Why Aspartame Isn't Scary

1202123252660

Replies

  • wizzybeth
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,578 Member
    I think it's scary simply because the taste is horrific.
  • YossDillo
    YossDillo Posts: 19
    I really appreciate you putting this up. I generally avoid sugar-free sodas and drinks for flavors sake, but now I won't feel as worried about the occasional no-calorie beverage.
  • walleymama
    walleymama Posts: 174 Member
    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!>.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    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!>.

    I do not like the taste either.

    I find this a good video - I doubt it is telling you anything you do not already know with your level of knowledge, but it shows a good example of the point you make in your penultimate paragraph:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYq8OzoMSFo&amp;index=4&amp;list=PLnPAPdT4m_g_8CRHRZZkp0Y7Ei4XKQSpY
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    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.
  • leahraskie
    leahraskie Posts: 260 Member
    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.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    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
  • brittyn3
    brittyn3 Posts: 481 Member
    Great post OP. I've enjoyed reading your responses to everyone as well. I personally LOVE d. pepsi. I prefer diet versions over regular, because I just don't care for the taste of regular. I have a few good friends who think aspartame is scary. I think at the end of the day ... to each their own.

    Cheers!
  • sjaplo
    sjaplo Posts: 974 Member
    I think it's scary simply because the taste is horrific.

    I have read the entire thread at work today - slow day and I have very competent people working for me! I think the "debate" (oh look I put it in quotation marks) was probably doomed from the start because people believe what they want to believe and everyone needs a label.

    However, I've quoted this poster because one thing keeps popping out at me. And bear in mind, I am just thinking out loud. About half the posters say they like the taste of artificial sweeteners and the other have say it's revolting. (I fall in the latter - except for Fresca and only then after one too many cognacs the night before)

    I get personal preference - but I'm wondering if there is something else here? I'm wondering if it is like cilantro where most people think it's delicious and a small percentage say it tastes like soap and can't stand it? Or like asparagus, where only a segment of the population can smell it in their urine.

    I know this is a bit of a hijack - but I think the original argument has been done to death.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    I think it's scary simply because the taste is horrific.

    I have read the entire thread at work today - slow day and I have very competent people working for me! I think the "debate" (oh look I put it in quotation marks) was probably doomed from the start because people believe what they want to believe and everyone needs a label.

    However, I've quoted this poster because one thing keeps popping out at me. And bear in mind, I am just thinking out loud. About half the posters say they like the taste of artificial sweeteners and the other have say it's revolting. (I fall in the latter - except for Fresca and only then after one too many cognacs the night before)

    I get personal preference - but I'm wondering if there is something else here? I'm wondering if it is like cilantro where most people think it's delicious and a small percentage say it tastes like soap and can't stand it? Or like asparagus, where only a segment of the population can smell it in their urine.

    I know this is a bit of a hijack - but I think the original argument has been done to death.

    Nah any sweetener question is valid really no hijack. I don't have an informed answer for the question but I would fully believe that what you describe is possibly true. I fall into the former category, I have no issue with the taste of artifical sweeteners and actually in many cases i prefer them because I find they don't coat my mouth or throat like sugar can. When someone says it tastes horrible or it gives them a headache I don't assume that they are making it up or exaggerating I assume that they have a different physiological response to it than I do because yeah, people can be different...especially when it comes to taste or things like headache triggers.
  • shmerek
    shmerek Posts: 963 Member
    http://suppversity.blogspot.co.nz/2014/05/artificial-sweetened-foods-promote-not.html?m=1

    New study shows artificial sweeteners promote weight lose
  • tony56pr
    tony56pr Posts: 141 Member
    Page after page because some believe nothing wrong with artificial stuff? If you wanna use it you will and if you don't want to use it you won't, case solved. No need talking about it, proving your case, showing all these studies, etc just who are you trying to convince? Have all of it you want go on I won't care. No need to justify it. Why take the time to prove so many wrong, be more for you to have all to your selves.

    Kind of reminds me of drug companies, cigarette companies, and of late auto companies. Push product onto everyone, sell it as a great product, deny health issues and possible side effects get everyone hooked then years down the road say oh yeah it does cause ________. In my view the entire post (part 1 and 2) is nothing but propaganda. Pointless. again, you can have all of it you want I won't stop you, but I have the right, at least I should, to stay away from aspartame as much as I can. Why does it matter if I don't subscribe to your views? And this is a sticky? Really?

    If someone believes something wrong with these sweeteners and avoid them can they not be healthy? I'd think so. I believe in low carb but I'm not going to take this much time trying to prove myself right, not worth it and honestly I know it can be done, weight loss, without going low carb. We all know you don't need aspartame to be healthy or thin or whatever so why does this deserve to be a sticky.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,302 Member
    Tony,nobody is saying you or anyone else has to consume artificial sweeteners.
    Or that one can't be healthy without them........of course that would be a really silly thing to say.

    Of course everyone can decide whether to consume whatever they like - but they do have right to make an informed choice, not a choice based on misinformation.

    I guess MFP decided to sticky this because it is such a common topic and the contents were so informative and relevant to many readers - the same reason any thread gets stickied really.
  • margeauxblue
    margeauxblue Posts: 1 Member
    I really like the following, "Do Artificial Sweeteners ‘Confuse’ The Body?" , post by Chris Kresser on the topic

    http://chriskresser.com/the-unbiased-truth-about-artificial-sweeteners

    "... rats who were given stevia solutions gained significantly more weight than the glucose-fed rats, and similar amounts of weight to the saccharin-fed rats. (24) Rats fed with artificial sweeteners also develop an impaired ability to respond to sugar-containing foods. In one study, rats who had been fed artificial sweeteners were unable to compensate for the calorie content of a sugar preload by eating less chow afterwards, while rats who had been fed sugar-containing food compensated almost perfectly for the extra calories in the preload by eating less chow."
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,302 Member
    I doubt that is unbiased margauxblue :wink:

    However humans are not rats and we can decide this sort of thing oursleves - if anyone does find, like the rats, that artificial sweeteners make them more hungry afterwards and they then find it harder to keep their intake under control - then sure, perhaps best for those individuals to avoid artificially sweetened things.

    Myself I can say they have no such effect on me and I can quite happily keep consuming them and stick to same calorie intake afterwards and not feel more hungry doing so.
  • Docmahi
    Docmahi Posts: 1,603 Member
    I <3 Aspartame
  • AlicesGrandma
    AlicesGrandma Posts: 45 Member
    I agree with you! My mom used Sweet N Low (which HAS been proved to cause cancer), but she lived to 89!
  • 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!
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    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.
  • Carnivor0us
    Carnivor0us Posts: 1,752 Member
    I agree with you! My mom used Sweet N Low (which HAS been proved to cause cancer), but she lived to 89!

    It was linked to bladder cancer in rats when saccharin (sweet 'n low) was combined with cyclamates (an artificial sweetener banned in the US). Even then it apparently was determined that the cancer developed due to some kind of mechanism that is unique to rats and not people.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

    Scroll down to #3.

    Dunno if this helps.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    I agree with you! My mom used Sweet N Low (which HAS been proved to cause cancer), but she lived to 89!

    It was linked to bladder cancer in rats when saccharin (sweet 'n low) was combined with cyclamates (an artificial sweetener banned in the US). Even then it apparently was determined that the cancer developed due to some kind of mechanism that is unique to rats and not people.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

    Scroll down to #3.

    Dunno if this helps.

    I do wonder how paranoid one must be to believe that a product that is still on the market and readily availabe has been "proven" to cause cancer.

    Honestly people there isn't a conspiracy to try to kill you. If something is shown to be carcinogenic or toxic it is not going to be put into food because A) if you believe that the FDA is actually interested in protecting health then obviously they would disallow that and B) if you believe that the FDA doesn't care and everything is driven by market forces then something like that would be pretty easy for competitors to market against. Makers of other artificial sweetners would sing from the rooftops how this other sweetener causes cancer. The reason that doesn't happen is because it doesn't cause cancer.
  • Lourdesong
    Lourdesong Posts: 1,492 Member
    I agree with you! My mom used Sweet N Low (which HAS been proved to cause cancer), but she lived to 89!

    It was linked to bladder cancer in rats when saccharin (sweet 'n low) was combined with cyclamates (an artificial sweetener banned in the US). Even then it apparently was determined that the cancer developed due to some kind of mechanism that is unique to rats and not people.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

    Scroll down to #3.

    Dunno if this helps.

    I do wonder how paranoid one must be to believe that a product that is still on the market and readily availabe has been "proven" to cause cancer.

    Honestly people there isn't a conspiracy to try to kill you. If something is shown to be carcinogenic or toxic it is not going to be put into food because A) if you believe that the FDA is actually interested in protecting health then obviously they would disallow that and B) if you believe that the FDA doesn't care and everything is driven by market forces then something like that would be pretty easy for competitors to market against. Makers of other artificial sweetners would sing from the rooftops how this other sweetener causes cancer. The reason that doesn't happen is because it doesn't cause cancer.

    I don't believe there is a conspiracy either. But there was a warning label on pink packets for decades about cancer and rats. I posted about this earlier, but that warning label was a conversation piece when waiting for our meals at restaurants many times. It's very recent history that the warning label was removed.
    That there is a widespread belief in the US that pink packets (or artificial sweetener in general) are proved to cause cancer, it is hardly a mystery why that is.
    If the surgeon generals warning was removed from cigarettes because of the discovery of some causal attribution error about cigarettes and cancer, it also wouldn't be that big of a mystery why most people would nevertheless be of the belief that cigarettes have been proven to cause cancer.

    I use pink packets multiple times a day, it's my favorite sweetener, I understand why the warning was removed, and I have enjoyed your thread. But I don't think the belief that artificial sweeteners cause cancer is entirely irrational given that one had a huge warning label stamped on it, and I don't agree that the FDA wouldn't continue to let something that has been shown to cause cancer to be put on the food market anyway because... did they not do exactly that with sweet n low with the caveat of stamping a warning label on it. i.e. consume at your own risk? That it isn't believed to be carcinogenic NOW has no bearing on what was believed about it THEN, does it? And the residual effects of that warning label seem what one might expect from a population that had been staring at a warning label on their artificial sweetener for decades.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    I agree with you! My mom used Sweet N Low (which HAS been proved to cause cancer), but she lived to 89!

    It was linked to bladder cancer in rats when saccharin (sweet 'n low) was combined with cyclamates (an artificial sweetener banned in the US). Even then it apparently was determined that the cancer developed due to some kind of mechanism that is unique to rats and not people.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

    Scroll down to #3.

    Dunno if this helps.

    I do wonder how paranoid one must be to believe that a product that is still on the market and readily availabe has been "proven" to cause cancer.

    Honestly people there isn't a conspiracy to try to kill you. If something is shown to be carcinogenic or toxic it is not going to be put into food because A) if you believe that the FDA is actually interested in protecting health then obviously they would disallow that and B) if you believe that the FDA doesn't care and everything is driven by market forces then something like that would be pretty easy for competitors to market against. Makers of other artificial sweetners would sing from the rooftops how this other sweetener causes cancer. The reason that doesn't happen is because it doesn't cause cancer.

    I don't believe there is a conspiracy either. But there was a warning label on pink packets for decades about cancer and rats. I posted about this earlier, but that warning label was a conversation piece when waiting for our meals at restaurants many times. It's very recent history that the warning label was removed.
    That there is a widespread belief in the US that pink packets (or artificial sweetener in general) are proved to cause cancer, it is hardly a mystery why that is.
    If the surgeon generals warning was removed from cigarettes because of the discovery of some causal attribution error about cigarettes and cancer, it also wouldn't be that big of a mystery why most people would nevertheless be of the belief that cigarettes have been proven to cause cancer.

    I use pink packets multiple times a day, it's my favorite sweetener, I understand why the warning was removed, and I have enjoyed your thread. But I don't think the belief that artificial sweeteners cause cancer is entirely irrational given that one had a huge warning label stamped on it, and I don't agree that the FDA wouldn't continue to let something that has been shown to cause cancer to be put on the food market anyway because... did they not do exactly that with sweet n low with the caveat of stamping a warning label on it. i.e. consume at your own risk? That it isn't believed to be carcinogenic NOW has no bearing on what was believed about it THEN, does it? And the residual effects of that warning label seem what one might expect from a population that had been staring at a warning label on their artificial sweetener for decades.

    I think you make some valid points but just to clarify what I said was do you think the FDA would allow something to remain on the market that had been PROVEN to cause cancer. Saccharine was never proven to cause cancer. There was one study, that was discussed previously in this thread, where in combination with another molecule in high dose some rats got cancer. That study was not particularly convincing but in a move that I consider to be a mistake (and the FDA later decided was a mistake) on the basis of that possibility they applied a warning label despite there being insufficient evidence. When later time and time again other studies showed no effect they eventually removed the label.

    As for cigarettes they aren't food and therefore are not regulated in the same way. There is also a big difference between an identifiable product (like a cigarette) and the inclusion of an ingredient within foods (as saccharine is used in many products). The analogy would be would the FDA allow the inclusion of nicotine in food products. Do you think they would?

    I will agree with you though based on that former label I can see why people are hesitant or unsure about it. That said there is a big BIG difference between being hesitant and unsure (which I understand) and loudly proclaiming in a public forum that saccharine "has been proven to cause cancer" which I do not understand. I do think that is fairly paranoid and not very well thought out.
  • Lourdesong
    Lourdesong Posts: 1,492 Member
    I think you make some valid points but just to clarify what I said was do you think the FDA would allow something to remain on the market that had been PROVEN to cause cancer. Saccharine was never proven to cause cancer. There was one study, that was discussed previously in this thread, where in combination with another molecule in high dose some rats got cancer. That study was not particularly convincing but in a move that I consider to be a mistake (and the FDA later decided was a mistake) on the basis of that possibility they applied a warning label despite there being insufficient evidence. When later time and time again other studies showed no effect they eventually removed the label.

    As for cigarettes they aren't food and therefore are not regulated in the same way. There is also a big difference between an identifiable product (like a cigarette) and the inclusion of an ingredient within foods (as saccharine is used in many products). The analogy would be would the FDA allow the inclusion of nicotine in food products. Do you think they would?

    The point of my analogy was just to illustrate the idea of the public needing an adjustment period. I used cigarettes as being analogous insofar as they have a warning label and it's part of the collective conscience now that they 'cause cancer.' This was once also so (though to a much smaller degree) for saccharin, rightly or wrongly, so a person not fully adjusted to the new (for him) revelation that saccharin does not cause cancer, I think that is understandable. Just as it would be understandable if the public doesn't adjust right away to any revelation that cigarettes don't cause cancer. (I think suspicion at that revelation would be ubiquitous and understandably so)
    The differences in how these products are regulated I don't feel detracts from the point of my analogy, and you recognized the greater point I was making later.
    I will agree with you though based on that former label I can see why people are hesitant or unsure about it. That said there is a big BIG difference between being hesitant and unsure (which I understand) and loudly proclaiming in a public forum that saccharine "has been proven to cause cancer" which I do not understand. I do think that is fairly paranoid and not very well thought out.

    Perhaps not well thought-out, people toss around 'proven' 'proof' and 'proved' pretty carelessly, when what they probably mean is something a lot less strong than that, like "science supports blah blah". The poster who said saccharin was proved to cause cancer, I didn't suspect them to be pushing paranoia or conspiracies, but rather was repeating what they probably learned from a warning stamp on a pink packet. Evidently they didn't take that knowledge too seriously given their accompanying personal anecdote about their mother's longevity that appeared to the poster to defy the science. :)

    And that was what I really getting at, that posters like that one are more likely a remnant of the warning label era, rather than a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I do think it's kind of ironic though that they essentially rejected what they thought was the science in favor of personal anecdote. :)
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    I think you make some valid points but just to clarify what I said was do you think the FDA would allow something to remain on the market that had been PROVEN to cause cancer. Saccharine was never proven to cause cancer. There was one study, that was discussed previously in this thread, where in combination with another molecule in high dose some rats got cancer. That study was not particularly convincing but in a move that I consider to be a mistake (and the FDA later decided was a mistake) on the basis of that possibility they applied a warning label despite there being insufficient evidence. When later time and time again other studies showed no effect they eventually removed the label.

    As for cigarettes they aren't food and therefore are not regulated in the same way. There is also a big difference between an identifiable product (like a cigarette) and the inclusion of an ingredient within foods (as saccharine is used in many products). The analogy would be would the FDA allow the inclusion of nicotine in food products. Do you think they would?

    The point of my analogy was just to illustrate the idea of the public needing an adjustment period. I used cigarettes as being analogous insofar as they have a warning label and it's part of the collective conscience now that they 'cause cancer.' This was once also so (though to a much smaller degree) for saccharin, rightly or wrongly, so a person not fully adjusted to the new (for him) revelation that saccharin does not cause cancer, I think that is understandable. Just as it would be understandable if the public doesn't adjust right away to any revelation that cigarettes don't cause cancer. (I think suspicion at that revelation would be ubiquitous and understandably so)
    The differences in how these products are regulated I don't feel detracts from the point of my analogy, and you recognized the greater point I was making later.
    I will agree with you though based on that former label I can see why people are hesitant or unsure about it. That said there is a big BIG difference between being hesitant and unsure (which I understand) and loudly proclaiming in a public forum that saccharine "has been proven to cause cancer" which I do not understand. I do think that is fairly paranoid and not very well thought out.

    Perhaps not well thought-out, people toss around 'proven' 'proof' and 'proved' pretty carelessly, when what they probably mean is something a lot less strong than that, like "science supports blah blah". The poster who said saccharin was proved to cause cancer, I didn't suspect them to be pushing paranoia or conspiracies, but rather was repeating what they probably learned from a warning stamp on a pink packet. Evidently they didn't take that knowledge too seriously given their accompanying personal anecdote about their mother's longevity that appeared to the poster to defy the science. :)

    And that was what I really getting at, that posters like that one are more likely a remnant of the warning label era, rather than a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I do think it's kind of ironic though that they essentially rejected what they thought was the science in favor of personal anecdote. :)

    Yeah okay, I get what you are saying and yeah I think you are right.
  • mainecasey1
    mainecasey1 Posts: 12 Member
    For some people, artificial sweeteners like aspartame trigger migraines. I know first hand.
  • For some people, artificial sweeteners like aspartame trigger migraines. I know first hand.

    Science doesn't believe aspartame is actually causing that migrane:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3657889

    The incidence rate of headache after aspartame (35 percent) was not significantly different from that after placebo (45 percent) (P less than 0.50). No serious reactions were observed, and the incidence of symptoms other than headache following aspartame was also equivalent to that after placebo. No treatment-related effects were detected in vital signs, blood pressure, or plasma concentrations of cortisol, insulin, glucagon, histamine, epinephrine, or norepinephrine. Most of the subjects were well educated and overweight and had a family or personal history of allergic reactions. The subjects who had headaches had lower plasma concentrations of norepinephrine (P less than 0.0002) and epinephrine (P less than 0.02) just before the development of headache. We conclude that in this population, aspartame is no more likely to produce headache than placebo.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,302 Member
    Hmmm, although I am one of the great defenders of aspartame in threads like these - I do think migraines are so individual and so varied in cause.

    If people say they get migraines from aspartame, I beleive them.
    No problem there.

    My only problem is when people then say it is bad for everyone.

    Mainecasey did not do that.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Hmmm, although I am one of the great defenders of aspartame in threads like these - I do think migraines are so individual and so varied in cause.

    If people say they get migraines from aspartame, I beleive them.
    No problem there.

    My only problem is when people then say it is bad for everyone.

    Mainecasey did not do that.

    I am with you on this one. A nocebo effect still creates a negative reaction in people, so to them, it is real. However, that can be a self-fulfilling prophesy in a way so is a bit of 'iffy line to follow for everything.