Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

I just wanted to say Thank You to Aaron for bringing intellectually stimulating discussions back to MFP. If I never see another "is the person above you hot?" thread, it will be too soon.

As a former research scientist myself (cardiac electrophysiology), you speak my language. I've known for many years that aspartame was simply made up of amino acids and have therefore never been afraid of it. I am, however, one of those genetic freaks who can taste it, and I find it extremely unpleasant, so I avoid it for that reason only. I save my non-diet Ginger Ales for running days. :-)

I currently work as an academic editor/reviewer of scientific papers being submitted for publication. When I read an article online about a study and then go read the original study, I'm astonished at how often the former gets it wrong. However, while anybody can go to PubMed and read an article there, it does take some skill, knowledge, and/or training to know how to sift the wheat from the chaff and critically evaluate a paper. It's not always easy and it takes a lot more time than most people are willing to devote to issues that aren't very high on their priority list.

If they did away with school curricula and replaced it with one lifelong course on critical thinking, the world would be a better place <wink!>.

Thank you, that means a lot to me and yes I couldn't agree more with your points. I don't actually expect people to necessarily take the time to learn how to critiically evaluate the scientific literature and then do so whenever faced with evidence from a study. That said I do hope that people strive to be intellectually honest and cite the actual source of what it is they have read on the topic and not cite studies they haven't read. That doesn't just go for people on MFP forums either, really the number one offender in that in my belief is our own news media. I cringe at how little effort they seem to put in into writting editorials and pieces on science and how completely backwards they get things. Studies I've seen quoted time and time again by a public who really only read an op-ed piece by a person who clearly hadn't read and comprehended the study themselves because if you look at the actual study it doesn't at all say what the article says.

It is frustrating. I get what you say about critical thinking but I would add to that that I wish people learned how to cite and why it is important to do so. If we as the public and news organizations as our media only cited things we actually read and understood then there would be a lot less jaw flapping and a lot less misinformation out there. If you cite something you are saying to everyone "I have read, critically evaluated and understood the following and I am summarizing its relevant points" if you cite a study that you haven't even read because you read another source that also cited that study then frankly you are being intellectually dishonest.

I was so happy to see this topic. I'm going to work in the biochemistry field and it's difficult for people to understand how products will affect them or "a couple of studies showed this causes cancer in mice. It causes cancer."

Unfortunately, I have some issues with processing it myself. I get hypoglycemia from drinking products containing aspartame if not taken with food. I was wondering if you had any research on this subject in previous posts, my boyfriend suggested that it's my body thinking it's getting sugar but not actually then raising insulin levels in response, but I haven't found much on the subject.

The studies I have seen have not supported the idea that artificial sweeteners trigger an insulin response above the basal response you get from ingesting anything (even water). That said if you have a clear trigger from ingesting X to having bad symptom Y I of course think you take the right course of action to just avoid X.

Here is an example study but I have only read the abstract. Seaching google scholar for aspartame and insulin response will likely get you some good links to follow up on on pubmed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3046854

I have only read some of the posts in the last hour, so please forgive me if I am repeating a question already asked. I read a couple supposed studies a while back pertaining to "aspartsme toxicity," and one of the points made was that the body stores excess toxins in fat cells to protect itself. If this is true, would the percentages of methanol build up enough in the body to cause an adverse reaction? I wish I could remember which study it was in order to post the reference. Anyway, I'm curious if the concept has any scientific merit. Thank you to anyone that can provide insight!

The body doesn't store "toxins" in fat, it stores things that are fat soluble (as opposed to water soluble) in fat. This can be harmful things (toxins), it can be neutral things and it can be useful things (like vitamin D). The key though is that what it stores is hydrophobic molecules.

Methanol, as an alcohol, is hydrophilic (water soluble) and therefore would not be stored in fat tissue.

Also the body would have no reason to store alcohol, it doesn't attempt to store alcohol period.