Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
And the company that was responsible for making most of the arms for nazi Germany now makes elevators and escalators. Things change after time.The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.
As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.
Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.
Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.
Hm. Nazi Germany was 60 years ago. Monsanto is alive and well and still operating the same way they always have.
Besides, I don't see people ingesting elevators and escalators. Big difference!0 -
The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.
Balance. Balance and common sense is the key!
Too much science and we end up with Gattaca-like (or perhaps Equilibrium-like) dystopian societies.
Too much emotions and instincts and we are back to the dark ages, burning witches at the stake with the Inquisition.0 -
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!0 -
bump0
-
I must confess to scanning through the thread rather quickly, so forgive me if it was mentioned.
My question refers to artificial sweeteners under high heat.
It seems I read 'somewhere' that heat does something to sweeteners making them react differently with the body and possibly making them toxic when they were not in their original packaged state. When I cook with aspartame, it seemed to yield a bitter taste to me, so I switched to cooking with splenda and happier with the end results.
Does cooking with them change the end result of their structure or digestibility?
Just curious.0 -
I must confess to scanning through the thread rather quickly, so forgive me if it was mentioned.
My question refers to artificial sweeteners under high heat.
It seems I read 'somewhere' that heat does something to sweeteners making them react differently with the body and possibly making them toxic when they were not in their original packaged state. When I cook with aspartame, it seemed to yield a bitter taste to me, so I switched to cooking with splenda and happier with the end results.
Does cooking with them change the end result of their structure or digestibility?
Just curious.
Aspartame is a dipeptide, essentially protein. If heating it caused toxicity we would expect heating meat or any protein to alsi yield a toxic product as aspartyl-phenylalanine is going to be un any protein source. I am therefore doubtful that heating aspartame would yield a toxic product.
When it comes down to it aspartame is just a methylated dipeptide that binds to taste receptors that register sweetness. As a macro it is protein.1 -
I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!2 -
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
The same could be applied to every food on the market and environmental factors such as the sun and grass.2 -
The irony in the posts about history repeating itself is that many times in history after great strides in logical reasoning and scientific study are made, we have a backlash into an anti-science and anti-logic movement, e.g. romanticism. I'm personally of the thought that this current movement of the anti-science brigade is a rehashing of periods in history like this.
As for the use of "BUT MONSANTO!!!!!111!" as a valid argument, it just isn't. Do I personally think they have some shady business practices and patents? Yes, but so does pretty much every company out there.
Also, genetic modification != genetic engineering.
Ah, well... Monsanto is a completely different animal altogether. It's quite a different kettle of fish to have a company which was responsible for largely most of the world's toxins and poisons, and pesticides, now handling a large portion of its food supply, at least here in America. There's something frightening about a company whose employees must wear protective gear to apply their own product to the fields of food which, after harvest, we are expected to consume as if it were safe. I find it interesting that most of the executives of Monsanto are now senior-level officials of the FDA.
The protective gear thing is an issue of dose and context. Working with gallons of concentrated product is not the same as ingesting residual amounts. Spending days spraying with aerosol-ized product is not the same as ingesting trace amounts on a piece of fruit occasionally.0 -
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
That's not Occam's razor, that's the post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy.0 -
This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.
Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.
Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!
So the real question would be:
"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"
Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?
Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.
So, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?
Thing is, science isn't simply the best tool we have for understanding the world around us (including our own bodies), it is the ONLY tool we have for doing so. And while we probably never will know everything there is to know, and sometimes get led a little astray, science does at least tend to head us in that direction. Read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
This. If you actually waited until we could scientifically "prove" that something is safe for consumption before you ingested it then you would die of starvation.
Science doesn't "prove" anything, proof is the domain of mathematics alone. Science is used to disprove things and by eliminating possibilities arrive at the most plausible explanation based on models.
There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.
The idea that science ever proves things is a misunderstanding of what science is.
@richardheathSo, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?
That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before!
The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon.
We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
But now is sad how we surrendered our will to the power of big corporations, their funded "scientific" studies and the media.
Just about a month ago, saccharin was quietly reinstated in Canada after 37years ban. Within months we will see the market flooded with saccharin products. And the sad thing is that people will start consuming them without even thinking whether they actually need them in first place!
Now, only two newspapers, including The Global and Mail, published something about it. So, I wrote about this: http://www.thingest.org/saccharin-reinstated-in-canada/
Then, we wonder why there is an epidemic of diabetes, obesity and cancer.
@Aaron_K123There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.
I read this and couldn't stop thinking about the parallel with Simon Newcomb's statement, astronomer and mathematician, around 1906:
"...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air... "
History repeats itself!
So are you saying that we shouldn't bother waiting for science to show that aspartame is safe? Just go ahead and eat it all now?
There have been many advances in "throwing things" technology throughout our history. From rocks and spears to catapults to bullets and missiles. Science allows us to predict better where they are going to land. Society has to decide if we want to continue their use. But society should do so with all the relevant information available, shouldn't it?1 -
I take it you don't see the irony of using a computer that couldn't be built using craftsmanship alone to post this on a website which seeks to help people make food choices based on a scientific understanding of nutrition rather than intuition and personal observation.That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before! The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon. We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
ETA : and, for the record, we're still very far from "explaining" gravity.
Of course not! I love my computer, a pretty advanced piece of technology, and love science which helps me understand the world and the universe. I just don't fall (or rather, try not to) in these traps sustained in the name of science. In the particular case of artificial sweeteners and aspartame, I am wary of names such as Monsanto or Ajinomoto behind them.
BTW, despite that only craftsmanship was available at that time, this didn't stop Charles Babbage from making his Analytical Engine (thus establishing the foundations of programmable computers) one hundred years before Konrad Zuse created the first electro-mechanical programmable computer!
Okay. So what was the "trap" in my original post. What did I get wrong? What did I omit? What specific non-vague reason do we have to fear specifically the molecule aspartame?
There is no "trap" in your noble attempt to give another scientific explanation of the safety of aspartame in your post. But there is a flaw in it! I explained in my first reply...Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!
Also, I wrote an article about it with further details:
http://www.thingest.org/can-current-science-assess-the-safety-of-artificial-sweeteners/
Regulatory agencies are flooded with complaints related to aspartame alone. All of them are quickly disqualified with different reasons, most of the time with a simple "lack of evidence or data". No a single one has been properly explained scientifically yet we are asked to believe that current science is fully qualified to rule aspartame safety! They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
You really should have provided a link back to this thread in that post. It's not simply common courtesy; it allows readers of your blog to find out what was actually said, not just your interpretation of it.
And really, your whole argument seems to be "scientists got things wrong once so we can't rely on science".
You called the post "Can current science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?". But you never actually addressed the issue of can we. You seem to think that we can't obviously, but why not? Biochemistry is too hard? Is that really all you have to go on here?1 -
I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
Well, I have my own story with aspartame and cyclamate but I guess is not good enough for you.
So, you can google: site:fda.gov aspartame reported cases recovery after stop consuming
This is an excerpt of one of many documents reported to the FDA:
"A 16-year-old girl (Case III-2) had recurrent seizures that
baffled several neurologists. Her convulsions stopped after
avaoiding aspartame products. An attack was then reproduced
within three hours following rechallenge with one small serving
of an aspartame pudding.
[This paragraph epitomizes the 1200 case reports that are the
foundation of this text.]"
This is the link to that doc: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/aug02/080602/98f-0052-sup0005-vol5.txt1 -
I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
Well, I have my own story with aspartame and cyclamate but I guess is not good enough for you.
So, you can google: site:fda.gov aspartame reported cases recovery after stop consuming
This is an excerpt of one of many documents reported to the FDA:
"A 16-year-old girl (Case III-2) had recurrent seizures that
baffled several neurologists. Her convulsions stopped after
avaoiding aspartame products. An attack was then reproduced
within three hours following rechallenge with one small serving
of an aspartame pudding.
[This paragraph epitomizes the 1200 case reports that are the
foundation of this text.]"
This is the link to that doc: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/aug02/080602/98f-0052-sup0005-vol5.txt
So no, then.
Hint: An email from an anti-aspartame blogger isn't really what I would call a "source".2 -
It is normal to crave food after eating diet stuff. There's a ton of studie supporint it. Here's one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/1 -
I notice if I eat too much this "sugar free" stuff, I have 2 problems: craving and bloating...not sure if it's any direct correlation though.
It is normal to crave food after eating diet stuff. There's a ton of studie supporint it. Here's one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/0 -
This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.
Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.
Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!
So the real question would be:
"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"
Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?
Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.
So, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?
Thing is, science isn't simply the best tool we have for understanding the world around us (including our own bodies), it is the ONLY tool we have for doing so. And while we probably never will know everything there is to know, and sometimes get led a little astray, science does at least tend to head us in that direction. Read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
This. If you actually waited until we could scientifically "prove" that something is safe for consumption before you ingested it then you would die of starvation.
Science doesn't "prove" anything, proof is the domain of mathematics alone. Science is used to disprove things and by eliminating possibilities arrive at the most plausible explanation based on models.
There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.
The idea that science ever proves things is a misunderstanding of what science is.
@richardheathSo, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?
That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before!
The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon.
We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
But now is sad how we surrendered our will to the power of big corporations, their funded "scientific" studies and the media.
Just about a month ago, saccharin was quietly reinstated in Canada after 37years ban. Within months we will see the market flooded with saccharin products. And the sad thing is that people will start consuming them without even thinking whether they actually need them in first place!
Now, only two newspapers, including The Global and Mail, published something about it. So, I wrote about this: http://www.thingest.org/saccharin-reinstated-in-canada/
Then, we wonder why there is an epidemic of diabetes, obesity and cancer.
@Aaron_K123There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.
I read this and couldn't stop thinking about the parallel with Simon Newcomb's statement, astronomer and mathematician, around 1906:
"...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air... "
History repeats itself!
So are you saying that we shouldn't bother waiting for science to show that aspartame is safe? Just go ahead and eat it all now?
There have been many advances in "throwing things" technology throughout our history. From rocks and spears to catapults to bullets and missiles. Science allows us to predict better where they are going to land. Society has to decide if we want to continue their use. But society should do so with all the relevant information available, shouldn't it?
Current science already ruled Aspartame safe. So, no need to wait.
Whether you ingest aspartame products or not, it's a personal decision.
But if you do so, just make sure that is for the right reasons ( you needed it, you like it, you don't like natural alternatives, etc)
and not merely because someone is saying it's safe for humans.
Have you noticed that aspartame is invariably related to safe and safety rather than health and healthy?
In my case, I'd rather take my chances with mother nature. So, no artificial sweeteners for me!
Agreed on roles of technology, science and society. Regarding availability and accessibility of information, well that's a different beast!0 -
Current science already ruled Aspartame safe. So, no need to wait.
So what exactly is your point again then?Whether you ingest aspartame products or not, it's a personal decision.
But if you do so, just make sure that is for the right reasons ( you needed it, you like it, you don't like natural alternatives, etc)
and not merely because someone is saying it's safe for humans.
No-one is saying you should ingest it simply because it is safe. The point of this thread is to say if you CHOSE to do so, it will not kill you (assuming you don't have PKU or some other specific medical reason, of course).Have you noticed that aspartame is invariably related to safe and safety rather than health and healthy?
No. Not at all.
Many people drink diet drinks as they are trying to reduce calories. Losing weight is very much about health. Being significantly overweight is correlated with many health issues, which can be corrected by simply losing the weight. No-one is saying aspartame is a "health food". But if you chose to drink soda, drinking diet soda as part of your weight loss regimen will make you healthier, because weight loss.
The safety stuff comes up due to fear mongering.In my case, I'd rather take my chances with mother nature. So, no artificial sweeteners for me!
Your call. I don't remember the last soda I actually drank, I drink it so rarely. But I have to avoid regular ones due to the sugar content (prediabetes). But that doesn't mean the general public should avoid aspartame.
Well, yes, but one that you basically brought up. Science is HOW we get the best information possible. It may not always be complete, but without it we have nothing.Agreed on roles of technology, science and society. Regarding availability and accessibility of information, well that's a different beast!0 -
I take it you don't see the irony of using a computer that couldn't be built using craftsmanship alone to post this on a website which seeks to help people make food choices based on a scientific understanding of nutrition rather than intuition and personal observation.That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before! The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon. We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
ETA : and, for the record, we're still very far from "explaining" gravity.
Of course not! I love my computer, a pretty advanced piece of technology, and love science which helps me understand the world and the universe. I just don't fall (or rather, try not to) in these traps sustained in the name of science. In the particular case of artificial sweeteners and aspartame, I am wary of names such as Monsanto or Ajinomoto behind them.
BTW, despite that only craftsmanship was available at that time, this didn't stop Charles Babbage from making his Analytical Engine (thus establishing the foundations of programmable computers) one hundred years before Konrad Zuse created the first electro-mechanical programmable computer!
Okay. So what was the "trap" in my original post. What did I get wrong? What did I omit? What specific non-vague reason do we have to fear specifically the molecule aspartame?
There is no "trap" in your noble attempt to give another scientific explanation of the safety of aspartame in your post. But there is a flaw in it! I explained in my first reply...Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!
Also, I wrote an article about it with further details:
http://www.thingest.org/can-current-science-assess-the-safety-of-artificial-sweeteners/
Regulatory agencies are flooded with complaints related to aspartame alone. All of them are quickly disqualified with different reasons, most of the time with a simple "lack of evidence or data". No a single one has been properly explained scientifically yet we are asked to believe that current science is fully qualified to rule aspartame safety! They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
You really should have provided a link back to this thread in that post. It's not simply common courtesy; it allows readers of your blog to find out what was actually said, not just your interpretation of it.
And really, your whole argument seems to be "scientists got things wrong once so we can't rely on science".
You called the post "Can current science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?". But you never actually addressed the issue of can we. You seem to think that we can't obviously, but why not? Biochemistry is too hard? Is that really all you have to go on here?
I'd be glad to include the link back to the thread. That's what I want to, provided that the author agrees.
Regarding the article, perhaps I was a little bit hard on the side of science but the intention was definitely not to start pointing fingers. Some highlights:
1. Don’t trust blindly in everything that is said in the name of science.
2. Science can get it wrong.
3. Any scientific explanation about the safety of aspartame is limited to current advances in science. Something that is often forgotten.
4. Finally, whether you consume aspartame products or not, it's your personal decision.
Isn't it true that our role as society is more than merely rely on science? Science have a say but we decide.1 -
I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
Well, I have my own story with aspartame and cyclamate but I guess is not good enough for you.
So, you can google: site:fda.gov aspartame reported cases recovery after stop consuming
This is an excerpt of one of many documents reported to the FDA:
"A 16-year-old girl (Case III-2) had recurrent seizures that
baffled several neurologists. Her convulsions stopped after
avaoiding aspartame products. An attack was then reproduced
within three hours following rechallenge with one small serving
of an aspartame pudding.
[This paragraph epitomizes the 1200 case reports that are the
foundation of this text.]"
This is the link to that doc: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/aug02/080602/98f-0052-sup0005-vol5.txt
So no matter how many studies we do or how much our understanding of biochemistry grows we can never know enough to truly evaluate the safety of something. Yet if we have one anecdote of a girl who gets seizures from pudding then we know absolutely for sure that aspartame is to blame.
Right.
How come your extreme skepticism about our ability to identify root causes and explain them extends to one side of this issue and not the other is my question.4 -
This post is the perfect case of how the history of mankind repeats itself.
Indeed, throughout the history of mankind we have seen two things over and over: trying to explain the world with science of the time and improving the technology so that science falls behind.
Unfortunately, this case looks the same with the same mistakes. Trying to explain the world of the human body as a pure biochemical machine with the current knowledge of novel science of biochemistry and this is the flaw in the logic of this post! It's not your advanced skills, studies and understanding of biochemistry, it's that this is limited to the current advances in biochemistry itself!
So the real question would be:
"Can current Science assess the safety of artificial sweeteners?"
Or is this another "It'll never fly" case of science?
Anyway, the topic is interesting enough. So, I'm writing an article about it.
So, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?
Thing is, science isn't simply the best tool we have for understanding the world around us (including our own bodies), it is the ONLY tool we have for doing so. And while we probably never will know everything there is to know, and sometimes get led a little astray, science does at least tend to head us in that direction. Read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
This. If you actually waited until we could scientifically "prove" that something is safe for consumption before you ingested it then you would die of starvation.
Science doesn't "prove" anything, proof is the domain of mathematics alone. Science is used to disprove things and by eliminating possibilities arrive at the most plausible explanation based on models.
There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.
The idea that science ever proves things is a misunderstanding of what science is.
@richardheathSo, are simply supposed to sit around and wait until science can answer every single question before we do anything?
That's exactly my point. We never have waited for science before!
The moment we observed stones falling we didn’t wait for science to explain the phenomenon.
We simply sought more efficient ways to throw them farther away so we built catapults instead! And that more than two thousand years before the famous Newton's apple incident. We trusted our survival instincts, the mere observation of the phenomenon and Technology instead to make decisions.
But now is sad how we surrendered our will to the power of big corporations, their funded "scientific" studies and the media.
Just about a month ago, saccharin was quietly reinstated in Canada after 37years ban. Within months we will see the market flooded with saccharin products. And the sad thing is that people will start consuming them without even thinking whether they actually need them in first place!
Now, only two newspapers, including The Global and Mail, published something about it. So, I wrote about this: http://www.thingest.org/saccharin-reinstated-in-canada/
Then, we wonder why there is an epidemic of diabetes, obesity and cancer.
@Aaron_K123There currently is no scientific evidence that aspartame is dangerous, there is no model that would explain what it would be dangerous and therefore I choose to believe that it is not.
I read this and couldn't stop thinking about the parallel with Simon Newcomb's statement, astronomer and mathematician, around 1906:
"...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air... "
History repeats itself!
So are you saying that we shouldn't bother waiting for science to show that aspartame is safe? Just go ahead and eat it all now?
There have been many advances in "throwing things" technology throughout our history. From rocks and spears to catapults to bullets and missiles. Science allows us to predict better where they are going to land. Society has to decide if we want to continue their use. But society should do so with all the relevant information available, shouldn't it?
Current science already ruled Aspartame safe. So, no need to wait.
Whether you ingest aspartame products or not, it's a personal decision.
But if you do so, just make sure that is for the right reasons ( you needed it, you like it, you don't like natural alternatives, etc)
and not merely because someone is saying it's safe for humans.
Have you noticed that aspartame is invariably related to safe and safety rather than health and healthy?
In my case, I'd rather take my chances with mother nature. So, no artificial sweeteners for me!
Agreed on roles of technology, science and society. Regarding availability and accessibility of information, well that's a different beast!
Okay I'm confused now, this seems to be completely different from your points from before. Yeah of course you don't NEED to drink soda and you don't NEED to ingest aspartame and if you feel you have a personal reason not to while simultaneously recognizing that there is no evidence that it is toxic then I fully agree with you.
I never tried to make the claim that aspartame was "healthy" or "positive" all I'm saying is that current science does NOT support the idea that it is toxic or carcinogenic and I attempted to explain why toxicity or carcinogenicity was so unlikely. That is it.
If you, as you seem to, agree that current science shows aspartame to be safe and that there is no clear evidence or explanation for why it would be toxic then what exactly are you disagreeing with?0 -
I'd be glad to include the link back to the thread. That's what I want to, provided that the author agrees.
Do I agree that you should cite what I wrote if you are going to publish an article discussing what I wrote? Yeah, I agree with that. You don't need my permission to do your due diligence in terms of source citation.
You don't need my permission to write something about what I said either, its a free internet... but as with anything if you are referring to another article or study or blog or anything you should cite it so people can reference it if they so choose.0 -
I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
Well, I have my own story with aspartame and cyclamate but I guess is not good enough for you.
So, you can google: site:fda.gov aspartame reported cases recovery after stop consuming
This is an excerpt of one of many documents reported to the FDA:
"A 16-year-old girl (Case III-2) had recurrent seizures that
baffled several neurologists. Her convulsions stopped after
avaoiding aspartame products. An attack was then reproduced
within three hours following rechallenge with one small serving
of an aspartame pudding.
[This paragraph epitomizes the 1200 case reports that are the
foundation of this text.]"
This is the link to that doc: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/aug02/080602/98f-0052-sup0005-vol5.txt
So no matter how many studies we do or how much our understanding of biochemistry grows we can never know enough to truly evaluate the safety of something. Yet if we have one anecdote of a girl who gets seizures from pudding then we know absolutely for sure that aspartame is to blame.
Right.
How come your extreme skepticism about our ability to identify root causes and explain them extends to one side of this issue and not the other is my question.
Don't bother disqualifying these cases. All of them have been quickly and systematically disqualified by the regulators and manufacturers.
As per when we would know if science has grown enough to REALLY rule aspartame safety, in your question is the answer. Current science can say that aspartame is safe but the same science cannot explain what's going on with a girl having a seizure after consuming aspartame.
Explain both cases satisfactorily with root causes and then science has grown enough! Don’t simply disqualify those cases with "lack of data or evidence".0 -
I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
Well, I have my own story with aspartame and cyclamate but I guess is not good enough for you.
So, you can google: site:fda.gov aspartame reported cases recovery after stop consuming
This is an excerpt of one of many documents reported to the FDA:
"A 16-year-old girl (Case III-2) had recurrent seizures that
baffled several neurologists. Her convulsions stopped after
avaoiding aspartame products. An attack was then reproduced
within three hours following rechallenge with one small serving
of an aspartame pudding.
[This paragraph epitomizes the 1200 case reports that are the
foundation of this text.]"
This is the link to that doc: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/aug02/080602/98f-0052-sup0005-vol5.txt
So no matter how many studies we do or how much our understanding of biochemistry grows we can never know enough to truly evaluate the safety of something. Yet if we have one anecdote of a girl who gets seizures from pudding then we know absolutely for sure that aspartame is to blame.
Right.
How come your extreme skepticism about our ability to identify root causes and explain them extends to one side of this issue and not the other is my question.
Don't bother disqualifying these cases. All of them have been quickly and systematically disqualified by the regulators and manufacturers.
As per when we would know if science has grown enough to REALLY rule aspartame safety, in your question is the answer. Current science can say that aspartame is safe but the same science cannot explain what's going on with a girl having a seizure after consuming aspartame.
Explain both cases satisfactorily with root causes and then science has grown enough! Don’t simply disqualify those cases with "lack of data or evidence".
According to this criteria no science has "grown enough".
Science does not deal in certainty it deals in probability. It does not speak in assurance it speaks in most probably cause and reasonable doubt.2 -
I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
Well, I have my own story with aspartame and cyclamate but I guess is not good enough for you.
So, you can google: site:fda.gov aspartame reported cases recovery after stop consuming
This is an excerpt of one of many documents reported to the FDA:
"A 16-year-old girl (Case III-2) had recurrent seizures that
baffled several neurologists. Her convulsions stopped after
avaoiding aspartame products. An attack was then reproduced
within three hours following rechallenge with one small serving
of an aspartame pudding.
[This paragraph epitomizes the 1200 case reports that are the
foundation of this text.]"
This is the link to that doc: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/aug02/080602/98f-0052-sup0005-vol5.txt
So no matter how many studies we do or how much our understanding of biochemistry grows we can never know enough to truly evaluate the safety of something. Yet if we have one anecdote of a girl who gets seizures from pudding then we know absolutely for sure that aspartame is to blame.
Right.
How come your extreme skepticism about our ability to identify root causes and explain them extends to one side of this issue and not the other is my question.
Don't bother disqualifying these cases. All of them have been quickly and systematically disqualified by the regulators and manufacturers.
As per when we would know if science has grown enough to REALLY rule aspartame safety, in your question is the answer. Current science can say that aspartame is safe but the same science cannot explain what's going on with a girl having a seizure after consuming aspartame.
Explain both cases satisfactorily with root causes and then science has grown enough! Don’t simply disqualify those cases with "lack of data or evidence".
According to this criteria no science has "grown enough".
Science does not deal in certainty it deals in probability. It does not speak in assurance it speaks in most probably cause and reasonable doubt.
Well, I never heard the FDA or Monsanto talking probabilities with aspartame. They just say that "it is safe for human consumption".0 -
I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
Well, I have my own story with aspartame and cyclamate but I guess is not good enough for you.
So, you can google: site:fda.gov aspartame reported cases recovery after stop consuming
This is an excerpt of one of many documents reported to the FDA:
"A 16-year-old girl (Case III-2) had recurrent seizures that
baffled several neurologists. Her convulsions stopped after
avaoiding aspartame products. An attack was then reproduced
within three hours following rechallenge with one small serving
of an aspartame pudding.
[This paragraph epitomizes the 1200 case reports that are the
foundation of this text.]"
This is the link to that doc: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/aug02/080602/98f-0052-sup0005-vol5.txt
So no matter how many studies we do or how much our understanding of biochemistry grows we can never know enough to truly evaluate the safety of something. Yet if we have one anecdote of a girl who gets seizures from pudding then we know absolutely for sure that aspartame is to blame.
Right.
How come your extreme skepticism about our ability to identify root causes and explain them extends to one side of this issue and not the other is my question.
Don't bother disqualifying these cases. All of them have been quickly and systematically disqualified by the regulators and manufacturers.
As per when we would know if science has grown enough to REALLY rule aspartame safety, in your question is the answer. Current science can say that aspartame is safe but the same science cannot explain what's going on with a girl having a seizure after consuming aspartame.
Explain both cases satisfactorily with root causes and then science has grown enough! Don’t simply disqualify those cases with "lack of data or evidence".
According to this criteria no science has "grown enough".
Science does not deal in certainty it deals in probability. It does not speak in assurance it speaks in most probably cause and reasonable doubt.
Well, I never heard the FDA or Monsanto talking probabilities with aspartame. They just say that "it is safe for human consumption".
You seem to be confusing the statements of government agencies and corporations for science.
Science says "here is the facts, here is the likely interpretation". Government agencies read that and consult with scientists and then state things in absoulute terms. Up to you to look at the science and determine for yourself if you find it convincing or not.
How much evidence or backing you require to be satisfied is going to be completely subjective.
In my post here I said that there was no scientific evidence to date that aspartame is toxic (because there isn't that is just a fact) and then I went on to explain what facts and evidence there was that was sufficient to convince ME that it is safe. If it doesn't convince you then that's fine, I don't begrudge you that...do as you please.
My issue is not with people who say "I'm not fully convinced we know enough to say for sure if this is safe for everyone" my issue is with people who say "I'm not convinced therefore I am going to state in absolute terms that aspsartame IS toxic" or "I'm not convinced therefore I am going to try to warn others about the dangers which I myself cannot apparently substantiate".
What you are saying, as far as I can tell, is that you don't need to eat aspartame to survive, you don't believe that science is really in a position to say with certainty that aspartame is 100% safe therefore you elect to play it safe an avoid it. That's fine, I don't disagree with any of that.
I really have yet to pin down a single thing you seem to be disagreeing with me on but yet you come across as suggesting that something is wrong with what I said. That is why I am confused. It seems like you are arguing that I overstated my case but I really don't think I did. I just said what the facts where that I found convincing...part of my post is fact, part of it is why it was sufficient to make me believe it is safe (which is subjective opinion).0 -
I notice if I eat too much this "sugar free" stuff, I have 2 problems: craving and bloating...not sure if it's any direct correlation though.
It is normal to crave food after eating diet stuff. There's a ton of studie supporint it. Here's one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
I drink diet soda and I haven't found this effect.
I guess it doesn't do that for everybody.
If anyone subjectively finds it has this effect on them then they can choose not to drink it.
Other people who find no such effect can safely and happily continue to do so.2 -
I would want some actual sources for what you're saying. And with sources I obviously don't mean blog posts.
Occam's razor would suggest they would have gotten it regardless.They have no clue why a person consuming aspartame ended up with migraines, seizures or brain tumors (just to name a few) after some time consuming it!
What Occam's razor would have suggested had I told you that most side effects reversed once they stop consuming aspartame? Clearly, that it was caused by aspartame, the simplest hypotheses!
Well, I have my own story with aspartame and cyclamate but I guess is not good enough for you.
So, you can google: site:fda.gov aspartame reported cases recovery after stop consuming
This is an excerpt of one of many documents reported to the FDA:
"A 16-year-old girl (Case III-2) had recurrent seizures that
baffled several neurologists. Her convulsions stopped after
avaoiding aspartame products. An attack was then reproduced
within three hours following rechallenge with one small serving
of an aspartame pudding.
[This paragraph epitomizes the 1200 case reports that are the
foundation of this text.]"
This is the link to that doc: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/aug02/080602/98f-0052-sup0005-vol5.txt
So no, then.
Hint: An email from an anti-aspartame blogger isn't really what I would call a "source".
Clearly you don't need a source. Otherwise, you would have found it out yourself.
"Seek, and ye shall find"
I cannot help you with the answers that you need.0 -
I'd be glad to include the link back to the thread. That's what I want to, provided that the author agrees.
Do I agree that you should cite what I wrote if you are going to publish an article discussing what I wrote? Yeah, I agree with that. You don't need my permission to do your due diligence in terms of source citation.
You don't need my permission to write something about what I said either, its a free internet... but as with anything if you are referring to another article or study or blog or anything you should cite it so people can reference it if they so choose.
Done!0 -
I get headaches from all artificial sweeteners, so obviously my body has a problem with it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions