Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?9
-
A logical, scientific defense? Those are my favorite kinds...12
-
Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?
It hardly "needed" a defense like that. Sometimes, it's just fun when science buries an irrational witch hunt "argument" that has no basis in facts nor in reality.12 -
Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--
Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.0 -
Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?
It needs a defense because people don't understand science and just fear-monger when they don't even know what they're talking about, nor do they try to understand it.
No one will take my diet dr. pepper away from me, no one.13 -
Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?
Explaining facts =/= defense.
As I said if someone can give me FACTS as to what aspartame does that is not good for me I will make more of an effort to avoid it. Like I said before, I don't really ingest that much in the first place as I don't drink soda and simply prefer the flavor of sugar.
Logical fallacies are not facts.3 -
Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?
It hardly "needed" a defense like that. Sometimes, it's just fun when science buries an irrational witch hunt "argument" that has no basis in facts nor in reality.
It only "need" a defense" because there are people fear mongering it for no reason in the internet.
This by the way was the only reason it has been so extensively tested. Any chemist can just look at that molecule and say "nope, not toxic" and we could have just run one study and bam done. But no, the public wants it tested again and again and again. Results are the same over and over and over, not toxic...not carcenoginic, no mechanism by which it would be and yet we keep testing it.
This is incredibly frustrating to a scientist because right now NIH funding levels are at an all time low, money is very scare for much needed research and many labs are closing because they could not get the funding they needed to continue. But hey, lets through another 20 million dollars at running yet another epidemological study of aspartame toxicity because the internet wants it.9 -
Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.
Exactly. Why risk it? Healthy living is about choosing wisely. Making good choices for your overall health.
AND why in the heck does it even matter. If you prefer not to use those artificial products for WHATEVER reason more power to you. and if you do use them well.... best of luck..... for your sake, I hope you are right.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.
Exactly. Why risk it? Healthy living is about choosing wisely. Making good choices for your overall health.
AND why in the heck does it even matter. If you prefer not to use those artificial products for WHATEVER reason more power to you. and if you do use them well.... best of luck..... for your sake, I hope you are right.
It matters because this sort of fearmongering results in the waste of a lot of money in science, millions of dollars. It also results in people focusing on the wrong things, ignoring their calories and instead avoiding soda because apparently it is dangerous.
Misinformation is ALWAYS dangerous.6 -
To answer your question as best I can let me put it this way. If you were to drink diet soda, one right after the other non-stop until you died the substance that killed you would be water. Water is therefore the most "toxic" ingredient in diet soda.
Except water isn't toxic at all. The condition referred to as "water toxicity" is actually due to a depletion of minerals in the body particularly sodium. Hyponatremia is a deadly condition that is a depletion of sodium and can be caused by consuming too much water. If you were to consume water with the respective amounts of minerals that your body was losing from the water excretion you would be perfectly fine.
Water itself doesn't have an LD50 but aspartame does which I think clearly establishes that aspartame is more toxic. Now am I trying to say that aspartame is highly toxic? No, but your statement is misleading.
That is why I put "toxic" in quotes, because yes as you say water is not toxic. What is the LD50 of aspartame, I was unaware that there was a lethal dose of aspartame.
I would guess that the LD50 would be 10 times whatever the LD50 of methanol in since 1/10th of the metabolic breakdown of aspartame is methanol. If so though that would be a LOT of aspartame.2 -
Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--
Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.
The constraints of pascal's wager make it illogical. It can be summed up by saying that a rational person wouldn't take the risk. Well, because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a risk. If you assume something is bad before you attempt to prove that there's harm involved, then something has gone awry.0 -
Class A post here, Aaron, fantastic job.
Sad and a bit amusing to see the people who have decided to avoid X product and have made that decision based on emotional reasons.0 -
The only thing that scares me about aspartame is how bad it tastes.7
-
The only thing that scares me about aspartame is how bad it tastes.
This was basically what I was going to say.0 -
Why even risk it? After all, it still is a possible carcinogen. I stay away from all artificial sweeteners. I only eat the real stuff.
Exactly. Why risk it? Healthy living is about choosing wisely. Making good choices for your overall health.
AND why in the heck does it even matter. If you prefer not to use those artificial products for WHATEVER reason more power to you. and if you do use them well.... best of luck..... for your sake, I hope you are right.
What is "artificial" about it exactly? Define "artificial" as you are using it. Aspartate, phenylalanine and methanol are abundant in many of our foods at higher levels than are found in a diet soda.2 -
Why would anyone want to ingest something that needs a defense like that?
The substance doesn't need a defense like that, the people running around screaming "POISON! POISON IN THE SODA!!!" need it, although as we have seen, even facts won't sway some people.2 -
Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--
Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.
The constraints of pascal's wager make it illogical. It can be summed up by saying that a rational person wouldn't take the risk. Well, because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a risk. If you assume something is bad before you attempt to prove that there's harm involved, then something has gone awry.
In Pascal's actual Wager a rational person wouldn't take the risk.... of not believing in God if (A) God exists and (B) not believing in him results in going to hell.
Since Aspartame is the Devil, this makes perfect sense to me.1 -
The only thing that scares me about aspartame is how bad it tastes.
This was basically what I was going to say.
This is a legitimate reason to avoid aspartame.0 -
Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--
Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.
The constraints of pascal's wager make it illogical. It can be summed up by saying that a rational person wouldn't take the risk. Well, because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a risk. If you assume something is bad before you attempt to prove that there's harm involved, then something has gone awry.
In Pascal's actual Wager rational person wouldn't take the risk.... o not believing in God if (A) God exists and (B) not believing in him results in going to hell.
Since Aspartame is the Devil, this makes perfect sense to me.
Only thing is pascal's wager has not only possible punishment but also possible reward. There is no "reward" here.0 -
Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--
Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.
The constraints of pascal's wager make it illogical. It can be summed up by saying that a rational person wouldn't take the risk. Well, because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a risk. If you assume something is bad before you attempt to prove that there's harm involved, then something has gone awry.
In Pascal's actual Wager rational person wouldn't take the risk.... o not believing in God if (A) God exists and (B) not believing in him results in going to hell.
Since Aspartame is the Devil, this makes perfect sense to me.
Only thing is pascal's wager has not only possible punishment but also possible reward. There is no "reward" here.
Possible punishment: Death
Possible reward: Yummy Sweetness3 -
Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--
Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.
The constraints of pascal's wager make it illogical. It can be summed up by saying that a rational person wouldn't take the risk. Well, because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a risk. If you assume something is bad before you attempt to prove that there's harm involved, then something has gone awry.
In Pascal's actual Wager a rational person wouldn't take the risk.... of not believing in God if (A) God exists and (B) not believing in him results in going to hell.
Since Aspartame is the Devil, this makes perfect sense to me.
Except of course, the conditions are refutable.0 -
Minor threadjack, since Pascal's wager is new to me--
Is it Pascal's wager? Don't both sides have to be indefensible by reason (going off of Wikipedia, so I'm trying to understand an area well outside my comfort zone). One side, aspartame is harmless is supported by reason (science). The opposite, that it is harmful, is not, rather being based on supposition unsupported by science? Is it still Pascal's wager? Just curious, I really don't know.
The constraints of pascal's wager make it illogical. It can be summed up by saying that a rational person wouldn't take the risk. Well, because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a risk. If you assume something is bad before you attempt to prove that there's harm involved, then something has gone awry.
In Pascal's actual Wager rational person wouldn't take the risk.... o not believing in God if (A) God exists and (B) not believing in him results in going to hell.
Since Aspartame is the Devil, this makes perfect sense to me.
Only thing is pascal's wager has not only possible punishment but also possible reward. There is no "reward" here.
Possible punishment: Death
Possible reward: Yummy Sweetness
lol touche. Not quite the infinite happeniess and joy reward of pascal's wager but fair enough.0 -
I wish these kinds of articles would not get posted. Neither pro nor con.
I have never had problems with artificial sweeteners, but largely avoid them ( as I do most sugar ) because I don't like sweet stuff very much. So I am fine. A friend of mine gets awful migraines ( the have to stay in a dark room kind ) and another one gets impaired vision.....
That is why I don't like those generalized articles, because any food item ( natural or artificial ) is fine for most people while health and even life threatening for others. Blanket statements do not help....5 -
Seriously though. Does anyone have an actual reason to avoid aspartame other than the general desire to avoid anything that sounds like it has a name you might not be able to pronounce.6
-
I don't have time to read the thread but I just wanted to say it's scary to me because it tastes bad and the bad taste just lingers for hours and my tongue gets very sad.4
-
I wish these kinds of articles would not get posted. Neither pro nor con.
I have never had problems with artificial sweeteners, but largely avoid them ( as I do most sugar ) because I don't like sweet stuff very much. So I am fine. A friend of mine gets awful migraines ( the have to stay in a dark room kind ) and another one gets impaired vision.....
That is why I don't like those generalized articles, because any food item ( natural or artificial ) is fine for most people while health and even life threatening for others. Blanket statements do not help....
What article?1 -
I don't have time to read the thread but I just wanted to say it's scary to me because it tastes bad and the bad taste just lingers for hours and my tongue gets very sad.
That is a legitimate reason to avoid aspartame imo.0 -
HahHa!! Loved the Monty Python reference!!3
-
Seriously though. Does anyone have an actual reason to avoid aspartame other than the general desire to avoid anything that sounds like it has a name you might not be able to pronounce.
That's all I wanted from the start...I wish these kinds of articles would not get posted. Neither pro nor con.
I have never had problems with artificial sweeteners, but largely avoid them ( as I do most sugar ) because I don't like sweet stuff very much. So I am fine. A friend of mine gets awful migraines ( the have to stay in a dark room kind ) and another one gets impaired vision.....
That is why I don't like those generalized articles, because any food item ( natural or artificial ) is fine for most people while health and even life threatening for others. Blanket statements do not help....
I don't think this thread is "pro" aspartame...as in "I'm suggesting everyone should immediately drop what they are doing and go eat a spoonful of aspartame for its health benefits". Quite the contrary - the thread started out as simply (well...not simple, but scientifically) laying out the facts of what aspartame is made of and how it is broken down. I'll take the blame for turning it into a pro/con thread with my follow up questions.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions