Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
brentfostwood904 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
For your reading pleasure:
http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-399/pdf
The first one you linked is by "scientists" from "Research and Development, The NutraSweet Company," Meaning there is a very strong research bias. Meaning I know that the study is worthless before even continuing to read beyond the first few lines. If you want to find a decent study on anything then try to find one where there is no research bias or conflict of interest in the people involved. (These people get paid by NutraSweet to produce research which says that NutraSweet products are safe, this is something you must be aware of when reading any kind of research).
The second one I dont have time to read through right now but I might get back to you later.
Discrediting science based on funds shows a lack of understand for how research is conducted. You need to understand the parameters of the study and evaluate the techniques... not the source of money. All studies must receive funding somehow. You really should watch the video I posted. Layne Norton is a very well respected scientist and has first hand knowledge. He even addresses your fund concerns.
And under the parameters of your study, it would never translate to humans.
one of the first things you learn when learning how to read and interpret papers is to look at who has written the paper and to see if there is an agenda there. One of the things I learnt in even the first year of my degree is how corrupt the FDA is and how corrupt a lot of research is, believe it or not. It is very bad to start reading papers about aspartame where all the researchers are working for and paid by nutrasweet haha. This is just really basic seriously, it's bad that you didnt know that and would just read anything without thinking about who is writing it and why. It is completely discredited due to a thing called conflict of interest/research bias. Even if you decided to reference that paper in an essay you would probably be marked down badly for choosing such a biased example.
I dont know where you got the idea that the parameters of the study I chose to link it would never translate to humans. This just seems like very wishful thinking because you want your opinion to be correct, probably because you dont want to look bad for having been promoting aspartame as safe for so long then having to go back on what you were saying. The parameters of the study were actually very good. The research methods were nice.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »aspartame overexcites neurons in the brain, causing them to die, in specific areas such as the hippocampus. Animal studies with aspartame have shown a hole in the hippocampus being caused by aspartame. My ex girlfriend who is now 21 used to drink about 8 cans of diet coke every day for years since the age of 12, and her memory is terrible, I fully believe the link to neuron death due to aspartame and I've seen how addictive it can get (she could not deal with not having diet coke at all and any aspartame free substitute did not work). It is something which is both addictive and causes death of neurons. Best avoided.
You have two big holes in your brain, they are called ventricles. By what mechanism is this neurotoxicity inferred? I have a degree in neuroscience so I'm pretty confident I can evaluate the research.
The "holes" were caused by neuron death, not ventricles lol. Did you read what I linked before? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S22132317140006401 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
Oh God, not another rat brain study. You have to be VERY careful about those studies, although they can be useful markets there have been no studies that have actually shown these neurotoxic issues in humans who consume artificial sweetners unlike, for instance, studies of those who play contact sports or drink large amounts of alcohol yet we see a lot less panic in those. The primary suspicion is on methanol and it's metabolites, which are known already to be problematic but as mentioned by the OP, aspartame is a very small contributor to methanol in the body and increases in free radicals. Other foods, that nobody has an issue with, are higher as he already pointed out. Also, I notice they used mice that did not have folate production and where on a folate deficient diet (to "mimic" humans) and this itself could be an issue since they are likely aware that normal mice would not suffer from these effects. It might also not be very useful for humans who are not folate deficient.
So, yes, we can show potential damage in lab rats but translating that information into humans in the wild is not something that has been demonstrated. The number of lab rat studies that have shown "proof" of something yet failed to show these results in humans is legion so it's an indicator of a potential but not necessarily evidence of issues in humans.
ETA, also noticed that the dosage was really high. 40mg/kg bw is 2160 mg/day for a 120lb person and diet coke has 500mg per L (approx. 32oz). That would be a lot of diet coke to drink in a day.
there will NEVER be a study on humans like this because it will never meet the ethical approval. It's not allowed to purposely harm people for research. The dosage was specifically chosen because it is what the FDA says is safe for human consumption...0 -
anyway really, I dont have time to talk to people on the internet about this, I actually have work to do... if people want to read more about it then it's on them.0
-
brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
For your reading pleasure:
http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-399/pdf
The first one you linked is by "scientists" from "Research and Development, The NutraSweet Company," Meaning there is a very strong research bias. Meaning I know that the study is worthless before even continuing to read beyond the first few lines. If you want to find a decent study on anything then try to find one where there is no research bias or conflict of interest in the people involved. (These people get paid by NutraSweet to produce research which says that NutraSweet products are safe, this is something you must be aware of when reading any kind of research).
The second one I dont have time to read through right now but I might get back to you later.
Discrediting science based on funds shows a lack of understand for how research is conducted. You need to understand the parameters of the study and evaluate the techniques... not the source of money. All studies must receive funding somehow. You really should watch the video I posted. Layne Norton is a very well respected scientist and has first hand knowledge. He even addresses your fund concerns.
And under the parameters of your study, it would never translate to humans.
one of the first things you learn when learning how to read and interpret papers is to look at who has written the paper and to see if there is an agenda there. One of the things I learnt in even the first year of my degree is how corrupt the FDA is and how corrupt a lot of research is, believe it or not. It is very bad to start reading papers about aspartame where all the researchers are working for and paid by nutrasweet haha. This is just really basic seriously, it's bad that you didnt know that and would just read anything without thinking about who is writing it and why. It is completely discredited due to a thing called conflict of interest/research bias. Even if you decided to reference that paper in an essay you would probably be marked down badly for choosing such a biased example.
I dont know where you got the idea that the parameters of the study I chose to link it would never translate to humans. This just seems like very wishful thinking because you want your opinion to be correct, probably because you dont want to look bad for having been promoting aspartame as safe for so long then having to go back on what you were saying. The parameters of the study were actually very good. The research methods were nice.
Not sure what degree taught you a conspiracy theory but that aside what do you like about the study methods? I found the thing that stood out for me is that they use folic deficient mice. One way to test for folic deficiency is elevation in methylmalonic acid levels, which is one of the suspected culprits here. What does a folic deficiency manifest in? Well among other things, neurological problems similar to what you see in this, cherry picked, study so in other words, the researchers demonstrated what we would expect when we increase methanol levels without the protection of folic acids. Ok, does that mean it was a bad design? No, I wouldn't say that was the case becasue they had a control group that showed the differences, but it certainly doesn't provide any new evidence of problems in humans. They did try to show that it was the methanol and metabolites like MMA level that were the issue and this was exactly what we would have expected and that those came from the breakdown of aspartame into methanol and it's metabolites. So I think this was exactly what we I would expect; however, it is a stretch to say that we give large doses, beyond what humans would consume daily, to mice that have no remedy to fomate the MMA and say this is something that is a danger in humans when so many studies have confirmed it's safety.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).
Soo...... i think i am good.
they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.
Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.
I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.
Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.
None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?
It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.
I fail to see how submitting humans to a study in which they are prescribed a substance in quantities deemed safe by the FDA would violate any ethical standards.
well firstly if the research hypothesis states that they predict neuron damage or anything like this will occur, then the study wont be approved for humans. Secondly the brains of the rats were dissected to be properly studied because how are you going to study the effect on the brain in the human subjects?1 -
brentfostwood904 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
Oh God, not another rat brain study. You have to be VERY careful about those studies, although they can be useful markets there have been no studies that have actually shown these neurotoxic issues in humans who consume artificial sweetners unlike, for instance, studies of those who play contact sports or drink large amounts of alcohol yet we see a lot less panic in those. The primary suspicion is on methanol and it's metabolites, which are known already to be problematic but as mentioned by the OP, aspartame is a very small contributor to methanol in the body and increases in free radicals. Other foods, that nobody has an issue with, are higher as he already pointed out. Also, I notice they used mice that did not have folate production and where on a folate deficient diet (to "mimic" humans) and this itself could be an issue since they are likely aware that normal mice would not suffer from these effects. It might also not be very useful for humans who are not folate deficient.
So, yes, we can show potential damage in lab rats but translating that information into humans in the wild is not something that has been demonstrated. The number of lab rat studies that have shown "proof" of something yet failed to show these results in humans is legion so it's an indicator of a potential but not necessarily evidence of issues in humans.
ETA, also noticed that the dosage was really high. 40mg/kg bw is 2160 mg/day for a 120lb person and diet coke has 500mg per L (approx. 32oz). That would be a lot of diet coke to drink in a day.
there will NEVER be a study on humans like this because it will never meet the ethical approval. It's not allowed to purposely harm people for research. The dosage was specifically chosen because it is what the FDA says is safe for human consumption...
That's a useful excuse but as someone posted above, it wouldn't violate ethics to administer safe dosages to subjects. It wasn't just chosen for that reason, it was chosen because they wanted as high a dosage as possible to show effects. This is ok, but has to be interpreted in such context. You are missing a lot of points made.2 -
brentfostwood904 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).
Soo...... i think i am good.
they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.
Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.
I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.
Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.
None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?
It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.
I fail to see how submitting humans to a study in which they are prescribed a substance in quantities deemed safe by the FDA would violate any ethical standards.
well firstly if the research hypothesis states that they predict neuron damage or anything like this will occur, then the study wont be approved for humans. Secondly the brains of the rats were dissected to be properly studied because how are you going to study the effect on the brain in the human subjects?
I didn't realize we still lived in the 1800's when the only way to see the brain was dissection.5 -
brentfostwood904 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).
Soo...... i think i am good.
they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.
Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.
I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.
Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.
None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?
It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.
I fail to see how submitting humans to a study in which they are prescribed a substance in quantities deemed safe by the FDA would violate any ethical standards.
well firstly if the research hypothesis states that they predict neuron damage or anything like this will occur, then the study wont be approved for humans. Secondly the brains of the rats were dissected to be properly studied because how are you going to study the effect on the brain in the human subjects?
Except that there are thousands of studies showing safety, and you just dismiss all of those for ONE study that was conducted on rats and showed what we all would have expected. Again, it's fine within that context but cannot be extrapolated to say it's dangerous to humans in established safe dosages because most of us actually aren't completely deficient in folic acid and most of us don't come anywhere near the high dosages.
More useful would be a follow up study to show what level of folic acid are required to fomate the added methanol and what the effects are at various dosage levels. If 40 is too high then is 20 ok? 30? People have been consuming this product for years so as the steroid advocate in Bigger, Faster, Stronger said, show me the bodies.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).
Soo...... i think i am good.
they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.
Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.
I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.
Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.
None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?
It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.
I fail to see how submitting humans to a study in which they are prescribed a substance in quantities deemed safe by the FDA would violate any ethical standards.
well firstly if the research hypothesis states that they predict neuron damage or anything like this will occur, then the study wont be approved for humans. Secondly the brains of the rats were dissected to be properly studied because how are you going to study the effect on the brain in the human subjects?
I didn't realize we still lived in the 1800's when the only way to see the brain was dissection.
Well, there are a lot of things you still can't see in imaging, no matter how good it is so dissection is still the method of choice. Well not the choice of the subject because they aren't getting anything useful out of it but... well you know what I mean!
1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
Just to be clear, i would have to drink 3200mg of aspatame. Considering there is about 180mg in a can of diet coke, i would have to drink about 17 cans a day (this is at 40mg/kg of body weight as done by the study).
Soo...... i think i am good.
they chose the amount specifically because the FDA says that amount is safe. Yet the study proves that this amount in fact is not safe. The study was only for 90 days, if lower rates of aspartame simply cause a lower rate of damage then if youre looking at a lifetime of consuming it, you will still have more neuron death than the rats did in this study. If youre looking at 1 can of diet coke a day then you could say 90 days x 17 = 4 years for you to get to the same amount of neuron death as the rats in the study suffered in 90 days. Also, the neuron death was very significant, even a fraction of that would be bad. So I dont think anyone is good when they are eating aspartame. But that's just my advice to you.
Its also proof that it is a carcinogen, as it showed that free radicals were increased due to the aspartame.
I've had personal experience with someone who drank around 8 cans of diet coke a day for 10 years and yes her memory was very bad and the addiction was very real. I do not think it's just a coincidence that she happened to have memory problems when aspartame is proven to damage the hippocampus.
Argue that you think it's really safe if you want and keep on drinking it, I dont mind. But I wouldnt drink it. There are a lot more studies out there if you want to read up on it, I just chose that one at random really because it looked well done. It's your life anyway.
None of this has even shown to translate into humans. Also, context and dosage apply. Rats taking in their body weight in aspartame is bad. You cannot state the same for normal amounts of aspartame. It doesn't work like that. You would have to test rats at normal intake levels. Heck, even water has toxic levels. And just because it has toxic levels doesn't mean you can generalize it and say all levels of water are toxic. Do you know that apples contain cyanide?
It goes against the required reserach ethics to perform a damaging study on human subjects, which is why the closest available and ethically approved thing has to be used instead, in this case it is rats which were actually manipulated to make their metabolism more in line with human metabolism (something ignored in a lot of studies and something great about this one). They did not take their body weight in aspartame, they took 40mg per kg of bodyweight, which is the amount which the FDA says is safe for human consumption. The argument that "oh anything is poisonous in high enough quantities" does not apply here.
I fail to see how submitting humans to a study in which they are prescribed a substance in quantities deemed safe by the FDA would violate any ethical standards.
well firstly if the research hypothesis states that they predict neuron damage or anything like this will occur, then the study wont be approved for humans. Secondly the brains of the rats were dissected to be properly studied because how are you going to study the effect on the brain in the human subjects?
Except that there are thousands of studies showing safety, and you just dismiss all of those for ONE study that was conducted on rats and showed what we all would have expected. Again, it's fine within that context but cannot be extrapolated to say it's dangerous to humans in established safe dosages because most of us actually aren't completely deficient in folic acid and most of us don't come anywhere near the high dosages.
More useful would be a follow up study to show what level of folic acid are required to fomate the added methanol and what the effects are at various dosage levels. If 40 is too high then is 20 ok? 30? People have been consuming this product for years so as the steroid advocate in Bigger, Faster, Stronger said, show me the bodies.
But his girlfriend had a rotten memory...6 -
brentfostwood904 wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »brentfostwood904 wrote: »here is a nice study for people if you cant find them so easily yourself http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231714000640
For your reading pleasure:
http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-399/pdf
The first one you linked is by "scientists" from "Research and Development, The NutraSweet Company," Meaning there is a very strong research bias. Meaning I know that the study is worthless before even continuing to read beyond the first few lines. If you want to find a decent study on anything then try to find one where there is no research bias or conflict of interest in the people involved. (These people get paid by NutraSweet to produce research which says that NutraSweet products are safe, this is something you must be aware of when reading any kind of research).
The second one I dont have time to read through right now but I might get back to you later.
Discrediting science based on funds shows a lack of understand for how research is conducted. You need to understand the parameters of the study and evaluate the techniques... not the source of money. All studies must receive funding somehow. You really should watch the video I posted. Layne Norton is a very well respected scientist and has first hand knowledge. He even addresses your fund concerns.
And under the parameters of your study, it would never translate to humans.
one of the first things you learn when learning how to read and interpret papers is to look at who has written the paper and to see if there is an agenda there. One of the things I learnt in even the first year of my degree is how corrupt the FDA is and how corrupt a lot of research is, believe it or not. It is very bad to start reading papers about aspartame where all the researchers are working for and paid by nutrasweet haha. This is just really basic seriously, it's bad that you didnt know that and would just read anything without thinking about who is writing it and why. It is completely discredited due to a thing called conflict of interest/research bias. Even if you decided to reference that paper in an essay you would probably be marked down badly for choosing such a biased example.
I dont know where you got the idea that the parameters of the study I chose to link it would never translate to humans. This just seems like very wishful thinking because you want your opinion to be correct, probably because you dont want to look bad for having been promoting aspartame as safe for so long then having to go back on what you were saying. The parameters of the study were actually very good. The research methods were nice.
Even if the study was designed well, doesn't mean the dosage would apply. It would mean that the crazy upper limit should probably be reduced. The dosage does not apply in a standard human diet. Basic context and dosage.
Have you look at any of the other hundreds of studies posted in this thread? Has your study been repeated by another source? Have you watched that video I posted?
Also, so you automatically remove any study that has funding from a source that might be questionable. So if it was funded by Atkins/Nusi, than almost all low carb studies would be invalid? Or studies on cholesterol funded by egg and dairy foundations are now invalid?
And I have no issue with being wrong. If someone can present a solid argument, I change. Why because that is how science works. I alter my perceptions based on newer available data because the methods used improve over time.4 -
Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?-3
-
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
Why? It's great stuff and I am learning so much, being a non scientist and all. Just roll with it.6 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
8 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
This thread is one of the most educational threads on mfp especially switch all the pseudoscience woo posted on an almost daily basis about aspartame.7 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
Which parts specifically do you think are dumb? The part where someone well educated in Biochemistry works to explain in layman's terms something that is such a hotly debated and largely misunderstood topic here on MFP and in society in general? Yeah I can see how we wouldn't want that kind of helpful information to be available to new users. Better to go around in circles on the countless "Diet Soda is BAD For You" threads that are posted every single week where people are regurgitating the pseudoscience, click bait information they found on social media...9 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
Why would you want this thread to die? The OP worked very hard and was kind enough to extend his knowledge on the subject for free to benefit the forum members on MFP. The post is full of great information in an easy-to-understand format and has been well-researched, which is why it is referenced so often in the forums.7 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
You so funny.
And to echo everyone here....why let an informative thread die? Should we let the 'how to log correctly' thread die? Or the sexypants thread? All these threads show extensive research and debunking. Just because you disagree with the scientific research and information within this thread, does not give any reasons for this thread to close. I don't see you getting bent out of shape about actual necro ridiculous threads being resurrected.
8 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.
You do realize there has been continuous information and further studies posted since it's inception right?9 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.
It's loaded with great information and links, and is a topic that's still relevant today. Really not seeing the issue here?5 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.
Right, but you clicked and nobody held a gun to you head, so I'm still not tracking why you would come on a thread just to say stop posting to it. It's like opening a book you know that will offend you then complaining that you are offended by it. Ok, I understand you don't think it's necessary but then you don't need to read it.
Some people who are "scared" by it are only that way because they live in an insular echo chamber and might actually get some use of this thread.
7 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.
This thread is only two and a half.
You're sixty.
Edited to fix my failure at basic math.10 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.
This thread is only one and a half.
You're sixty.
Two and a half years, actually.
Counting Calories 101 was started about two weeks before this one. It's still extremely relevant. Should that be killed off? Not to mention Sexypants, which is from way back in 2013 before I even joined.6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.
This thread is only one and a half.
You're sixty.
Two and a half years, actually.
Counting Calories 101 was started about two weeks before this one. It's still extremely relevant. Should that be killed off? Not to mention Sexypants, which is from way back in 2013 before I even joined.
You're right. It's not 2015 anymore is it?2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.
This thread is only one and a half.
You're sixty.
Two and a half years, actually.
Counting Calories 101 was started about two weeks before this one. It's still extremely relevant. Should that be killed off? Not to mention Sexypants, which is from way back in 2013 before I even joined.
You're right. It's not 2015 anymore is it?
Wait 2000 and what again? *kitten! I'm really behind the time!
2 -
Feed it aspartame and it apparently should.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
18 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.
This thread is only one and a half.
You're sixty.
Two and a half years, actually.
Counting Calories 101 was started about two weeks before this one. It's still extremely relevant. Should that be killed off? Not to mention Sexypants, which is from way back in 2013 before I even joined.
You're right. It's not 2015 anymore is it?
Wait 2000 and what again? *kitten! I'm really behind the time!
Because you're old. Old old old.8 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Jesus can we please let this dumb ancient thread just DIE?
I find such posts curious, if you didn't want to read it then why would you click?
It's OLD. OLD OLD OLD.
This thread is only one and a half.
You're sixty.
Two and a half years, actually.
Counting Calories 101 was started about two weeks before this one. It's still extremely relevant. Should that be killed off? Not to mention Sexypants, which is from way back in 2013 before I even joined.
You're right. It's not 2015 anymore is it?
Wait 2000 and what again? *kitten! I'm really behind the time!
A few months back, I almost wrote 1984 on something. I'd blame it on the aspartame, but I only recently started consuming it again. I must be old.4
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
- 96.4K 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