Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

I'm no scientist but I know what works for me and aspartame just doesn't work. For years I thought I had fibromyalgia and I was even diagnosed with it by a specialist. A couple of years ago I stopped drinking Diet Coke and I have no more fibromylgia-like symptoms. Perhaps for some people it's perfectly harmless but I believe that some are sensitive to it. For me--I'm staying away from it as much as possible.

I'm no scientist but I know what works for me and aspartame just doesn't work. For years I thought I had fibromyalgia and I was even diagnosed with it by a specialist. A couple of years ago I stopped drinking Diet Coke and I have no more fibromylgia-like symptoms. Perhaps for some people it's perfectly harmless but I believe that some are sensitive to it. For me--I'm staying away from it as much as possible.

That is fine if you feel like avoiding soda but I think there is no reason to single out aspartame as the cause of your issues unless you have some reason to believe it was specifically aspartame and not many of the other ingredients present for example caffeine which can have definite effects on the body.

Also correlation does not demonstrate causality. You did X you felt Y, you stopped doing X you stopped feeling Y. That does not at all indicate that X caused Y.

As a person who has fibromyalgia I can confirm that my symptoms come and go with no apparent cause. It makes treatment difficult, even with proven meds.

As yet another bio-chemistry major in here with a minor in genetics... correlation does not equate to causation.

That being said, there are small segments of the population that do have reactions to various organic compounds, like those who react severely to compounds found in chocolate. (So so very sorry for those of you). That does not mean that chocolate is toxic on normal doses for the vast segment of the population.

Aspartame, may indeed cause few to have headaches etc., but there are similar groups that have the same reaction to orange juice.

The study that indicated aspartame caused brain cancer in humans (study out of Japan) could not be replicated and the material was not provided to any peer review journals, but are being notoriously spread around the internets.

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

And if you are really concerned about the half life of formic acid, it would be better to stay away from wine or worse yet Angry Orchard cider.

Magnificent post Aaron. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Aaron/Or To Those Who Know:

I was just curious if you know how much WATER is in a 12 oz. can of diet soda...approximately? Also, do the ingredients chemically change the water to where the body believes it's receiving soda? Or does the body believe it is still getting water from the soda? I'm just wondering if the Diet Pepsi's I drink can be considered a portion of water. I'm not trying to add it to my water count on MFP. I've always been curious of this and never had the chance to ask anyone that may have the knowledge that many of you have. I dropped chemistry in college because I had no clue as to what was going on, lol. My questions may appear idiotic to some. I'm not too ashamed to say that I am stupid in this area and would like to know the answers. Thanks in advance!

Aaron/Or To Those Who Know:

I was just curious if you know how much WATER is in a 12 oz. can of diet soda...approximately? Also, do the ingredients chemically change the water to where the body believes it's receiving soda? Or does the body believe it is still getting water from the soda? I'm just wondering if the Diet Pepsi's I drink can be considered a portion of water. I'm not trying to add it to my water count on MFP. I've always been curious of this and never had the chance to ask anyone that may have the knowledge that many of you have. I dropped chemistry in college because I had no clue as to what was going on, lol. My questions may appear idiotic to some. I'm not too ashamed to say that I am stupid in this area and would like to know the answers. Thanks in advance!

The water content of a 12oz can of pop is 12oz. Ok...call it 11.98 oz of water lol. Diet pop is more than 99% water. Which is why its zero calorie.

Aaron/Or To Those Who Know:

I was just curious if you know how much WATER is in a 12 oz. can of diet soda...approximately? Also, do the ingredients chemically change the water to where the body believes it's receiving soda? Or does the body believe it is still getting water from the soda? I'm just wondering if the Diet Pepsi's I drink can be considered a portion of water. I'm not trying to add it to my water count on MFP. I've always been curious of this and never had the chance to ask anyone that may have the knowledge that many of you have. I dropped chemistry in college because I had no clue as to what was going on, lol. My questions may appear idiotic to some. I'm not too ashamed to say that I am stupid in this area and would like to know the answers. Thanks in advance!

The water content of a 12oz can of pop is 12oz. Ok...call it 11.98 oz of water lol. Diet pop is more than 99% water. Which is why its zero calorie.

amwbox: Thanks so much! As I told Aaron, I've wondered about this for years. I thought it had to be mostly water...but needed to ask. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed on some things and this is one of them, lol!

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

The only thing that scares me about aspartame is how bad it tastes.

This was basically what I was going to say.

What they said lol that stuff is nasty!! It leaves a nasty after taste

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

I agree with everything you say here. Of course any forum post that tries to summarize something as complex as the web of interactions between the molecules we ingest and our own biochemical pathways in our body will both be oversimplified and incomplete. In fact I would argue it is impossible to ever know the result of all possible interactions for any compound including natural ones.

As a result of our inevitably incomplete knowledge we have to treat things in terms of reasonable doubt. At this point I feel it is safe to say that aspartame has been shown safe beyond reasonable doubt and those who call it "poison" are either ignorant or being irrationally sensationalistic. I think this sort of uninformed sensationalized public opinion is not constuctive in the way that your post is. I think public research funds are squandered testing aspartame yet again for no scientifically justifiable reason while other compounds the public just hasn't heard of remain relatively untested as they get passed over for research funding.

Yes, I agree with the bolded.
And yes, I see little need to use public funds to test further.

I would expect the public funding agencies to not carry out tests on Aspartame.
Actually, I expect agencies to not fund research on sweeteners of any type - their is sufficient profit and manufacturing interests to take care of that.
Funding focus away from large consumer additives that have no clinical value should be policy, if it isn't already. Focus to primary science, orphan drugs, etc.. seems to be where I would like to see better focus - the private sector having already a very large role in commercial applications.

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

I believe that aspartame at moderate intake is considered safe during pregnancy unless the mother has PKU herself. These are current recommendations in my country, and the USA I think. It's not really about the child having PKU in utero.

Let's say that mum is a carrier and the child has PKU. As a carrier, she can still metabolise Phe, so that her blood levels are normal and the teratogenic effects don't occur in the baby. The baby's diet is then restricted at birth.

The issue is when the mum has PKU and doesn't restrict her diet through pregnancy. Blood levels of Phe are too high, it crosses the placenta and the teratogenic effects can occur. This would happen whether the child has PKU or not.

That's my understanding anyway.

As for Diketopiperazine, a group of peptides, have been widely used in the pharmaceutical field for cardiovascular, anti-fungal, and anti-tumor needs.

However (and as a science minded individual) I'd like to create a little balance here - the DKP molecules are biologically active and do have risks. I was involved in the marketing and sales of two - maximal dosages, side effects are a real thing. Just because a molecule is used in pharma does not make it generally safe nor is the simple biochemistry of a reaction sufficient to understand what really occurs in a human population.

We've had drug withdrawals or sweeteners removed from market on more than one occasion due to this. Human physiological response goes beyond the petri dish. For example, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 is simple talcum powder. Remove a little water and you have Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 - commonly known as Serpentine or Lizardite. Also known as the deadly Asbestos. Cancer in a fiber. Here the form factor of the mineral is the primary issue not the biochemistry.

So while I agree that the possible quantities of DKP metabolized from drinking soda are insignificant (LD50 is somewhere in the 3000 mg/kg range...) - the argument that they are safe because they are used in pharma holds no water.

Btw, the use of LD50 as a measure of toxicity is insufficient - all pharma active drugs with or without significant side effects have dosages well below LD50 - it doesn't make them generally safe - it allows one to decide benefits/risk. And it certainly does cover selective cytotoxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, etc..

Remember Thalidomide? It is virtually impossible to reach LD50 levels and it was considered safe. Thankfully testing has evolved from the 60s - well beyond LD50 assays.

The reason Aspartame is considered safe is that it has been significantly tested in a variety of labs and with a variety of methods to cover those points. It is the single most tested additive ever submitted to agencies.

On the other hand, an individual may consider that the benefit to risk of an artificial sweetener (sweet at lower calories) vs (GRAS with PKU limitations) just isn't worth it. It might even be a reasonable well thought-out decision given the past failures of evaluation processes and the ever evolving bio-assay business.

Finally, even with a GRAS status pregnant women are recommended to not be taking Aspartame since it isn't possible to identify if the unborn child has PKU.

I consider Aspartame safe, I just think the discussion might go a little further. :drinker:

I believe that aspartame at moderate intake is considered safe during pregnancy unless the mother has PKU herself. These are current recommendations in my country, and the USA I think. It's not really about the child having PKU in utero.

Let's say that mum is a carrier and the child has PKU. As a carrier, she can still metabolise Phe, so that her blood levels are normal and the teratogenic effects don't occur in the baby. The baby's diet is then restricted at birth.

The issue is when the mum has PKU and doesn't restrict her diet through pregnancy. Blood levels of Phe are too high, it crosses the placenta and the teratogenic effects can occur. This would happen whether the child has PKU or not.

That's my understanding anyway.

Makes sense and it seems I remembered the FDA reco's incorrectly. I stand corrected.
However - given that PKU carrier status is likely silent and I would be cautious here.

You mean I don't have to give up my Diet Dr. Pepper?!?

Best. day. ever.