Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
No I don't see a contradiction. I wanted to get it off my recent posts list at the time because at the time I was frustrated with it and wanted to give it a rest which is what I did, I took a break. In my original post on this thread stating this intention I said I was going to "take a break" and that is what I did. In my PM to you I said I was frustrated, not sure why people were making this about me and not the topic but stated numerous times that I was not mad nor did I feel like people such as yourself had insulted me. If you read "upset" into it then all I can do is <shurg> and say thats the issue with reading text instead of talking to a person directly and seeing their emotions.
On your first post on this thread you basically pointed a finger at me and laughed for my returning to the thread after saying I was taking a break. Since the thread had rolled and I hadn't posted on the rolled thread yet I figured rather than respond to you on the thread which would put it back on my list when I wanted to break from it I would instead PM you so I did. In that PM I asked you if you "thought that was funny" because your post implied you were laughing. In your response you said no you didn't think it was funny.
I was not upset, I asked a question...you answered a question. I agreed with you that I should walk away for a bit, and I walked away for a bit. You said you would never post on this thread again, I never said anything of the sort.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.
You are reading emotion where there wasn't emotion, I was not trying to make you feel bad...I asked you why you were niggling me on the thread because you were the one posting about me rather than about the topic. Flip back to the beginning of this rolled thread. Notice what everyone else is talking about? Notice what your posts are about? So yeah, I wrote you a PM and asked what you find funny and why you were niggling me rather than posting on the topic.
I still wonder that. I came back and what did I do when I came back. I resumed talking on the topic. You came back and what did you do...resume talking about me. When did I come back? When someone said something about the topic that I thought worth commenting on. When did you come back...when I came back.
What is your fascination with me exactly? Why are you here? Again, no anger...not upset...just curious at this point because its a bit odd. If you are hear because you find pestering me or others on this thread to be "amusing" then yes that is likely to annoy me because no one likes to be randomly pestered for no apparent reason for the amusement of another. If you are here to discuss the topic then discuss the topic I have no issue with that.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.
You are reading emotion where there wasn't emotion, I was not trying to make you feel bad...I asked you why you were niggling me on the thread because you were the one posting about me rather than about the topic. Flip back to the beginning of this rolled thread. Notice what everyone else is talking about? Notice what your posts are about? So yeah, I wrote you a PM and asked what you find funny and why you were niggling me rather than posting on the topic.
I still wonder that. I came back and what did I do when I came back. I resumed talking on the topic. You came back and what did you do...resume talking about me. When did I come back? When someone said something about the topic that I thought worth commenting on. When did you come back...when I came back.
What is your fascination with me exactly? Why are you here? Again, no anger...not upset...just curious at this point because its a bit odd. If you are hear because you find pestering me to be "amusing" then yes that is likely to annoy me because no one likes to be randomly pestered for no apparent reason for the amusement of another. If you are here to discuss the topic then discuss the topic I have no issue with that.
All of my posts were not about you personally, they just mostly disagreed with you. I didn't have a problem with you before...now, I really don't like you.*shrug* I guess we can't all get along. I doubt there will be any more PMs from you, but if there are, I will know not to respond again. Good day.0 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.
You are reading emotion where there wasn't emotion, I was not trying to make you feel bad...I asked you why you were niggling me on the thread because you were the one posting about me rather than about the topic. Flip back to the beginning of this rolled thread. Notice what everyone else is talking about? Notice what your posts are about? So yeah, I wrote you a PM and asked what you find funny and why you were niggling me rather than posting on the topic.
I still wonder that. I came back and what did I do when I came back. I resumed talking on the topic. You came back and what did you do...resume talking about me. When did I come back? When someone said something about the topic that I thought worth commenting on. When did you come back...when I came back.
What is your fascination with me exactly? Why are you here? Again, no anger...not upset...just curious at this point because its a bit odd. If you are hear because you find pestering me to be "amusing" then yes that is likely to annoy me because no one likes to be randomly pestered for no apparent reason for the amusement of another. If you are here to discuss the topic then discuss the topic I have no issue with that.
All of my posts were not about you personally, they just mostly disagreed with you. I didn't have a problem with you before...now, I really don't like you.*shrug* I guess we can't all get along. I doubt there will be any more PMs from you, but if there are, I will know not to respond again. Good day.
All of your posts on the rolled thread (which is what I said) were either about me personally or about someone else personally. You seemed to stick around in your own words for your "amusement" to poke fun at people which yeah I felt warranted a PM asking you why you were doing that. If you wish to leave and not discuss the topic that is fine. If you do not like me that is also fine. If you do not wish me to PM you I will not. I have no desire to follow you around. I have no feelings towards you whatsoever, upset or otherwise...I just don't know why you are here and so far the only answer you have given is "for your personal amusement"
About the topic?This is getting quite comical. I'm leaving...no wait, I'm back...no, I'm leaving again. I, for one am just going to continue to lurk and be amused.
About the topic?Didn't you read? No non-expert opinions allowed! You must have at least a PhD to play...
About the topic?You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? noway
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I'm going to go ahead and go back to discussing the topic now.0 -
And ginger is a COX-2 inhibitor (same action as manufactured drugs like Celebrex and Vioxx), and can also cause bleeding disorders. Products that have been around for much longer than a few decades and aren't synthetic can do the same things.There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?Perhaps you are right and aspartame is harmless (I said perhaps--I remain unconvinced). But, I still prefer to avoid the addition of synthetic chemicals to my food and I would suggest that others do the same. No one has the knowledge of how all of these various synthetic materials act in the long term and certainly not in combination.
Again, why is this limited to synthetic chemicals? Countless combinations of natural consumable substances have never been tested for long term safety. What about something like Chia seeds? It's a newer "fad" in the culinary world. Why shouldn't we be studying it to death before consuming any more of it? Where do we draw the line and decide something is safe enough or has been studied enough to no longer worry about it? You can fear-monger about ANYTHING, synthetic or not.0 -
Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
I love you, because epigenetics is a huge obsession of mine now, and because you're able to objectively take a look at aspartame, which most people are not able to do.
#allthelove1 -
You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? :noway:
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
I wasn't upset, I was mildly frustrated. If you read "upset" in my tone you misread. I said I was going to give it a rest for a bit because I was getting tired of responding so I gave it a rest for a bit, no big whoop. How I invest my time is of course my own choice You directed something to me on here and rather than respond to you directly on this thread and have it pop up on my recent posts thing I decided to PM you instead thats all..I came back when I felt like coming back, no big deal.
I never, for example, said something like "I won't be posting any more on the thread, and probably won't even go back to read it again". I think you are reading more emotion in me than actually exists here.
Mostly I got annoyed that the conversation went away from aspartame and became all about me as a poster for some reason and that seems to have settled down a bit. Although here you are making it about me again for some reason. Why do you care is I guess my question? Not said with anger so don't read it that way, just genuinely curious.
I said I found it amusing, and now I do again. Your PM said something like "Do you really find that funny?" Well, now I'm finding it even funnier. And, yes, by the "tone" of your post I would say you were pretty upset, but whatever. I just find it ironic that you said you wanted to get it off your "recent posts", yet here you are, back again posting? You don't see the contradiction in your words and your actions?
I guess it just kind of annoys me, because you PMed me to try to make me feel bad about "niggling" you, and it worked. I was sorry to cause you distress, and I thought I would respect you as a person and not come back. But now I feel duped.
You are reading emotion where there wasn't emotion, I was not trying to make you feel bad...I asked you why you were niggling me on the thread because you were the one posting about me rather than about the topic. Flip back to the beginning of this rolled thread. Notice what everyone else is talking about? Notice what your posts are about? So yeah, I wrote you a PM and asked what you find funny and why you were niggling me rather than posting on the topic.
I still wonder that. I came back and what did I do when I came back. I resumed talking on the topic. You came back and what did you do...resume talking about me. When did I come back? When someone said something about the topic that I thought worth commenting on. When did you come back...when I came back.
What is your fascination with me exactly? Why are you here? Again, no anger...not upset...just curious at this point because its a bit odd. If you are hear because you find pestering me to be "amusing" then yes that is likely to annoy me because no one likes to be randomly pestered for no apparent reason for the amusement of another. If you are here to discuss the topic then discuss the topic I have no issue with that.
All of my posts were not about you personally, they just mostly disagreed with you. I didn't have a problem with you before...now, I really don't like you.*shrug* I guess we can't all get along. I doubt there will be any more PMs from you, but if there are, I will know not to respond again. Good day.
All of your posts on the rolled thread (which is what I said) were either about me personally or about someone else personally. You seemed to stick around in your own words for your "amusement" to poke fun at people which yeah I felt warranted a PM asking you why you were doing that. If you wish to leave and not discuss the topic that is fine. If you do not like me that is also fine. If you do not wish me to PM you I will not. I have no desire to follow you around. I have no feelings towards you whatsoever, upset or otherwise...I just don't know why you are here and so far the only answer you have given is "for your personal amusement"
About the topic?This is getting quite comical. I'm leaving...no wait, I'm back...no, I'm leaving again. I, for one am just going to continue to lurk and be amused.
About the topic?Didn't you read? No non-expert opinions allowed! You must have at least a PhD to play...
About the topic?You got so upset that you sent me a PM, but now you're back again?? noway
You have WAY too much invested in this, bro.
LOLZ You were so worried about people thinking you're a jerk....
I wonder why they might think that??
ETA: And keep editing your posts after I respond to them...haha0 -
And ginger is a COX-2 inhibitor (same action as manufactured drugs like Celebrex and Vioxx), and can also cause bleeding disorders. Products that have been around for much longer than a few decades and aren't synthetic can do the same things.There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?Perhaps you are right and aspartame is harmless (I said perhaps--I remain unconvinced). But, I still prefer to avoid the addition of synthetic chemicals to my food and I would suggest that others do the same. No one has the knowledge of how all of these various synthetic materials act in the long term and certainly not in combination.
Again, why is this limited to synthetic chemicals? Countless combinations of natural consumable substances have never been tested for long term safety. What about something like Chia seeds? It's a newer "fad" in the culinary world. Why shouldn't we be studying it to death before consuming any more of it? Where do we draw the line and decide something is safe enough or has been studied enough to no longer worry about it? You can fear-monger about ANYTHING, synthetic or not.
Not to mention that aspirin is the natural product acetylsalicylic acid, its an extract from willow bark that is now synthesized. Its the same chemical structure so whether its an extract from willow bark or synthesized and mass produced it does the same thing. Bayer of coursed patented it under the name "Asprin" even though it is a natural product because there is nothing saying you cannot patent a natural product.0 -
Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
I love you, because epigenetics is a huge obsession of mine now, and because you're able to objectively take a look at aspartame, which most people are not able to do.
#allthelove
I don't think you understand what the bolded word means.1 -
OP you're my hero. ALso I highly recommend the Respectful Insolence blog by Orac for any like minded people. Its David Gorski's "other" blog. lots of lols. Also lots of science. I like science. Although my expertise lie in social work and military history.0
-
OMG! You high-brows have waaaaay too much time on your hands! Y'all need to chill yourselves out! Have a drink.....with or without aspartame......relax.....and let it go!0
-
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Actually no, he didn't agree with what you said at all. He was talking about BPA and Agouti mice and he explained that it didn't appear to extrapolate to humans. Instead, it acts as an endocrine disruptor by mimicking oestrogen.
I understand epigenetics pretty well, and in my opinion it is highly unlikely that aspartame would have a negative effect on the epigenome. Nobody can say 100%, but it's unlikely. Whether something occurs in nature, or not, makes little difference as far as epigenetics goes. In fact, even starvation can have an effect. If you are interested, read up about the Dutch Hunger Winter.
Anyway, I can't believe that this thread is still going1 -
I will say I have not read every single reply, but I do love the way this has been explained. My great grandmother will be 107 on August 6 and she has put Equal in her coffee every day for as long as I can remember. That in itself has been proof enough for me.
My grandmother ingested an incredible amount of saccharin in her day. She NEVER used real sugar in her coffee, and was always eating some awful prepackaged 'diet' food. She died at the age of 98 of natural causes.
Anecdotal, I know. But still.
0 -
I apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread, but it's a lot to jump into.
I don't know about you guys but I refuse to consume something that gives rats cancer. I'll stick to my birch xylitol and my stevia. Better to drink a tall glass of water than to drink a tall glass of diet coke, too. There isn't nearly as much aspartame in gum as there is in coke so I'll have a stick of gum every once in a while.1 -
I apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread, but it's a lot to jump into.
I don't know about you guys but I refuse to consume something that gives rats cancer. I'll stick to my birch xylitol and my stevia. Better to drink a tall glass of water than to drink a tall glass of diet coke, too. There isn't nearly as much aspartame in gum as there is in coke so I'll have a stick of gum every once in a while.
I can understand you not wanting to take the time to read the entire thread but that study has been addressed multiple times in this thread. They used Sprague-Dawly rats which are abline of rats that spontaneously form tumors. 35% of the control rats (the ones that did not recieve aspartame) developed tumors while 29% of the ones who recieved a relevant dosage of aspartame developed tumors. At a dosage equivalent to 2000 diet sodas a day for a lifetime 43% develooed tumors. They tried a large number of different dosages and the percent that developed tumors did not correlate to dosage (meaning a higher dosage did not necessarily mean higher tumor percentage).
I suggest you read the actual study rather than internet stories referencing the study. I linked to it within the thread. If that is your only reason for avoiding aspartame it should alleviate your concern.0 -
I would like to say several things. This is my first forum post on MFP and honestly, I was just bored this evening and decided to browse the threads. I read all of these messages, although not the ones from the previous thread. Here's my anecdote:
I'm in my 4th year of my Ph.D. studying conservation and ecology. Although I am an ecologist, I am much better read than most ecologists in molecular work.
Scientifically, I agree with those who say that aspartame, as far as science knows, is harmless.
Personally, fake sugars irritate my migraines. Included in my list of triggers are also: getting a sunburn, prolonged periods of loud noises, sleeping too long, not sleeping enough, not napping when my body says to, napping when my body says to, stress, not drinking enough water, drinking too much water, the smell of red onions, eating red onions, pulling a muscle, wearing my contacts too long, not wearing my contacts, having cold feet for too long, being hot too long, and thinking too long about my migraine triggers (jk, but seriously...)
You get the idea. Basically, if something is out-of-routine, I get a migraine. These migraines, by the way, got 10x worse when I entered grad school. Probably from a mix of stress and lifestyle changes. Mostly stress.
Way back when, before grad school, I switched from regular soda to diet soda and lost 20 lbs. It was amazing. I miss those days. I switched back after grad school because the migraines were getting awful and severely disrupting my work. I had gained those 20 back and now have another 30 post-grad school entry.
My point is that the neurological diseases like migraine, for which aspartame is a common trigger, are a mix of physiology, environmental changes, and nocebo effects. And unfortunately, it doesn't matter if we recognize that a trigger "sounds crazy," or if we know about nocebos. Once we've assigned meaning to a trigger, our messed up and overactive brains latch onto it.
In conclusion, I agree, as a scientist, that there are no studies to date conclusively linking fake sugars to diseases. But I also recognize that in some cases, like migraine, there is a real effect. Unfortunately for me, even a 12-oz stevia-sweetened soda causes a 3 day ordeal, so fake sugars are out. So I think, unfortunately, the answer will always be anecdotal. If you can eat it, great. If not, well, too bad.
EDITED: changed a typo "feed" to "feet"0 -
It's an interesting thread thanks. I was wondering if anyone had an informed opinion about saccharin, as I prefer it's flavour to aspartame. I assume it's safe from what I've seen, and I'll probably keep consuming it in my coffee regardless, though I'm curious. I believe It was involved in another rat cancer scare, though it's since been shown to be safe for humans? I can't say I've looked into it properly.0
-
It's an interesting thread thanks. I was wondering if anyone had an informed opinion about saccharin, as I prefer it's flavour to aspartame. I assume it's safe from what I've seen, and I'll probably keep consuming it in my coffee regardless, though I'm curious. I believe It was involved in another rat cancer scare, though it's since been shown to be safe for humans? I can't say I've looked into it properly.
I was wondering this as well, I also prefer saccharin and consume it daily in my coffee. I remember back when Sweet n Low had a warning label, which wasn't that long ago, and I'm sure had a lot to do with people's aversion and distrust of artificial sweeteners. Heck, I remember going to restaurants and the packets of sweeteners would be there on the table, and the warning label would be a conversation piece while we waited for our meals.0 -
Just adding a comment for any who suspect it's not safe in general because it's a migraine trigger for some:
My migraine trigger is more-than-usual (note: not necessarily excessive) exertion in the sun.
Migraine triggers can be a whole lotta things, and it doesn't make sense for other people to avoid things that trigger migraines in certain people. Everyone should still get their recommended dose of sunlight-induced vitamin D and plenty of healthy exertion.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions