Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »What I'm against is spending probably public money to find a 'cure' for sugar addicts. 40 years ? What do they spend 40 years testing? I mean seriously. Fizzy juice has always been bad for ya why make these things suddenly ok. Water is best, man you wouldn't give your dog cola, yet you want to drink it yourself.
I'm not a man. I don't know why you think I am. You're assuming the wrong cause and effect. It's not that scientists said "hmmm... sugar addicts exist so let's make a non-sugar sweetener." Aspartame was discovered as a by-product in creating an anti-ulcer drug and scientists recognized it could be useful. And again, there are a lot of people with a lot of conditions who benefit from having a non-sugar sweetener available.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »From an earlier post referring to aspartame as sugar thought I'd take that as a teachable moment and do a little easy intro to biochem.
Sugar are saccharides and are also known by their more scientific name of carbohydrates. Most scientific names have actual meaning and carbohydrate isn't an exception. All carbohydrates share the same basic chemical make up. They are carbon (carbo-) that is hydrated (-hydrate). So all carbohydrates (all sugars) have the molecular formula of carbon plus water times some number x so CxH2xOx.
For example glucose is C6H12O6.
This is aspartame.
Also can be written as C14H18N2O5. Not a sugar. It has nitrogen, it has a lot more carbon than it has oxygen and fewer hydrogens than an equivalent sugar.
How about maltose? C12H22O11. Yes, that is a sugar.
How about starch. Starch is a bunch of sugars linked together and with each link a water molecule is subtracted. So starch has the formula of (C6H10O5)x which if you notice is just C6H12O6 minus one water for the linkage times the number of C6H12O6 molecules linked together.
So now, in theory, you can answer for yourself if something is a sugar by just looking at its molecular formula.
But yeah, all carbohydrates are sugar. Be they in the form of a potato or pasta or table sugar its going to end up the same after digestion. Something you'd never think if you just read online articles and CNN editorials which seem to act like sugar and carbohydrates are two completely different things for some reason.
This is wonderful. I can't even express how much I love this post. Chemistry is beautiful.3 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »What I'm against is spending probably public money to find a 'cure' for sugar addicts. 40 years ? What do they spend 40 years testing? I mean seriously. Fizzy juice has always been bad for ya why make these things suddenly ok. Water is best, man you wouldn't give your dog cola, yet you want to drink it yourself.
i don't know that sugar addiction is a thing, but i know that diabetes is a thing. i'm not against public funding to find an alternative sweetener which increases the options for diabetics.
i also wouldn't agree that 'fizzy juice' or soda is bad for you without knowing context and dosage.
i do think that at this point there may be some deliberate missing of the point of the thread.7 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »What I'm against is spending probably public money to find a 'cure' for sugar addicts. 40 years ? What do they spend 40 years testing? I mean seriously. Fizzy juice has always been bad for ya why make these things suddenly ok. Water is best, man you wouldn't give your dog cola, yet you want to drink it yourself.
i don't know that sugar addiction is a thing, but i know that diabetes is a thing. i'm not against public funding to find an alternative sweetener which increases the options for diabetics.
i also wouldn't agree that 'fizzy juice' or soda is bad for you without knowing context and dosage.
i do think that at this point there may be some deliberate missing of the point of the thread.
Deliberate missing the point? What ya talking about? Am talking about asparatme
Saying "XX" is bad for you because that is what you heard your entire life, while science actually says the opposite is generally the issue. There is no science that suggest fizzy drinks are bad for you.
I should also note, that while I agree that water is great for you, we all need some variety. I drink 150 to 200 oz of water a day + 40 to 60oz of diet Mt. Dew. I drink a lot of fluids... always have. But I can't just do water. It would drive me crazy.5 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »What I'm against is spending probably public money to find a 'cure' for sugar addicts. 40 years ? What do they spend 40 years testing? I mean seriously. Fizzy juice has always been bad for ya why make these things suddenly ok. Water is best, man you wouldn't give your dog cola, yet you want to drink it yourself.
I'm not a man. I don't know why you think I am. You're assuming the wrong cause and effect. It's not that scientists said "hmmm... sugar addicts exist so let's make a non-sugar sweetener." Aspartame was discovered as a by-product in creating an anti-ulcer drug and scientists recognized it could be useful. And again, there are a lot of people with a lot of conditions who benefit from having a non-sugar sweetener available.
I dunno why you take it so personally, man. It's just my opinion
And I'm learning so much on this thread so thanks. Aspartame is definitely part of my life so I want to know as much as I can, to keep myself safe and the people I care about
Deliberately misgendering me after I've asked you not to? Classy. I'm going to go enjoy my aspartame-laden fizzy drink. Best of luck on your learning journey.10 -
More on the biochem.
You have probably heard of life on earth being "carbon based". That is because the basic foundational element of all biomolecules is carbon. Be it carbohydrates or proteins or fats the "backbone" of the molecules is carbon. Those molecules need to interact and be transported and as such need to be in a solubilized state and at least on this planet water has taken that function. Water both solubilizing the relevant molecules as well as being a core constituant of most of them being added and subtracted by hydrolysis reactions.
Sugars, carbohydrates, are one of the simplest examples of a biomolecule being the carbon atom and one water multiplied by some factor. Therefore in terms of metabolism (the breakdown of molecules) and catabolism (the building up of new molecules) sugars are great as they provide the most essential and basic building blocks for all the other biomolecules of life. Much of our metabolism just comes down to the exchange of carbon and oxygen through water. In fact weight loss or gain basically boils down to our respiratory action, taking in oxygen (O2) and expelling carbon dioxide (CO2) (thus a loss of carbon) balanced with the carbon and oxygen intake from food.
In comparison proteins are slightly more complicated including nitrogen atoms while fats are even simpler being comprised of just carbon and hydrogen (hence the alternate name hydrocarbon).
Aspartame is protein derived, it isn't a carbohydrate. It is basically the fusion of two amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) phenylalanine and aspartate with the carboxy terminus of the aspartate modified into an methylester instead. May have lost you there not sure.
11 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Apologies I didn't want to go against anyone but I do think common sense sometimes gets lost. Avoid what is bad for ya, or where you need to, limit it. Sugary stuff is quite simple. Limit it or stop it. I don't feel the need to drink 'updated drinks' because I know they are already bad for me. Why do I want to keep making the companies money when I can drink water? That's my opinion not saying it's anyone else's, sorry but some people don't even have water. I may have went a bit off topic but makes me angry to see money not spent on better things
"knowing things" without knowledge sums up the problem I was trying to address.21 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »What I'm against is spending probably public money to find a 'cure' for sugar addicts. 40 years ? What do they spend 40 years testing? I mean seriously. Fizzy juice has always been bad for ya why make these things suddenly ok. Water is best, man you wouldn't give your dog cola, yet you want to drink it yourself.
Grapes will kill your dog, do you eat grapes?8 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Apologies I didn't want to go against anyone but I do think common sense sometimes gets lost. Avoid what is bad for ya, or where you need to, limit it. Sugary stuff is quite simple. Limit it or stop it. I don't feel the need to drink 'updated drinks' because I know they are already bad for me. Why do I want to keep making the companies money when I can drink water? That's my opinion not saying it's anyone else's, sorry but some people don't even have water. I may have went a bit off topic but makes me angry to see money not spent on better things
so, the whole point of this thread is that it isn't actually bad for you. and neither is sugar (taking into consideration context, dosage and user specific health concerns). what you say is common sense - that "updated drinks" are bad for you - is not actually correct.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »What I'm against is spending probably public money to find a 'cure' for sugar addicts. 40 years ? What do they spend 40 years testing? I mean seriously. Fizzy juice has always been bad for ya why make these things suddenly ok. Water is best, man you wouldn't give your dog cola, yet you want to drink it yourself.
Grapes will kill your dog, do you eat grapes?
No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you. I wouldn't eat "updated" aspartame grapes either.11 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Apologies I didn't want to go against anyone but I do think common sense sometimes gets lost. Avoid what is bad for ya, or where you need to, limit it. Sugary stuff is quite simple. Limit it or stop it. I don't feel the need to drink 'updated drinks' because I know they are already bad for me. Why do I want to keep making the companies money when I can drink water? That's my opinion not saying it's anyone else's, sorry but some people don't even have water. I may have went a bit off topic but makes me angry to see money not spent on better things
This thread is about aspartame, which isn't bad for you. So why are you participating if you aren't interested in the topic? Except for research funds, which wouldn't need to be spent if the fearmongering "experts" and laypersons would quit rehashing the same old concerns that couldn't be proven after decades of research.5 -
No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you
Carbohydrates are essential for your survival, I would hardly refer to them as being "bad for you" anymore than I would refer to water as being bad for you because you can drown.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you
Carbohydrates are essential for your survival, I would hardly refer to them as being "bad for you" anymore than I would refer to water as being bad for you because you can drown.
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »No because they have lots of sugar and sugar is bad for you
Carbohydrates are essential for your survival, I would hardly refer to them as being "bad for you" anymore than I would refer to water as being bad for you because you can drown.
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
...it can be hard to tell sometimes sadly.4 -
redacted to avoid redundancy2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 977 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions