Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
I have a friend who gets terrible stomach cramps when he eats meat. So, following the line of logic I see some people use, meat is something none of us should eat, right?
*sips diet Pepsi* This was very interesting Aaron. Maybe a little too sciency for me, but I plan to go back and look over it again a window up to run some searches and delve a little deeper. I appreciate you taking the time to write this out.0 -
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.
Have you read those studies directly yourself or did you read an news story or blog about them. Can you cite them please? Its not good to try to claim authority via rigorous studies without providing your audience the opportunity to read review and evaluate your source material.
The rest is subjective so no comment there.
See what I mean about being unkind? I don't get my news from blogs, and I've read the studies at some point, but since I'm not feeling argumentative, and I have no desire to spend time trying to find copies of studies I've read in the past, I'm going to respectfully decline. I just finished a long run and hopped on here to log it, when this topic caught my eye. Note, I never claimed authority. I was sharing my person reasons for not consuming artificial sweeteners, and I acknowledged the anecdotal nature of that evidence.
As for the latter part, should you desire to look further, I believe one of the studies was from Harvard Dept. for Public Health or some such, and other avenues to whom I look for information include the American Academy of Pediatrics and similar such medical organizations.0 -
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.
Have you read those studies directly yourself or did you read an news story or blog about them. Can you cite them please? Its not good to try to claim authority via rigorous studies without providing your audience the opportunity to read review and evaluate your source material.
The rest is subjective so no comment there.
See what I mean about being unkind? I don't get my news from blogs, and I've read the studies at some point, but since I'm not feeling argumentative, and I have no desire to spend time trying to find copies of studies I've read in the past, I'm going to respectfully decline. I just finished a long run and hopped on here to log it, when this topic caught my eye. Note, I never claimed authority. I was sharing my person reasons for not consuming artificial sweeteners, and I acknowledged the anecdotal nature of that evidence.
As for the latter part, should you desire to look further, I believe one of the studies was from Harvard Dept. for Public Health or some such, and other avenues to whom I look for information include the American Academy of Pediatrics and similar such medical organizations.
I simply asked you to cite your sources for your claims I do not think that makes me unkind but if I offended you I apologize it was not my intent.
My concern is that claiming study results without citing the studies is a common way for misinformation to spread. In my opinion one should either take the time to do their due diligence and find the citation or not refer to a study at all.
Personally I find the notion that you can't be bothered to locate the sources but expect me to hunt them down based on vague references to an institution a little rude and insulting.2 -
Also - this thread is totally relevant for MFP. I was going to have a snack, and then I got reading 16 pages of some pretty good discussion and forgot. Now I'm going to bed sans snack.2
-
I think this falls under the whole too much of anything is bad for you. Too much diet soda or asparatame in general seems to cause neuro issues. I've seen it first hand with people who drink 4-5 liters a day of diet soda. I'm guessing its the build up of methanol. Not drinking this many seems to resolve symptoms.
According to the China study, animal protein increases risk of some cancers. What they don't tell you is that too much plant protein increases risks for other cancers.
I think if all of us would learn moderation, none of us would get cirrhotic livers, morbid obesity or lung cancer. But since we tend to over do what we enjoy, this isn't the case. We will all die of something. My goal is to be as healthy as possible for as long as possible.
To the OP, thanks for explaining this. I also found because of this that other things in my diet, like tomatoes probably give me more asparatame than my daily coke zero.2 -
Just for the fun of it, I wanted to see how many studies I could find that show a correlation between aspartame consumption and negative health effects. Here are just a few, all found on PubMed:
Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice
Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats.
First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats.
Chronic Effect of Aspartame on Ionic Homeostasis and Monoamine Neurotransmitters in the Rat Brain
Neurobehavioral effects of aspartame consumption
Ameliorative effect of Pimpinella anisum oil on immunohistochemical and ultrastuctural changes of cerebellum of albino rats induced by aspartame
Rate of atherosclerosis progression in ApoE-/- mice long after discontinuation of cola beverage drinking
Cognitive and biochemical effects of monosodium glutamate and aspartame, administered individually and in combination in male albino mice
Aspartame-induced apoptosis in PC12 cells
Cytotoxic effect of aspartame (diet sweet) on the histological and genetic structures of female albino rats and their offspring
Shall I go on? Gosh, I love PubMEd! Incidentally, just enter the search word "aspartame" and see what comes up.2 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.2
-
You have to remember that basically anyone can do a study, even a published one and/or reviewed one. How good the results are is to be determined afterwards by the scientific community.There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.2 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.
Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?2 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.
Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?
^^^ That.1 -
I'm not scared of the stuff just I hear it's made from the feces of the E-Coli bacteria, that's why I avoid it.1
-
I don't really feel like its dangerous, but I personally cannot have that or any kind of fake sugar like NutraSweet or Splenda. I get massive headaches using it so I just stopped drinking soda with it and any products with it. Now I can tolerate smaller doses of it, like a stick of gum once in awhile.I do NOT think that expertise or background is proof that someone is correct so I invite anyone and everyone who is interested to look into this yourself. I just mention it because I know I will likely be asked.
Agreed - which is why I was curious as to your analysis of the anti-aspartame studies.
I'd be equally interested in someone who is anti-aspartame to explain exactly why they feel that way...but fair warning "because I read it on the internet" or "because it's hard to pronounce" will not be acceptable answers over science.
I also encourage anyone who honestly believe that aspartame is dangerous to post here and explain in a reasoned way why you feel that is the case.
Around 2 years ago, I would buy 4 cases of soda and our family would be through all four of them within the week, and in my defense, I never had more than one can a day and always got a headache from it. I just think my body has a hard time processing certain foods, but I don't feel like its evil. I am allergic to shellfish too, but that's my own allergy to worry about.
After I gave up soda for plain water, the headaches stopped, but the weight gain continued. I suspect that my own tendencies to overeat and not pay attention to what and how much I ate, as a cause for the weight gain. Soon as I got my eating habits in order, the weight started falling off! Go figure!
Someone else already said, that some people can't process certain things, and just to avoid it and not be preachy about it Totally agree.0 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.
Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?
Yep. Like I said just enter the search term "aspartame" in PubMed. There are literally 50+ pages of results. Read through just a few.0 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.
Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?
^^^ That.
Yes, many, many, many, studies. Go to PubMed.0 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.
Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?
^^^ That.
Yes, many, many, many, studies. Go to PubMed.
I have, and I'd like you to provide an example with a link to a study where harmful effects are shown using doses that approximate what humans would typically consume.3 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.
Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?
Yep. Like I said just enter the search term "aspartame" in PubMed. There are literally 50+ pages of results. Read through just a few.
"There are many examples of X, hundreds even! I won't be providing them myself of course in order to back up my claim and odds are if you say you can't find any I'll just say you didn't look/are lying."2 -
So I will bite because I am admittedly curious as to what the response is.
How is a bananna or an apple or rice or an almond or basically anything you can name from the grocery store less "processed" than a can of soda. Is it because the can of soda is in an aluminum can because I'll grant you that, although I guess almonds can also come in aluminum cans.
I mean what criteria are you using here to define what constitutes "processed". Human intervention? Amount of time of human intervention? Number of separate ingredients? What constitutes a "separate ingredient" in a meaningful way? Chemicals? What is the difference between a "natural" chemical and a "processed" chemical? I get the feeling that when I think chemical and when you think chemical we are picturing two completely different concepts.
If we selectively bred cows for millennium to lactate aspartame-milk do you think the future whole-foods crowd would lap it up as nutritious because now its "natural"? Can you think of any "whole food" you'd find in the grocery store today that hasn't undergone millennium of selective breeding?
I just feel that if you really sit down and think about it its pretty clear what an arbitrary distinction you are making between "natural" and "artificial" when you pick something up from a grocery store.
Are you sure you weren't a philosophy major? I suggest a career change to law.
0 -
There are SO many more....my point is, for all the studies saying aspartame is safe, there are just as many (maybe more) saying it's not. To conclude, then, that it's "safe" overall, and has no negative effects, seems, to put it gently...rather short-sighted.
Any of these that don't involve administering supraphysiological doses to cancer-prone rats?
Yep. Like I said just enter the search term "aspartame" in PubMed. There are literally 50+ pages of results. Read through just a few.
How many of those did you actually read past the title and the abstract? The citation I provided is the most recent review and metaanalysis of the current body of work on aspartame regarding human clinical trials for toxicity and I actually read it. Here it is again:
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184
here is another clinical meta related specifically to carcinogen studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23891579
I cannot comment on things I haven't read. If there is a specific article that you have read and found something in worth discussing explain the content of the study, refer to it by citation and refer to the data within that study to support the claim. If you are just going to hand wave at 50+ studies but you haven't bothered to read a single one I'm not sure what you want me to do with that.2 -
Oh I see, this is where all the fun has been hiding today.0
-
So I will bite because I am admittedly curious as to what the response is.
How is a bananna or an apple or rice or an almond or basically anything you can name from the grocery store less "processed" than a can of soda. Is it because the can of soda is in an aluminum can because I'll grant you that, although I guess almonds can also come in aluminum cans.
I mean what criteria are you using here to define what constitutes "processed". Human intervention? Amount of time of human intervention? Number of separate ingredients? What constitutes a "separate ingredient" in a meaningful way? Chemicals? What is the difference between a "natural" chemical and a "processed" chemical? I get the feeling that when I think chemical and when you think chemical we are picturing two completely different concepts.
If we selectively bred cows for millennium to lactate aspartame-milk do you think the future whole-foods crowd would lap it up as nutritious because now its "natural"? Can you think of any "whole food" you'd find in the grocery store today that hasn't undergone millennium of selective breeding?
I just feel that if you really sit down and think about it its pretty clear what an arbitrary distinction you are making between "natural" and "artificial" when you pick something up from a grocery store.
Are you sure you weren't a philosophy major? I suggest a career change to law.
Not sure what you are implying here. I have yet to hear a definition that can discriminate between a "whole food" and a "processed" food at the grocery store and yet so many people talk about how they only eat "whole foods" and avoid "processed foods". I think they just mean they avoid things that are in cans.
To refer to grocery store produce as "natural" though kind of ignores the last 4 thousand years of human intervention.1 -
"It's bad science to cherry pick data."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....
"I specifically trust the cherry picked data that says it's bad."
Seems legit.3 -
The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?1 -
The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?
Can't comment without a citation, too vague.
People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.
If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.
Primary sources you yourself have read...not second-hand anecdotes from personal opinion piece blogs. If you are not going to take the time to do that then I don't know what you expect me to do here.2 -
The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?
Can't comment without a citation, too vague.
People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.
If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.
Don't you know? That's what you get for trying to be helpful on MFP.
Just be a big meanie, it's much more fun. 0 -
The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?
Can't comment without a citation, too vague.
People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.
If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.
Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.0 -
The is not a single food on this Earth currently that existed 500 years ago. We have changed and selected for and cultivated every single food item we consume. If you travel back to the 1500s, not many foods would be recognizable. Carrots weren't orange. Cucumbers were poisonous and bitter. Tomatoes didn't exist. No apples. At least, no apple that we would recognize. Pigs, cows, chickens, completely unrecognizable. It boggles my mind that people think we haven't spend hundreds and thousands of years specifically manipulating everything we've ever eaten. Hell, the entire field of genetics came out of us specifically manipulating food crops to create the specific foods we want to eat.So I will bite because I am admittedly curious as to what the response is.
How is a bananna or an apple or rice or an almond or basically anything you can name from the grocery store less "processed" than a can of soda. Is it because the can of soda is in an aluminum can because I'll grant you that, although I guess almonds can also come in aluminum cans.
I mean what criteria are you using here to define what constitutes "processed". Human intervention? Amount of time of human intervention? Number of separate ingredients? What constitutes a "separate ingredient" in a meaningful way? Chemicals? What is the difference between a "natural" chemical and a "processed" chemical? I get the feeling that when I think chemical and when you think chemical we are picturing two completely different concepts.
If we selectively bred cows for millennium to lactate aspartame-milk do you think the future whole-foods crowd would lap it up as nutritious because now its "natural"? Can you think of any "whole food" you'd find in the grocery store today that hasn't undergone millennium of selective breeding?
I just feel that if you really sit down and think about it its pretty clear what an arbitrary distinction you are making between "natural" and "artificial" when you pick something up from a grocery store.
Are you sure you weren't a philosophy major? I suggest a career change to law.
Not sure what you are implying here. I have yet to hear a definition that can discriminate between a "whole food" and a "processed" food at the grocery store and yet so many people talk about how they only eat "whole foods" and avoid "processed foods". I think they just mean they avoid things that are in cans.
To refer to grocery store produce as "natural" though kind of ignores the last 4 thousand years of human intervention.0 -
The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?
Can't comment without a citation, too vague.
People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.
If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.
Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.
Did you read the footnoted primary sources yourself? Yes or no.
I'm really tired of people reading a 1 page news article that footnotes 12 primary studies that they haven't themselves read and then expect me to go through the trouble of commenting.
I do not comment on things I haven't read, to comment on this I would have to read through all those footnotes. If you have done that yourself and can highlight the specific portions you want me to address then fine but if all you did was read the article and not the primary sources yet want me to read the primary sources myself I find that a bit annoying.
At first I did that but after 17 pages of this happening I'm getting a little tired of it. Sorry but yeah.
So have you read those footnotes yourself or did you only read the Op Ed piece?2 -
Yes, footnoted with sources that are known to be biased, untrustworthy, and discredited. HuffPo isn't a scientific journal, it's a magazine. Any article that lists a guy like Mercola, who has been soundly discredited many times, as a source is not a valid article for debate. And Betty Martini is also a fraud.The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?
Can't comment without a citation, too vague.
People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.
If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.
Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.1 -
I'm not scared of the stuff just I hear it's made from the feces of the E-Coli bacteria, that's why I avoid it.
Bacteria are singled celled organisms. They don't have digestive tracts, much less feces. Doesn't work that way.
And, don't be scared of bacteria. There are more bacterial cells in your body than human cells...and the list of foods, medicines, products etc that we use every day that are produced via bacteria is GIGANTIC.
All this "bacteria poop" stuff is nonsense designed to prey on the fears of the misinformed.1 -
Saved for later to show my neurotic mother when I see her again...2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions