Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

Doctors say the aspartame is bad.

The guy who taught me Organic Chemistry (of which I remember NONE, except that it was the most horrible, difficult and boring class in the history of the world and I hated it and even got my only damn B, so don't come at me with ether, double bonds or alkenes, I don't remember anything!) held my bottle of Diet Pepsi up for all to see when he ranted about aspartame. (And he *****ed at me when I showed up for the next class with another bottle, lol.)

There seems to be a lot of different opinions on the stuff.

I could rant against mealy, crappy, hothouse tomatoes. That doesn't mean they are scary or dangerous.

That is very true.

A guy who teaches Organic Chem on a university level has to know a little something about chemistry.

Doctors, too, are people whose opinions I factor in.

People who know their business seem to have very different opinions.

I couldn't pick a side. I continued to drink the stuff for many years, kicked it, went back, it was a vicious cycle. I'm just now, actually really done with it for good, which is why I looked at this. I didn't want to hear about it being bad when I still wanted to drink it, lol.

But until there is a consensus among people who know what they're talking about, it's hard to pick a side.

Honestly this is a false equivalence. It is claiming that years of meticulous study, published results and sceintific consensus in the field (yes consensus) that there is no toxicity or carcinogenicity risks associated with aspartame is somehow equivelent to anecdotal stories or personal opinions,

Everyone has their biases, I have my biases, you have your biases, the O-chem teacher or the Doctor has their biases. It is impossible to separate our biases from our perceptions. The entire purpose of the scientific method and the cornerstone of the scientific endeavor is to limit the influence of personal bias by requiring that things be experimentally tested with controls in place and that the unadulterated results of those experiments along with the results of the associated controls be published along with whatever the authors of the studies conjectures might be. The reasoning is that by requiring the data and controls be published it allows anyone to read the study and from the data draw their own conclusions, or, if not drawing their own conclusions at least be able to compare the authors conclusions critically to their supplied data.

Problem is no one seems to bother to do this. Not the public, not the media. I will say as I have said time and time again in this post, I am not saying listen to me...I am not saying listen to O-chem prof....I am saying look at the studies, read them (not articles on the internet about them, the studies themselves). If you cannot be bothered then at least do everyone the favor of not spreading around uninformed unread unstudied anecdotes because it helps no one.

There is a reason science disregards anecdote, it is in fact the foundation principle of science that anecdote be disregarded because it is inherently biased.

Read the studies, look at the data...reference the studies you have read, reference the data you can then provide and then we can have a discussion. As someone previously mentioned this does not require a PhD it just requires lifting more than a few fingers to type out a story you heard one time or a person who said something to you or how you get headaches when you do this thing.

And like the Little Red Hen most can't seem to be bothered with the work but are happy to chime in with their opinions based on heresay. No, I am sorry...these two things are not somehow equivalent.

Doctors say the aspartame is bad.

The guy who taught me Organic Chemistry (of which I remember NONE, except that it was the most horrible, difficult and boring class in the history of the world and I hated it and even got my only damn B, so don't come at me with ether, double bonds or alkenes, I don't remember anything!) held my bottle of Diet Pepsi up for all to see when he ranted about aspartame. (And he *****ed at me when I showed up for the next class with another bottle, lol.)

There seems to be a lot of different opinions on the stuff.

I could rant against mealy, crappy, hothouse tomatoes. That doesn't mean they are scary or dangerous.

That is very true.

A guy who teaches Organic Chem on a university level has to know a little something about chemistry.

Doctors, too, are people whose opinions I factor in.

People who know their business seem to have very different opinions.

I couldn't pick a side. I continued to drink the stuff for many years, kicked it, went back, it was a vicious cycle. I'm just now, actually really done with it for good, which is why I looked at this. I didn't want to hear about it being bad when I still wanted to drink it, lol.

But until there is a consensus among people who know what they're talking about, it's hard to pick a side.

Honestly this is a false equivalence. It is claiming that years of meticulous study, published results and sceintific consensus in the field (yes consensus) that there is no toxicity or carcinogenicity risks associated with aspartame is somehow equivelent to anecdotal stories or personal opinions,

Everyone has their biases, I have my biases, you have your biases, the O-chem teacher or the Doctor has their biases. It is impossible to separate our biases from our perceptions. The entire purpose of the scientific method and the cornerstone of the scientific endeavor is to limit the influence of personal bias by requiring that things be experimentally tested with controls in place and that the unadulterated results of those experiments along with the results of the associated controls be published along with whatever the authors of the studies conjectures might be. The reasoning is that by requiring the data and controls be published it allows anyone to read the study and from the data draw their own conclusions, or, if not drawing their own conclusions at least be able to compare the authors conclusions critically to their supplied data.

Problem is no one seems to bother to do this. Not the public, not the media. I will say as I have said time and time again in this post, I am not saying listen to me...I am not saying listen to O-chem prof....I am saying look at the studies, read them (not articles on the internet about them, the studies themselves). If you cannot be bothered then at least do everyone the favor of not spreading around uninformed unread unstudied anecdotes because it helps no one.

There is a reason science disregards anecdote, it is in fact the foundation principle of science that anecdote be disregarded because it is inherently biased.

Read the studies, look at the data...reference the studies you have read, reference the data you can then provide and then we can have a discussion. As someone previously mentioned this does not require a PhD it just requires lifting more than a few fingers to type out a story you heard one time or a person who said something to you or how you get headaches when you do this thing.

And like the Little Red Hen most can't seem to be bothered with the work but are happy to chime in with their opinions based on heresay. No, I am sorry...these two things are not somehow equivalent.

Since I have neither the background nor the inclination to study aspartame, I have to rely on people who know more than I do to advise me. They haven't agreed. Until they all agree, I can't know. So I don't take a side.

If you are convinced it is safe and you want to drink it up, go for it!!! Since I couldn't pick a side, I proceeded as if there wasn't a side to be chosen.

That isn't a position I have an issue with to be honest, that seems reasonable...can't be bothered, don't feel the need to eat/drink products that have it so abstain from it...sure. The position I take issue with are those who, with the same amount of ignorance on the subject, decide to be voice out there unsubstantiated opinion that aspartame is dangerous making claims that it causes cancer or is toxic publicly and warn others away from using it due to the "danger". That sort of post on MFP was what I took issue with and was the original inspiration for this post. The "shrug, I'd just rather not bother with it" position or the "it gives me headaches so I avoid it" position I think is totally reasonable.

As I have stated before many a time my point wasn't to advocate for aspartame and try to convince absolutely everyone that they somehow needed to imbibe things with aspartame...clearly they don't. I could care less what people choose or not choose to eat or drink when it comes to fluff like a diet soda, I was just responding to what I viewed as uninformed misinformation being spread quite liberally throughout the forum with regards to the "dangers" of aspartame which are non-existent. I take some offense at the conspircy theories that somehow science has demonstrated the dangers but the food industry has covered it up for the purpose of profit, that is just downright wrong. I do not consider that to be an "opinion" either, if you look to the literature there are no examples of aspartame related toxicity...none, however there are many many many studies demonstrating no toxic effects whatsoever in a myriad of different clinical trials. There is no debate on this in the scientific literature and I realize you cannot be bothered to go check to see if thats true and fine as long as you don't try to draw some equivalence between your ignorance of the scientific literature and what you heard on the interwebz in anecdote and blog posts. There of course are plenty of internet blogs about that and plenty of people on forums with anecdotes but to compare the studies undertaken to Joe-Blow's blog as somehow equivalent I take issue with.