can't imagine it would be harmful for them to have a sugar-free option.
But it is harmful. Type II diabetics are already dealing with AGEs (Advanced Glycation End-products) which, as the name suggests, age every cell in the body. Why would it be intelligent to add a further dangerous chemical assault to their body through artificial sweeteners?0 -
Surely a diabetic shouldn't be consuming these items at all?
I agree, but there are some diabetics out there (like my father) who think that drinking junk, as long as it doesn't have real sugar, is okay for him. If the option isn't there, often he'll buy a full-sugar version because he wants that particular food or drink.
Though if someone was diabetic and had a healthy diet and wanted chocolate milk as a 'treat' once in a blue moon, I can't imagine it would be harmful for them to have a sugar-free option.
But it is harmful. Type II diabetics are already dealing with AGEs (Advanced Glycation End-products) which, as the name suggests, age every cell in the body. Why would it be intelligent to add a further dangerous chemical assault to their body through artificial sweeteners?
So they should avoid all food to avoid chemical assaults?0 -
In my college biology class we did an experiment with slime molds and their rate of growth with certain foods and conditions. The slime mold came on petri dishes, and HAD to be returned IN CLASS after the experiment because if you threw it away it would cause an outbreak of this stuff that did not sound pleasant. It can live through negative temps, extremely hot temps, and will grow off of basically anything put into the dish (oats, cheese, etc). It's kind of a boss.
I chose aspartame as my weapon to see how fast it would grow. IT KILLED IT IN LESS THAN A DAY. I thought maybe I had the rogue bad slime mold because they never die, so I got another one and it killed it again. My professor was pretty shocked, as no one had ever killed it before.
Point is, I'm not eating anything that causes something that can kill a slime mold in less than a day. Also, it gives my brother seizures and migraines.
Salt will kill a slug pretty fast, would you also avoid all salt?
You're comparing a slime mold to a slug? HA! Hahaha. Wow. Nice try, troll.
I don't think you know what that word means.0 -
Maybe I'm confused? From what I read in the original article:Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".
Isn't that what's happening? I'd like some clarification
The original article is terrible. Here is a better one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business
They are allowed to add sugar or HFCS to milk and still call it milk. For example "chocolate milk" always has HFCS or sugar added to it.
They want to be able to add zero-calorie sweeteners like aspartame, Stevia, etc, instead of HFCS/sugar and still sell the items as "chocolate milk." Right now, doing so is illegal.
I think it would be good to be able to buy "chocolate milk" that has aspartame or stevia instead of HFCS added to it.
Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! As long as it's labeled (cane sugar, HFCS, stevia, aspartame), then that's fine. As long as the consumer can see what's in the milk and decide based on that. Personally I don't consume aspartame because it gives me headaches and I try to avoid artificial sweeteners, but if someone who is, say, diabetic wants to buy chocolate milk, then it's a good option to have!
Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners. I do not use sugar, simple carbs or artificial sweeteners and I'm still here! In fact, my health has significantly improved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1946186
Also protein is highly insulinogenic, best avoid that too
Protein is essential to the body.....aspartame is most definitely not! Nor are carbohydrates/sugar because the body creates it.0 -
Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.
Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**
I'm sure they could do that too, if it needs sweetening at all. Nobody is forcing anybody to drink chocolate milk, just like nobody is forcing anybody to drink coke, or juice or whatever.
Just drink plain milk, problem solved. NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ASPRTAME BE ADDED TO PLAIN MILK.
They are giving it to your children!
No they bloody aren't. As you said, no schools in this country give out chocolate milk.
And schools could always but the sugar version as opposed to the apsartame version. Like I said milk, the plain white stuff continues to have nothing added to it whatsoever.
Ha ha sorry....I wrongly assumed that you lived in USA. No they aren't giving it to our children thank god!
Why on earth schools anywhere give out chocolate milk is beyond me. Its only one step removed from giving them coke (at least milk has nutrients and vitamins and they haven't been able to take them out yet). And no, with all the furore over hee with schol diners, it wouldn't be allowed.0 -
In my college biology class we did an experiment with slime molds and their rate of growth with certain foods and conditions. The slime mold came on petri dishes, and HAD to be returned IN CLASS after the experiment because if you threw it away it would cause an outbreak of this stuff that did not sound pleasant. It can live through negative temps, extremely hot temps, and will grow off of basically anything put into the dish (oats, cheese, etc). It's kind of a boss.
I chose aspartame as my weapon to see how fast it would grow. IT KILLED IT IN LESS THAN A DAY. I thought maybe I had the rogue bad slime mold because they never die, so I got another one and it killed it again. My professor was pretty shocked, as no one had ever killed it before.
Point is, I'm not eating anything that causes something that can kill a slime mold in less than a day. Also, it gives my brother seizures and migraines.
Salt will kill a slug pretty fast, would you also avoid all salt?
Slugs are quite easy to kill--the point of the poster was that slime mold is difficult to kill and that aspartame killed it. A fairly potent biocide apparently. Maybe the next life for aspartame could be as a disinfectant!0 -
Maybe I'm confused? From what I read in the original article:Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".
Isn't that what's happening? I'd like some clarification
The original article is terrible. Here is a better one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business
They are allowed to add sugar or HFCS to milk and still call it milk. For example "chocolate milk" always has HFCS or sugar added to it.
They want to be able to add zero-calorie sweeteners like aspartame, Stevia, etc, instead of HFCS/sugar and still sell the items as "chocolate milk." Right now, doing so is illegal.
I think it would be good to be able to buy "chocolate milk" that has aspartame or stevia instead of HFCS added to it.
Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! As long as it's labeled (cane sugar, HFCS, stevia, aspartame), then that's fine. As long as the consumer can see what's in the milk and decide based on that. Personally I don't consume aspartame because it gives me headaches and I try to avoid artificial sweeteners, but if someone who is, say, diabetic wants to buy chocolate milk, then it's a good option to have!
Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners. I do not use sugar, simple carbs or artificial sweeteners and I'm still here! In fact, my health has significantly improved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1946186
Also protein is highly insulinogenic, best avoid that too
Protein is essential to the body.....aspartame is most definitely not! Nor are carbohydrates/sugar because the body creates it.
But in relation to this comment, "Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners", that aspartame should be avoided by type II's because it spikes insulin (even though it doesn't), then by the same logic, protein should be avoided too, since it spikes insulin0 -
Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.
Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**
I'm sure they could do that too, if it needs sweetening at all. Nobody is forcing anybody to drink chocolate milk, just like nobody is forcing anybody to drink coke, or juice or whatever.
Just drink plain milk, problem solved. NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ASPRTAME BE ADDED TO PLAIN MILK.
They are giving it to your children!
No they bloody aren't. As you said, no schools in this country give out chocolate milk.
And schools could always but the sugar version as opposed to the apsartame version. Like I said milk, the plain white stuff continues to have nothing added to it whatsoever.
Ha ha sorry....I wrongly assumed that you lived in USA. No they aren't giving it to our children thank god!
Why on earth schools anywhere give out chocolate milk is beyond me. Its only one step removed from giving them coke (at least milk has nutrients and vitamins and they haven't been able to take them out yet). And no, with all the furore over hee with schol diners, it wouldn't be allowed.
I agree, makes no sense to me. Our children aren't even allowed candy bars at school let alone sugary drinks. No fizzy drinks, no chocolate bars, no flavoured milk. Thankfully our children get a good start in life as far as school provisions go!0 -
Maybe I'm confused? From what I read in the original article:Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".
Isn't that what's happening? I'd like some clarification
The original article is terrible. Here is a better one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business
They are allowed to add sugar or HFCS to milk and still call it milk. For example "chocolate milk" always has HFCS or sugar added to it.
They want to be able to add zero-calorie sweeteners like aspartame, Stevia, etc, instead of HFCS/sugar and still sell the items as "chocolate milk." Right now, doing so is illegal.
I think it would be good to be able to buy "chocolate milk" that has aspartame or stevia instead of HFCS added to it.
Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! As long as it's labeled (cane sugar, HFCS, stevia, aspartame), then that's fine. As long as the consumer can see what's in the milk and decide based on that. Personally I don't consume aspartame because it gives me headaches and I try to avoid artificial sweeteners, but if someone who is, say, diabetic wants to buy chocolate milk, then it's a good option to have!
Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners. I do not use sugar, simple carbs or artificial sweeteners and I'm still here! In fact, my health has significantly improved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1946186
Also protein is highly insulinogenic, best avoid that too
Protein is essential to the body.....aspartame is most definitely not! Nor are carbohydrates/sugar because the body creates it.
But in relation to this comment, "Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners", that aspartame should be avoided by type II's because it spikes insulin (even though it doesn't), then by the same logic, protein should be avoided too, since it spikes insulin
Technically protein will not spike insulin to the same extent that consumption of a carbohydrate/sugar will. I don't think you can group the two together. A diabetic can consume a great deal more protein without a rise in blood sugars in comparison to carbohydrate. Lets remember a diabetic does not respond to insulin. The arguement here is whether aspartame raises blood sugar levels?
In relation to aspartame: I too have read extensively on the subject and have many clients that have struggled with continuing consumption of sweeteners which lead to cravings and further consumption.
I do understand what your saying, I can see why you would argue such a point. I do however feel that these products are only making a bad problem worse.... Over consumption of sweet foods.0 -
Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.
Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**
Some do: http://www.cargillfoods.com/wcm/groups/public/@cseg/@food/@all/documents/document/na3062630.pdf
But if they add any sweetener without calories, it has to have the "reduced" label on the front.
Awww--from Cargill with love! Along with Monsanto, Cargill is one of the most evil corporations in existence. Talk to any farmer in the areas where the giant food conglomerates have forced farmers off their land. Some of these farms have been in the families of these people for generations. Non-fat milk will make children fatter. One of the best ways to slim children down is to cut the sugar out of their diets and make sure they get full-fat dairy along with adequate Vitamin D (in the form of D3--NOT the cheap synthetic Vitamin D2 that comes from the irradiation of milk). Sugar-free no-fat chocolate milk will make children fatter, in addition to exposing them to the dangers of artificial sweeteners. NO....just no.0 -
Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.
Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**
Mostly because those things taste terrible. Stevia tastes like drain cleaner to me.0 -
In my college biology class we did an experiment with slime molds and their rate of growth with certain foods and conditions. The slime mold came on petri dishes, and HAD to be returned IN CLASS after the experiment because if you threw it away it would cause an outbreak of this stuff that did not sound pleasant. It can live through negative temps, extremely hot temps, and will grow off of basically anything put into the dish (oats, cheese, etc). It's kind of a boss.
I chose aspartame as my weapon to see how fast it would grow. IT KILLED IT IN LESS THAN A DAY. I thought maybe I had the rogue bad slime mold because they never die, so I got another one and it killed it again. My professor was pretty shocked, as no one had ever killed it before.
Point is, I'm not eating anything that causes something that can kill a slime mold in less than a day. Also, it gives my brother seizures and migraines.
Salt will kill a slug pretty fast, would you also avoid all salt?
You're comparing a slime mold to a slug? HA! Hahaha. Wow. Nice try, troll.
I don't think you know what that word means.
Fact: I didn't even notice a difference between each of your profile pictures. Does that mean I think you're both men? Women? Hacking something at the same time and not paying attention? Not sure. But I do know you're best buds. So cute sticking up for him
Nice personal attack..very good debating skills there!0 -
Maybe I'm confused? From what I read in the original article:Dairy industry groups have asked the Food and Drug Administration to be able to put artificial sweeteners in milk, and not change the label, claiming that it is so consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value".
Isn't that what's happening? I'd like some clarification
The original article is terrible. Here is a better one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/aspartame-milk_n_2764729.html?utm_hp_ref=business
They are allowed to add sugar or HFCS to milk and still call it milk. For example "chocolate milk" always has HFCS or sugar added to it.
They want to be able to add zero-calorie sweeteners like aspartame, Stevia, etc, instead of HFCS/sugar and still sell the items as "chocolate milk." Right now, doing so is illegal.
I think it would be good to be able to buy "chocolate milk" that has aspartame or stevia instead of HFCS added to it.
Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification! As long as it's labeled (cane sugar, HFCS, stevia, aspartame), then that's fine. As long as the consumer can see what's in the milk and decide based on that. Personally I don't consume aspartame because it gives me headaches and I try to avoid artificial sweeteners, but if someone who is, say, diabetic wants to buy chocolate milk, then it's a good option to have!
Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners. I do not use sugar, simple carbs or artificial sweeteners and I'm still here! In fact, my health has significantly improved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1946186
Also protein is highly insulinogenic, best avoid that too
Protein is essential to the body.....aspartame is most definitely not! Nor are carbohydrates/sugar because the body creates it.
But in relation to this comment, "Research has shown that artificial sweeteners cause insulin spikes and those insulin spikes make the Type II diabetic person ravenous! They would be much better off without artificial sweeteners", that aspartame should be avoided by type II's because it spikes insulin (even though it doesn't), then by the same logic, protein should be avoided too, since it spikes insulin
Technically protein will not spike insulin to the same extent that consumption of a carbohydrate/sugar will. I don't think you can group the two together. A diabetic can consume a great deal more protein without a rise in blood sugars in comparison to carbohydrate. Lets remember a diabetic does not respond to insulin.
Depends on the protein and carb in question
Holt et al. An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 66, 1264-1276
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html
also
The insulinogenic effect of whey protein is partially mediated by a direct effect of amino acids and GIP on β-cells
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/48
0 -
Fact: I didn't even notice a difference between each of your profile pictures. Does that mean I think you're both men? Women? Hacking something at the same time and not paying attention? Not sure. But I do know you're best buds. So cute sticking up for him
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions