Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

Yes, I believe in vaccines. I am not refuting your "science" or the lack of research that says aspartame is bad (or good). I was sharing my personal beliefs about what I choose to eat and why.

Nobody on MFP can ever win an argument based on "scientific research" because people pick and choose which studies they cite as evidence to support their position. I'm not interested in doing that.

I'm just choosing to avoid as many highly processed foods as possible. Whole foods may be minimally processed, but they are not as processed as a can of diet Pepsi....and they taste better.

Aspartame makes me fart :blushing:

Aspartame Is Fecal Matter of Genetically Modified E. Coli bacteria. YUM

The study you are refering to are two studies conducted by the same lab Soffritti et al 2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/ and Soffritti et al 2007 located here for the full article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/

The studies were conducted in rats, specifically Sprague-Dawley rats. This is a rather odd and questionable choice of model organism. Why it is questionable is that really Sprague-Dawley rats are the model organism of choice for studying cancer because they are outbred rats who are known to develop spontaneous tumors 45% of the time. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf

Basically you pick Sprague Dawly rats if you want some rats that are going to develop tumors no matter what. The fact that this groups Sprague-Dawley rats developed tumors is therefore no suprise at all and doesn't mean a thing about what affect aspartame had on them.

So I have to ask why, if these researchers wanted to test if a particular compound was carcinogenic, would they EVER choose to test it in Sprague-Dawley rats...rats known for forming spontaneous tumors due to their genetics. Toxicology testing is routinely done in BALB/c or C57B/6 mice so the use of Sprague-Dawley rats is odd.

Also I have to point out that if aspartame made 40% of those who ingest it break out all over the place in tumors I think we would have noticed by now.

It is one flawed study amongst hundreds of studies that demonstrate no carcinogenic or toxic effects of aspartame and yet it is the one study cited over and over by articles talking about how "toxic" aspartame is. Frankly I doubt those people have ever read the study or know anything about Sprague-Dawley rats.

I understand your question, however the answer is rather simple. The reason a study uses a rat with a predisposition to a disease many times is to see if the substance INCREASES the incidence of the disease or affects the progression in any way. If you use "regular" rats, the incidence of disease is much much lower and the amount of animals necessary is orders of magnitude greater to get a reasonable number of occurrences. It becomes even further multiplied since in many studies you need to observe a similar number of cancers in non-dosed rats to have a statistically significant result. You do not want to pay for a study that would have to include the massive numbers of rats to get the required incidence of cancers in control group and test groups required, it isn't economically feasible. So a rat that gets cancer at a much higher rate is beneficial for this study, just as an Agouti gened mouse (that develops diabetes and over weight stature without methylation) is likely to be used in a study looking at a substance's effect in diabetes and increased BMI or gene methylation.

Those studies DO show that APM/aspartame causes a significant, dose-related increased incidence of cancer.

However, does that mean aspartame is toxic sludge? The truth is somewhere in the middle as always. No its not as bad as the demonizers say, but its also not as innocent as the other extreme (like your opinion seems to be) make it out to be. The fact is, it very likely increases incidence of cancer, but the dose at which it does this is unknown, and you are unlikely to receive the same doseage. However, since your body is fighting cancerous cells ALL THE TIME, and the battle can be tipped one way or another, their IS likely a small percent chance using this substance even at a smaller amount will increase the likelihood of throwing your body over the edge from containment and elimination into growth and spreading of cancerous cells. Probably a small chance, weight your risks accordingly. Even taking international flights may increase your chance of cancer similarly, so the question is, what is it worth to you? I'd suggest to weight your risk, not pretend there is no risk or pretend it will kill you if you eat it a few times. But that's up to you.

For me, foods with aspartame taste crappy and the risk is not worth it at all, even without any additional small risks. I definitely avoid any food with it.

I avoid aspartame for the following reasons:

1. It tastes absolutely disgusting.
2. It leaves that nasty fake-sweetener aftertaste.
3. Bloat and other stomach problems that really don't require public airing
4. Migraine trigger

Now, I am fully aware that my reasons for avoiding artificial sweeteners rely on a study with a fairly small sample...you know...just me; however, while this may not qualify as clinically significant, I find it enough to satisfy me, and thus, I avoid it. And I know...it's anecdotal, but if something makes me feel that poorly, I just don't need science to tell me it is okay for me to consume. I listen to my body. And because it makes me that ill, I don't allow my child to consume it either.

What I fail to understand is why people are being so unkind to those who disagree with the OP, even after he invited them (or us I suppose) to join the discussion.

In reality folks, I think we all know that better than sugar or aspartame, is simply to avoid added sweeteners at all. For example, studies have suggested that those who consume diet soda are at a higher risk for weight gain and obesity than those who consume no soda. So, no soda is better than soda, diet or otherwise. Other studies have suggested that artificial sweeteners lead to metabolic disruptions. My sources, like university studies and respected medical organizations, lead me to believe that evidence is inconclusive at best.

My conclusions: it's bad for me because it makes me sick (I can't speak for everyone in that regard), but undoubtedly, water is better for all of us.