Should I eliminate aspartame from my life? My Doctor says yes!
Replies
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
lol I'm guessing you have credentials yourself?0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
What is with everyone's obsession with credentials on this forum?
You don't need a PhD to know the fundamentals of nutrition.0 -
What about the natural ones like Stevia?
Stevia is implicated in the same problems. And no artificial sweetener is natural. One of the biggest jokes in the supplement industry is tricking people into thinking stevia is natural.
If you can eat stevia, you may as well consume sucralose or aspartame. Stevia may even be more dangerous if you want to get technical (for both genders, affects on sexual organs, plasma testosterone levels, fertility, etc).
Am I overly worried? No. Im just pointing out that between stevia and something like sucralose, sucralose is potentially safer.
OP, some links to show your doctor and calm your concerns:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24120730
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20689731
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23891579
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17397982
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12180494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23891579
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1894884
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25344624
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25091794
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19464334
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230009000786
0 -
According to a systematic review from Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(8):629-727, you can just go ahead and consume it, for further reading see below!
"Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Peace Out!0 -
Dump that artificial sweetener and get Stevia as your replacement. Pepsi is dumping it out of their low-cal sodas. That time is coming. Soon it will be gone.0
-
campjackson wrote: »Hello Everyone!
I just got back from seeing my cardiologist with a glowing report that I am praising the Lord for giving me my health back. During our conversation, my Doctor noted that I had lost weight. I told her that I had been on Nutri System...and that I really LOVE the frozen food plan! She said that Nutri System was a good way to lose weight...but that I needed to watch the labels to make sure that there were no Aspartame in the ingredients. She went on to say that Aspartame usage will result in very slow weight loss...or NONE at all...and that I should stop the Diet Coke as it was full of Aspartame. Right then and there...I swore off "pop" for ever!
But when I got home...I noticed that almost all the diet foods and drinks have Aspartame in them. Now I am wondering what I am going to eat. And I need a second opinion. Any help would be so appreciated! Roland
The theory is that use of an artificial sweetener leads to a spike in insulin production via classical conditioning. It's gotten some basis in rat studies, and the reasoning is sound, but we're not rats. I consume stevia, aspartame, and sucralose fairly regularly and I have no problem losing weight. As another poster basically said, artificial sweeteners can't violate the laws of thermodynamics.0 -
I would eliminate that doctor from my life.0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Dump that artificial sweetener and get Stevia as your replacement. Pepsi is dumping it out of their low-cal sodas. That time is coming. Soon it will be gone.
Your opinion is not based in science; rather, popular marketing tactics of a commercial product. And if you're an avid reader of "Pepsi news"... chances are you aren't a reliable source for accurate nutritional information.
0 -
As others have said, Stevia is the one sugar alternative that actually has some legitimate health concerns.tedboosalis7 wrote: »Dump that artificial sweetener and get Stevia as your replacement. Pepsi is dumping it out of their low-cal sodas. That time is coming. Soon it will be gone.
Saying Pepsi is dropping aspartame (they're switching to splenda / sucralose, not Stevia) is appeal to popularity. Also, they're foolish for doing it. The same people that are afraid of diet pepsi with aspartame will always be afraid of diet pepsi, even if it contains paleo vegan raw before 4 all natural organic non-gmo verfied unicorn farts as a sweetener.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's posts like this that remind me that doctors can be just as riddled with misinformation as the rest of us.
Aspartame will not slow or stop your weight loss. Or at least if it will, I am a special snowflake who has lost weight consistently and always while using aspartame or splenda or stevia or a bunch of other artificial sweeteners.
I thought Stevia is a natural sweetener.0 -
^Don't believe everything "they" tell you.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
What is with everyone's obsession with credentials on this forum?
You don't need a PhD to know the fundamentals of nutrition.
Of course, I don't disagree. Not only was I not criticizing your credentials, I also was not criticizing your knowledge. But this "because science" statement I keep hearing is a little bit too authoritative. Experts wouldn't even use that slang... and they probably got to be experts by keeping an open mind and not dismissing people with statements that convey a false sense of authority.
People have to stop concerning themselves with sensitivities and start looking at the facts.
If someone is too direct with you, try not to take it to heart. Rather, research what they "claim" and see for yourself. This is a very large world. You cannot believe what everyone tells you... even so-called professionals like Doctor Oz or Mercola.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
^Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.
Do more research for yourself instead of relying on (or criticizing) what other's say... Problem solved.
(By the way)... There are a lot of doctors, dieticians, nutritionists, etc. who have little to no clue what they are talking about in certain nutrition-related contexts. They are human beings, just like everyone else.
All in all, "general comments and opinions" don't help anyone here...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
And doing your own research instead of blindly following others would correct all of that hesitation and skepticism.0
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
lol I'm guessing you have credentials yourself?
That's actually not the point. I think general comments and opinions are welcomed by everyone. I certainly welcome them. And some of the most insightful comments I've heard often come from those without formal credentials.
But to convey the point, I have more letters after my name than within my name, and I don't have an overly short name. That's not used as a bragging tool and it's not even relevant whether you even believe me, but I say this to highlight the fact that despite my credentials, I don't drop this "because science" and I try to avoid these blanket statements that I see everywhere authoritatively stating that one side of the argument is clearly better than the other "because science", or that I'm right "because science". What people really do in that regard is red flag themselves as closed minded to those whose jobs in life revolve around actual science or health care applications. Especially when they quote high school physics and chemistry principles and apply them to topics of clinical relevance with highly erroneous assumptions of the variables at hand. It's just so.... exposing.
This includes people WITH credentials btw. I've met plenty in my line of work who say the equivalent of "because science" with great consistency, and time always reveals them to limit their own ceiling of knowledge and performance to a significant degree. Just because of their attitude.
I just don't get why people can't keep their minds open and digest info from both sides, and applaud whenever someone shares information regardless if it is for or against their point. Eventually, you end up picking a side for practical reasons, but you always keep the doors open and always keep learning.
I'd argue that you're merely building a straw man of MFP users who cry "science" without provided citations to relevant sources, when many citations of many sources have been posted time and time again. a large number of posts you may see are repeated answers to questions which themselves have been repeated countless times.
often a new poster will arrive making specious claims and quickly be shot down by forum vets who may or may not provide the relevant evidence in those particular replies. you may even be able to sense the weariness and sentiment that the issue has been addressed many times before.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »And doing your own research instead of blindly following others would correct all of that hesitation and skepticism.
Yes, people should do their own research. You do yours. I do mine. If we happen to have open minds that allow us to further ourselves in life, then we share. That was established long ago.
But here is my last blunt attempt at the overall point. Using the shortest way possible:
Please everyone stop saying "because science". It immediately tells the science world that your science knowledge is anything but. Except the unsuspecting.
So you want thorough, in depth, concrete research and multiple scientific links from everyone and anyone who ever posts a factual reply on an internet forum.
Got it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
Nah, you can figure it out. You're a smart lady... no need to have others do the work for you
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »And doing your own research instead of blindly following others would correct all of that hesitation and skepticism.
Yes, people should do their own research. You do yours. I do mine. If we happen to have open minds that allow us to further ourselves in life, then we share. That was established long ago.
But here is my last blunt attempt at the overall point. Using the shortest way possible:
Please everyone stop saying "because science". It immediately tells the science world that your science knowledge is anything but. Except the unsuspecting.
So you want thorough, in depth, concrete research and multiple scientific links from everyone and anyone who ever posts a factual reply on an internet forum.
Got it.
No. You don't got it. Inserting a statement that I (or anyone else) never said is not Got-ing it.
This was my statement, which I am only re-iterating because I just realized that there may be a small chance that there is a language barrier, which is the only excusable cause for misinterpretation at this point.
HERE. IS. MY. MAIN. POINT. Stop saying "Because science". Because stupid.
Stop asserting your opinion when its grounded in no scientific factual data...
It. Is. Stupid.
Learn for yourself. This isn't 2nd grade and there aren't training wheels to save you.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
Nah, you can figure it out. You're a smart lady... no need to have others do the work for you
Oh, I did figure it out. You decided to throw out science when in reality...yeah, not so much. I am a smart lady and can sense someone talking BS out their *kitten* pretty gosh darn quick. Full of it.
Then your senses are very poor. As is your intelligence.stevencloser wrote: »
Again, do the research. It is a heavily processed food.
0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »It's posts like this that remind me that doctors can be just as riddled with misinformation as the rest of us.
Aspartame will not slow or stop your weight loss. Or at least if it will, I am a special snowflake who has lost weight consistently and always while using aspartame or splenda or stevia or a bunch of other artificial sweeteners.
I thought Stevia is a natural sweetener.
Stevia leaves are natural, but something being natural doesn't make it good (arsenic is natural). The sweetening agent you end up eating is chemically extracted from the plant. What you consume is most definitely a processed product and likely has a bulking agent added to it.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions