Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

Options
1…1516182021…89

Replies

  • heatherlmosher
    heatherlmosher Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    Really interesting research, first time I've ever heard anyone defend aspartame. I don't really feel encouraged to drink diet soda. It has no nutritional value. Everyone has an opinion on what's healthy but I simply believe that the less something is altered by humans the better it is for you. I'm trying to eat more whole foods including heirloom vegetables.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,095 Member
    Options
    ^ Interesting comment about not drinking diet sodas because they have no nutritional value.

    I don't think anyone is claiming they drink them for the nutritional value - I drink them and I certainly wouldn't be claiming that.

    On the other hand, alcohol, cordial, regular sodas - all have no nutritional value either and no one would drink them for health reasons (except the sugar drinks for diabetics having hypo)

    I drink diet sodas sometimes because I use them as base for alcoholic drinks or I go out for a meal and I want a drink other than water with my meal or with my friends on social occasions.
    I can do that and fit them into my calorie goal when regular sodas cannot.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    I simply believe that the less something is altered by humans the better it is for you.

    I don't think reality supports your belief. Just look at any of the foods we eat including your heirloom tomatoes and look back far enough in history to a time before they were artificially selected through agriculture to be edible back to their "natural" state before their "alternation" by human interference.

    The "natural" versions of all the nuts and produce and products that you consider natural have been selectively bred for millinea and bear pretty much zero resemblance to what they were back then.

    Nature is awesome but it isn't our friend and it has no desire to keep us alive of thriving.

    I agree that you don't need soda and that diet soda contains nothing of nutritional value, but then again I never said otherwise really. I definitely disagree however that everything "natural" = good and everything touched by humans = bad. Honestly how much "natural" have you ever encountered in todays world?

    You mentioned "natural" heirloom tomatoes. Tell me, where in nature do wild heirloom tomatoes grow untouched by man as you suggest? Which jungle floor is covered in heirloom tomatoes?

    For that matter name one piece of produce you pick up from the grocery store that could ever be found growing in nature not in a farm somewhere. Do you think that wild banannas or wild apples look anything or taste anything like banannas or apples that we eat? How about nuts. If you found a wild almond tree would you eat the almonds from it? Wouldn't recommend it you would be dead in a matter of minutes.
  • Branstin
    Branstin Posts: 2,320 Member
    Options
    Everyone has an opinion on what's healthy but I simply believe that the less something is altered by humans the better it is for you.

    Do you feel milk should no longer be pasteurized?
  • osbornetampa
    osbornetampa Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    So in a nutshell, I have 1 caffeine free diet coke with ice (in a cup) on my back patio, relaxing with friends....I gain no nutritional value, yet I don't die. I am good.


    Thank you
  • thoughtbloom
    thoughtbloom Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    This is really interesting and good to know. I love that you were able to explain the chemistry and biology backing this up which I find interesting since we're covering basic chemistry in my college biology class right now, haha.

    There's actually a store near my house that doesn't sell any products with aspartame. So, they don't sell diet soda, for instance. And they have flyers about aspartame and how it's harmful which is why they've vouched not to sell it. I love the store actually because they have a really great butcher in there who has helped me a lot telling me how to cook certain stuff and they carry a lot of grass fed beef and stuff. But I find it interesting that aspartame is so widely accepted as a dangerous thing when there's some scientific evidence that it's not.
  • kevinearthsoul
    kevinearthsoul Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    Lifetime consumption leads to greater incidence of cancer in rodent study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/

    Leads to dysbiosis in the gut, and increased insulin resistance (might be a cause of the diabetes epidemic).
    http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/27/1_MeetingAbstracts/224.7

    While studies comparing drinking aspartame sweetened sodas versus sugar sweetened sodas indicate that aspartame helps control weight, it could also be said that it just proves that sugar drives weight gain. Sugary drinks are an ineffective control. Here, a study shows that aspartame increases appetite:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003193849090126O

    I could go on and on...
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    Lifetime consumption leads to greater incidence of cancer in rodent study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/

    Leads to dysbiosis in the gut, and increased insulin resistance (might be a cause of the diabetes epidemic).
    http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/27/1_MeetingAbstracts/224.7

    While studies comparing drinking aspartame sweetened sodas versus sugar sweetened sodas indicate that aspartame helps control weight, it could also be said that it just proves that sugar drives weight gain. Sugary drinks are an ineffective control. Here, a study shows that aspartame increases appetite:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003193849090126O

    I could go on and on...

    Hey Kevin. Not sure if you read the entire thread (I know its long so I'm not surprised if you haven't) but those studies have been discussed within the thread.

    Do you have any further comments past what was said about those studies? We can start with the first one if you'd like, here was my analysis of that study. Do you have an explanation for their use of Sprague Dawley rats?


    Soffreti et al 2006 DIDNT show a difference between the control group and the test group for tumors, all groups including the control developed tumors at around the rate one would expect because they were Sprague Dawley rats regardless of aspartame dosage. Then people read the paper and said "ZOMG tumors" and hence the internet blogs citing it for aspartame being a carcinogen.

    Clipboard01.jpg

    Sprague Dawley rats just get tumors. I still think it very odd that if you are going to look to see if a compound causes tumors that you would chose to test it in a specific breed of animal known for developing spontaneous tumors.

    I mean honest question but if you were going to invest the time to test whether or not a molecule was carcinogenic would you opt to test it in a breed of rat that spontaneously form tumors at a rate of about 45% or would you opt to test it in a breed of rat that does not form spontaneous tumors?

    By the way that upper dosage is 5 grams per kilogram. To get 5g per kilogram of aspartame as a 70kg guy I'd have to ingest 350 grams which would be about 1,950 sodas in one dosage. These rats where given that dose EVERY DAY for their ENTIRE LIVES.

    If you think that the 43% tumors in the max dosage group is significant vs the 35% control then you have to also contend that the 4mg per kg group has a significantly lower tumor yield at only 29%. 4mg per kg would be about 2 soda's worth in a dose. So if someone wanted to say that the max dosage gave a significant increase in tumors they would have to also accept that a normal dose (in terms of what we actually take in) actually prevents tumors.

    Of course neither is the case, the results are within error and are non-significant. The rats have tumors because those rats get tumors.

    I seriously don't understand how someone could read this study and think it evidence that aspsartame is a carcinogen. In my opinion people don't read the study, they just read blogs and posts that say "ZOMG Tumors" that cite the study. I have my doubts the authors of those blogs and posts read the study either.
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    Options
    The rest of your analysis is spot on, Aaron, but the reason for the SD rats is to give as big of a signal as possible.

    If you used "normal" rats, the spontaneous rate of cancer is going to be less than 1%. For the sake of math, lets say 1%. So you would need 100 rats per cohort to see one in the control group get cancer. If compound X double the rate of cancer formation at a given dose, you would get 2 rats with cancer in that cohort of 100. But 1 rat vs 2 doesn't give you very much statistical power (you could easily get unlucky and have 2 rats in the control group get cancer), so you'd need MORE rats per cohort. Like maybe 1,000. That would be a LOT of rats for a study like this and while rats may be cheap, housing them etc isn't.

    With the SD rats, a doubling of the rate of cancer would take you from 40% of rats in the control group to 80% in the treated group. Much clearer answer. Much fewer rats.

    ETA: Further: if you don't see any tumors in the control group (let's say spontaneous rate is 0.1%) then you would have to have a very powerful carcinogen to get even 1 rat in a test cohort of 100 animals to get a tumor. You are going to miss any mild carcinogens, as doubling 0.1 to 0.2 is still too small to be seen in this size study.
  • kevinearthsoul
    kevinearthsoul Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    Unfortunately, it's bad science to cherry-pick data. Few studies meet everyone's gold-standard. No study is perfect, and anyone can choose to invalidate any study at any time by pointing out its failings. Which leaves us with the question "which studies do you trust"? And Monsanto/Searle/NutraSweet has a lot of money to throw into a huge number of studies by different organizations to create an illusion of safety.

    I know this-- my own appetite is better controlled when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. I don't have tendinitis flare-ups when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. My blood sugars are better when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am (I have read studies that indicate that aspartame triggers a sugar release from the liver in some people).

    So, will I consume aspartame? No. I get much better results using stevia to sweeten those few things that I consume which I want sweeter. I believe the science that is out there supports my personal observations in my own life, and the lives of others I am familiar with. I just trust the science more that shows aspartame to be bad for the body. Whether it's toxic or carcinogenic or mutagenic or whatever....
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Options
    Unfortunately, it's bad science to cherry-pick data. Few studies meet everyone's gold-standard. No study is perfect, and anyone can choose to invalidate any study at any time by pointing out its failings. Which leaves us with the question "which studies do you trust"? And Monsanto/Searle/NutraSweet has a lot of money to throw into a huge number of studies by different organizations to create an illusion of safety.

    I know this-- my own appetite is better controlled when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. I don't have tendinitis flare-ups when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. My blood sugars are better when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am (I have read studies that indicate that aspartame triggers a sugar release from the liver in some people).

    So, will I consume aspartame? No. I get much better results using stevia to sweeten those few things that I consume which I want sweeter. I believe the science that is out there supports my personal observations in my own life, and the lives of others I am familiar with. I just trust the science more that shows aspartame to be bad for the body. Whether it's toxic or carcinogenic or mutagenic or whatever....
    Strong confirmation bias
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    Unfortunately, it's bad science to cherry-pick data. Few studies meet everyone's gold-standard. No study is perfect, and anyone can choose to invalidate any study at any time by pointing out its failings. Which leaves us with the question "which studies do you trust"? And Monsanto/Searle/NutraSweet has a lot of money to throw into a huge number of studies by different organizations to create an illusion of safety.

    I know this-- my own appetite is better controlled when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. I don't have tendinitis flare-ups when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am. My blood sugars are better when I'm not consuming aspartame vs. when I am (I have read studies that indicate that aspartame triggers a sugar release from the liver in some people).

    So, will I consume aspartame? No. I get much better results using stevia to sweeten those few things that I consume which I want sweeter. I believe the science that is out there supports my personal observations in my own life, and the lives of others I am familiar with. I just trust the science more that shows aspartame to be bad for the body. Whether it's toxic or carcinogenic or mutagenic or whatever....

    Pointing out dosages and questioning the application of that to monumentally smaller doses doesn't constitute cherry picking.
  • fatcity66
    fatcity66 Posts: 1,544 Member
    Options
    I don't consume aspartame because it causes a bad reaction. Nausea, sweating, headaches, even paranoia....directly correlated with the consumption of foods with aspartame...even if I don't KNOW it's in it before I eat it. I can sure tell after. Most of the people in my family have this same reaction, as well as to MSG, although I'm not sure if that affects me, so I just try to avoid it to be safe. I may not be able to prove beyond all doubt that it's the aspartame, but the evidence is convincing enough for me, and there are plenty of alternatives.
  • wonderwoman234
    wonderwoman234 Posts: 551 Member
    Options
    I remember in the 70's when everyone switched from eating "evil" butter to eating "healthy" margarine. Turns out our bodies didn't know how to process those transfats and the natural product, butter, was actually better.

    I just think consuming anything made in a lab is not something I want to do. Natural, unprocessed foods are probably healthier for the human body than fake *kitten*. So that is how I'm choosing to eat/live. To each their own. If the OP wants to guzzle diet soda, so be it.

    I also believe that using fake sugar, which is hundreds of times more sweet than something found in nature, can screw around with your palate/desire for sweet stuff. Again, to each their own.
  • defauIt
    defauIt Posts: 118 Member
    Options
    I remember in the 70's when everyone switched from eating "evil" butter to eating "healthy" margarine. Turns out our bodies didn't know how to process those transfats and the natural product, butter, was actually better.

    I just think consuming anything made in a lab is not something I want to do. Natural, unprocessed foods are probably healthier for the human body than fake *kitten*. So that is how I'm choosing to eat/live. To each their own. If the OP wants to guzzle diet soda, so be it.

    I also believe that using fake sugar, which is hundreds of times more sweet than something found in nature, can screw around with your palate/desire for sweet stuff. Again, to each their own.

    Would I be correct in assuming you're anti-vaccine as well? That's made in a lab.
  • stiobhard
    stiobhard Posts: 140 Member
    Options
    There has been too much debate over whether or not artificial sweeteners can cause disease, so I simply stay away. Makes sense to me.

    this is where I am with it... I am not fixated on it... but I try to steer away from man-made sweeteners like sacharine, asparteme, sucralose... and stick to plant based ones. I am ok with natural sugar like turbinado... because I have grown sugar cane in my garden... I know what that plant is. I havent seen a man-made sweetener since the 70s that opinion has not turned against in the end... so I am not sure I can trust those any more than red dye number six
  • ktonky
    ktonky Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    This is the best thread ever for a few reasons..

    1) The OP is clearly very knowledgeable on the topic and responds respectfully and logically to any other posters.

    2) Some of the replies, and replies to replies are definitely entertaining.

    3) I love diet coke and have been attempting to avoid it because my mother harps on me about it.... you know, she heard from DR. OZ and DR OZ IS THE HEALTH GOD OF ALL THINGS *eye roll* but regardless, she always gives me a hard time about my diet coke and it's made its way into my brain. This helps me love diet coke again.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    Unfortunately, it's bad science to cherry-pick data. Few studies meet everyone's gold-standard. No study is perfect, and anyone can choose to invalidate any study at any time by pointing out its failings. Which leaves us with the question "which studies do you trust"? And Monsanto/Searle/NutraSweet has a lot of money to throw into a huge number of studies by different organizations to create an illusion of safety.

    This is the study you chose to highlight yourself so I don't see why it is inappropriate for me to refer to the actual data within that study and point out that actually their results show no difference between the control group and the test group. That isn't "cherry picking" that was the primary figure of the entire study.

    How did Monsanto/Searle/NutraSweet influence the result of this particular study exactly?

    Honestly this sort of boogie-man corporations and chemicals are bad nature is good oversimplified fear mongering is exactly the kind of thing that annoys me about those who claim that aspartame is toxic.

    Is Monsanto guilty of a lot of questionable policies especially with regard to patents...yeah sure. Does that make them instantly the machinator for every possible conspiracy theory relating to food out there? No.

    If there is a study that shows conclusively the toxicity of aspartame then present it because to my eyes it doesn't exist.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    The rest of your analysis is spot on, Aaron, but the reason for the SD rats is to give as big of a signal as possible.

    If you used "normal" rats, the spontaneous rate of cancer is going to be less than 1%. For the sake of math, lets say 1%. So you would need 100 rats per cohort to see one in the control group get cancer. If compound X double the rate of cancer formation at a given dose, you would get 2 rats with cancer in that cohort of 100. But 1 rat vs 2 doesn't give you very much statistical power (you could easily get unlucky and have 2 rats in the control group get cancer), so you'd need MORE rats per cohort. Like maybe 1,000. That would be a LOT of rats for a study like this and while rats may be cheap, housing them etc isn't.

    With the SD rats, a doubling of the rate of cancer would take you from 40% of rats in the control group to 80% in the treated group. Much clearer answer. Much fewer rats.

    ETA: Further: if you don't see any tumors in the control group (let's say spontaneous rate is 0.1%) then you would have to have a very powerful carcinogen to get even 1 rat in a test cohort of 100 animals to get a tumor. You are going to miss any mild carcinogens, as doubling 0.1 to 0.2 is still too small to be seen in this size study.

    I get what you are saying Richard but I think this logic rests on an assumption that I don't think one can make and that is the idea that a rat that has a high incidence of tumors will have that incidence affected by an external stimulus in the exact same way as a rat that does not have a high incidence of tumors. SD rats are genetically predisposed to tumor formation, we know that. What we do not know is that they respond to external stimulous that promotes tumor formation in a linear relationship to that of normal rats. What you are saying follows only if a compound that doubled the tumor incidence in SD rats ALSO doubled the tumor incidence in non-SD rats, otherwise all you are demonstrating is that this particular compound increases tumor incidence in an animal that is already pre-disposed to tumor formation. To me that is not really compelling evidence that something is truly carcinogenic. If a compound is actually carcinogenic I would not expect it to require maximum dosages for entire lifespans in the one model most prone to tumor formation possible.

    If you have something that is truly carcinogenic then to get an increase in incidence enough to see it in a test group of normal animals you should only have to increase the dosage right?

    If instead what you do is take the maximum soluble dosage of a compound and give it to rats prone to tumors for their entire lifespan and as a result show basically no significant difference or extremely negligible difference in tumor incidence between that group and a control group I would not consider that compound to be carcinogenic.

    Can anyone truly look at and comprehend that figure I posted from the Soffreti paper and honestly say they are convinced by that that aspartame is a carcinogen? That is the rub here. Does anyone want to explain to me how you look at that data and come to the conclusion that aspartame is carcinogenic?
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    I remember in the 70's when everyone switched from eating "evil" butter to eating "healthy" margarine. Turns out our bodies didn't know how to process those transfats and the natural product, butter, was actually better.

    I just think consuming anything made in a lab is not something I want to do. Natural, unprocessed foods are probably healthier for the human body than fake *kitten*. So that is how I'm choosing to eat/live. To each their own. If the OP wants to guzzle diet soda, so be it.

    I also believe that using fake sugar, which is hundreds of times more sweet than something found in nature, can screw around with your palate/desire for sweet stuff. Again, to each their own.

    I don't recall ever saying I drink diet soda or trying to make a case for why everyone should drink diet soda, all I stated was why I believed the current body of scientific evidence did not support the notion that aspartame was toxic or carcinogenic. I also don't remember the scientific study claiming that margarine was "healthier" than butter. Can't be responsible for what the public decides is "good" or not based on marketing, television commercials and TV journalism.

    Also how are you defining unprocessed food exactly. I mean butter is plenty processed, its not like butter just appears from nature...its made by humans via a process.

    You are setting up a strawman and knocking it down and then erroneously equating it to the current discussion and acting like you have made some point. Are you seriously claiming aspartame is toxic because margarine isn't good for you? If not what exactly are you saying, that anything touched by humans= bad anything untouched by humans = good because that is pretty evidently untrue.

    What food do we consume that has been untouched by humans and unprocessed? Can you name one thing?

Categories