Diet soda
Replies
-
KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »In conclusion, there are scientific studies going all directions about soda...
No, actually, there aren't. There are a lot of studies that are misreported. The misreporting states that diet soda is harmful - when the actual studies don't state that at all.
So you can say with 100% confidence, you’ve seen every study ever done on the use of “soda” and furthermore that every single one of those studies showed no negative consequences???? Serious question?
The responsibility to produce evidence lies on those making a claim not those skeptical of said claim. If my friend claims that there are unicorns it is their responsibility to provide evidence for their claim, not my responsibility to answer whether or not I've looked everywhere in the universe and can say with 100% confidence that their are no unicorns.
I personally have seen no studies that show harm in humans upon consumption of sodas. That doesn't mean I'm going to say 100% I've seen every study ever because that would be a ridiculous claim to make. That said I've seen reviews published on the current literature for artificial sweetners and can say with confidence that there is no evidence seen thusfar that they cause harm. I say that as a active scientist who knows how to look at the literature and who is part of a lab that actively carries out toxicology studies so I know what I am reading when I read it. So if you have seen such a study then please present the study.
What kind of scientist? It’s actually irrelevant to the discussion either way. I asked a simple question...
I agree that ones title or education should not be ones argument, hopefully it didn't come across that way I was just trying to emphasis that I do know how to read a scientific paper with my background. My Ph.D is in molecular biology, my graduate work was in protein biochemistry and I am currently working in drug discovery as a microbiologist. My current work involves testing compounds for efficacy but also for toxicity in various models including immortalized human cell lines and mice. Have a working knowledge of concepts related to ADME/PK
Ok thanks for providing that. I just see people throw around claims on here all the time and it’s nice to see proof. Not talking about you by the way. Just some others who are saying definitively one way or the other that something’s a certain way.
Fair enough. It can be difficult as a scientist to speak about matters like this in public for the very reason that you stated that people in colloquial language tend to state things as being definitive as a way of getting their opinion or view across. I will say unequivocally that I don't think currently there is any evidence to support the notion that diet sodas cause cancer or any actual harm to health (nor do I think there is any evidence that they improve health other than being a substitute for a high caloric beverage). I won't say "X" is 100% safe no matter what "X" is because it is literally impossible to demonstrate 100% safety for anything. As a result I can come across as using "weak" language when really I'm about as confident in what I am saying as one can be.7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »In conclusion, there are scientific studies going all directions about soda...
No, actually, there aren't. There are a lot of studies that are misreported. The misreporting states that diet soda is harmful - when the actual studies don't state that at all.
So you can say with 100% confidence, you’ve seen every study ever done on the use of “soda” and furthermore that every single one of those studies showed no negative consequences???? Serious question?
The responsibility to produce evidence lies on those making a claim not those skeptical of said claim. If my friend claims that there are unicorns it is their responsibility to provide evidence for their claim, not my responsibility to answer whether or not I've looked everywhere in the universe and can say with 100% confidence that their are no unicorns.
I personally have seen no studies that show harm in humans upon consumption of sodas. That doesn't mean I'm going to say 100% I've seen every study ever because that would be a ridiculous claim to make. That said I've seen reviews published on the current literature for artificial sweetners and can say with confidence that there is no evidence seen thusfar that they cause harm. I say that as a active scientist who knows how to look at the literature and who is part of a lab that actively carries out toxicology studies so I know what I am reading when I read it. So if you have seen such a study then please present the study.
What kind of scientist? It’s actually irrelevant to the discussion either way. I asked a simple question...
My current work involves testing compounds for efficacy but also for toxicity in various models including immortalized human cell lines and mice. Have a working knowledge of concepts related to ADME/PK
I'm asking this in complete seriousness...from what I've read in these forums, testing chemicals, compounds, drugs etc on mice is irrelevant because the dosage is much higher than in a human due to size ratio. I've posted studies where chemicals get tested on mice and I'm told it's irrelevant due to this very reason. Can you explain why it's relevant in some senerios (like your work), but not in others?0 -
Cutting just diet soda is not going to make her healthier. Counting her calories that are going in and making sure she is moving daily will help make her healthier. I would buy a kitchen scale, show her how to use my fitness pal and if she does not have some sort of step counter have her get one. These three things will show her where she needs to work.
I am all for a clean diet but diet soda is not adding calories to her day. You could encourage her to drink a cup of water before her diet coke. Adding water may make her less thirsty for soda. I love diet coke but know for me it does lead to wanting sugary snacks. I do not drink diet coke until I reach my goal of water each day. Doing this helps me no longer want the soda.1 -
You should probably just mind your own business.2
-
This content has been removed.
-
run2brazil wrote: »I didn't mean for this to be a debate- I thought this community forum was meant to be supportive of one another. It's my first time writing on it, and likely my last. Thank you to those who understood and offered tips for her.
You did get useful information - your aunt's problems aren't primarily related to her relationship with diet soda, they're related to her relationship with the food she's eating.
You might suggest she read the content on the Beck Diet Program site - it's a cognitive behavioral approach that will help her work on the behavioral skills needed to address the issue:
http://diet.beckinstitute.org
They have free resources on the site, daily tips, and several books available:
http://diet.beckinstitute.org/about-the-beck-diet-program/2 -
YepItsKriss wrote: »FatWithFatness wrote: »You should probably just mind your own business.
perhaps direction this comment to who its for might be helpful. or should everyone mind their own business?
The OP.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »In conclusion, there are scientific studies going all directions about soda...
No, actually, there aren't. There are a lot of studies that are misreported. The misreporting states that diet soda is harmful - when the actual studies don't state that at all.
So you can say with 100% confidence, you’ve seen every study ever done on the use of “soda” and furthermore that every single one of those studies showed no negative consequences???? Serious question?
The responsibility to produce evidence lies on those making a claim not those skeptical of said claim. If my friend claims that there are unicorns it is their responsibility to provide evidence for their claim, not my responsibility to answer whether or not I've looked everywhere in the universe and can say with 100% confidence that their are no unicorns.
I personally have seen no studies that show harm in humans upon consumption of sodas. That doesn't mean I'm going to say 100% I've seen every study ever because that would be a ridiculous claim to make. That said I've seen reviews published on the current literature for artificial sweetners and can say with confidence that there is no evidence seen thusfar that they cause harm. I say that as a active scientist who knows how to look at the literature and who is part of a lab that actively carries out toxicology studies so I know what I am reading when I read it. So if you have seen such a study then please present the study.
What kind of scientist? It’s actually irrelevant to the discussion either way. I asked a simple question...
I agree that ones title or education should not be ones argument, hopefully it didn't come across that way I was just trying to emphasis that I do know how to read a scientific paper with my background. My Ph.D is in molecular biology, my graduate work was in protein biochemistry and I am currently working in drug discovery as a microbiologist. My current work involves testing compounds for efficacy but also for toxicity in various models including immortalized human cell lines and mice. Have a working knowledge of concepts related to ADME/PK
Ok thanks for providing that. I just see people throw around claims on here all the time and it’s nice to see proof. Not talking about you by the way. Just some others who are saying definitively one way or the other that something’s a certain way.
I think perhaps you need to spend a little more time reading through various topics on these forums, particularly in the debate section, observing the people who are truly focused on solid science and credible, peer reviewed sources when engaging in these discussions; rather than throwing out blanket claims like your first one that these forums are filled with broscience and not a good place for advice...5 -
KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »In conclusion, there are scientific studies going all directions about soda...
No, actually, there aren't. There are a lot of studies that are misreported. The misreporting states that diet soda is harmful - when the actual studies don't state that at all.
So you can say with 100% confidence, you’ve seen every study ever done on the use of “soda” and furthermore that every single one of those studies showed no negative consequences???? Serious question?
Every single one? No. Off the top of my head, I'd say probably somewhere about 20 or so. And the handful that I've seen used as "evidence" of harm? Either state the opposite (that artificial sweeteners are safe for human consumption) or make no statement in either way, although the data suggests that they are not harmful.
Now, my turn for a serious question: why are you so hell-bent on white-knighting this?6 -
run2brazil wrote: »Hi all! My aunt has been trying to lose her extra weight and has struggled in the last year specifically, (endured many health scares this year too). The one thing (that she constantly goes back to) is EXCESSIVE diet soda drinking. I'm positive this does not help the weight loss, but she gives it up and then always goes back, harder than ever. Any suggestions to help her kick the habit?!
If reaching for a sip of the soda is replacing grabbing a not-0-calorie food item from the kitchen out of boredom/habit, then it's helping, not hurting. Caffeine is also an appetite suppressant - so once again, probably helping, not hurting, trying to lose weight.2 -
YepItsKriss wrote: »Ah.. well in all fairness, its perfectly fine to worry and care about the health of a family member, but she should be putting those efforts into what will work instead of being so focused on diet sodas which won't do anything for the situation.
People won't change no matter how much you want them to. Her aunt has to really want and do it for herself.0 -
YepItsKriss wrote: »Maybe its that time of year... its october, its getting colder, people arent getting out as much, so people decide to lose weight in time for next summer and all the sudden the place has tons of diet soda posts and people with nothing better to do but write walls of posts with age old woo from the 80's and live in their ignorance is bliss world where they just take in all the misinformation they can because its what they want to believe.
Christmas party bodies innit. All the diet clubs start offering deals to help you drop a dress size in time for party season or whatever. I just buy Spanx. Not that i'm going to any parties but you get the idea.......0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »In conclusion, there are scientific studies going all directions about soda...
No, actually, there aren't. There are a lot of studies that are misreported. The misreporting states that diet soda is harmful - when the actual studies don't state that at all.
So you can say with 100% confidence, you’ve seen every study ever done on the use of “soda” and furthermore that every single one of those studies showed no negative consequences???? Serious question?
The responsibility to produce evidence lies on those making a claim not those skeptical of said claim. If my friend claims that there are unicorns it is their responsibility to provide evidence for their claim, not my responsibility to answer whether or not I've looked everywhere in the universe and can say with 100% confidence that their are no unicorns.
I personally have seen no studies that show harm in humans upon consumption of sodas. That doesn't mean I'm going to say 100% I've seen every study ever because that would be a ridiculous claim to make. That said I've seen reviews published on the current literature for artificial sweetners and can say with confidence that there is no evidence seen thusfar that they cause harm. I say that as a active scientist who knows how to look at the literature and who is part of a lab that actively carries out toxicology studies so I know what I am reading when I read it. So if you have seen such a study then please present the study.
What kind of scientist? It’s actually irrelevant to the discussion either way. I asked a simple question...
I agree that ones title or education should not be ones argument, hopefully it didn't come across that way I was just trying to emphasis that I do know how to read a scientific paper with my background. My Ph.D is in molecular biology, my graduate work was in protein biochemistry and I am currently working in drug discovery as a microbiologist. My current work involves testing compounds for efficacy but also for toxicity in various models including immortalized human cell lines and mice. Have a working knowledge of concepts related to ADME/PK
Ok thanks for providing that. I just see people throw around claims on here all the time and it’s nice to see proof. Not talking about you by the way. Just some others who are saying definitively one way or the other that something’s a certain way.
I think perhaps you need to spend a little more time reading through various topics on these forums, particularly in the debate section, observing the people who are truly focused on solid science and credible, peer reviewed sources when engaging in these discussions; rather than throwing out blanket claims like your first one that these forums are filled with broscience and not a good place for advice...
I think perhaps you need to read my last message to you, and take it to heart!
8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »In conclusion, there are scientific studies going all directions about soda...
No, actually, there aren't. There are a lot of studies that are misreported. The misreporting states that diet soda is harmful - when the actual studies don't state that at all.
So you can say with 100% confidence, you’ve seen every study ever done on the use of “soda” and furthermore that every single one of those studies showed no negative consequences???? Serious question?
The responsibility to produce evidence lies on those making a claim not those skeptical of said claim. If my friend claims that there are unicorns it is their responsibility to provide evidence for their claim, not my responsibility to answer whether or not I've looked everywhere in the universe and can say with 100% confidence that their are no unicorns.
I personally have seen no studies that show harm in humans upon consumption of sodas. That doesn't mean I'm going to say 100% I've seen every study ever because that would be a ridiculous claim to make. That said I've seen reviews published on the current literature for artificial sweetners and can say with confidence that there is no evidence seen thusfar that they cause harm. I say that as a active scientist who knows how to look at the literature and who is part of a lab that actively carries out toxicology studies so I know what I am reading when I read it. So if you have seen such a study then please present the study.
What kind of scientist? It’s actually irrelevant to the discussion either way. I asked a simple question...
My current work involves testing compounds for efficacy but also for toxicity in various models including immortalized human cell lines and mice. Have a working knowledge of concepts related to ADME/PK
I'm asking this in complete seriousness...from what I've read in these forums, testing chemicals, compounds, drugs etc on mice is irrelevant because the dosage is much higher than in a human due to size ratio. I've posted studies where chemicals get tested on mice and I'm told it's irrelevant due to this very reason. Can you explain why it's relevant in some senerios (like your work), but not in others?
It isn't irrelevant to being able to understand what these assays are or what they mean when you read a scientific study which is why I brought it up. I have a working knowledge of those assays so when I read a scientific paper that references a rat study that performed bid p.o. dosing I know what that means.
As to why we would use mice to test safety for a novel compound we hope to develop into a drug its for this reason:
If you don't know the in vivo safety of a compound it would be unethical to do your first in vivo testing in humans. Mice are not equivalent to humans but they are cheap and ethically speaking considered by most to be more reasonable to test on than humans. Side-effects from dosing in mice can be informative and can give information about off target effects that can be further investigated. If an issue is identified that cannot be surmounted by modification of the molecule and that issue is potentially going to be a problem in humans as well (hepatic toxicity) then unless you have evidence that it will be safe in humans a human trial is not going to be approved. That does not mean that toxicity in mice is 100% equivalent to toxicity in humans, but if toxicity is identified and there does not seem to be a way of solving that issue nor any reasoning behind why it would only be toxic in mice then it would be unethical to take the gamble of doing a human trial.
That said the way mice and humans metabolize molecules is very different especially with regards to cytochrome p450s. So of course if a human trial or human testing has been done then those results are absolutely going to trump the results of any mouse or rat study.
Another test is to test toxicity against immortalized human liver cells (HepG2 cell line) to see if the compound kills or prevents the growth of those cells. This is considered to be an in vitro experiment however as it is not in a living organism. A compound showing toxicity against HepG2 cells can be a warning sign for potential hepatotoxicity and is a flag to continue to monitor that but it isn't a 1 to 1 correlation that HepG2 toxicity equates to in vivo toxicity.
In drug development we run these assays as a way of modeling or gauging potential problems and of course would favour compounds that do not have these flags along the way.
As for aspartame there have been zero studies in any animal that show that aspartame is toxic in vivo at all so to those who make that claim actually that is just a false statement. Not only that but it very much has been tested in humans both through repeated controlled scientific studies and for the fact it has been on the market as a product for over 50 years now. It isn't toxic.14 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »In conclusion, there are scientific studies going all directions about soda...
No, actually, there aren't. There are a lot of studies that are misreported. The misreporting states that diet soda is harmful - when the actual studies don't state that at all.
So you can say with 100% confidence, you’ve seen every study ever done on the use of “soda” and furthermore that every single one of those studies showed no negative consequences???? Serious question?
The responsibility to produce evidence lies on those making a claim not those skeptical of said claim. If my friend claims that there are unicorns it is their responsibility to provide evidence for their claim, not my responsibility to answer whether or not I've looked everywhere in the universe and can say with 100% confidence that their are no unicorns.
I personally have seen no studies that show harm in humans upon consumption of sodas. That doesn't mean I'm going to say 100% I've seen every study ever because that would be a ridiculous claim to make. That said I've seen reviews published on the current literature for artificial sweetners and can say with confidence that there is no evidence seen thusfar that they cause harm. I say that as a active scientist who knows how to look at the literature and who is part of a lab that actively carries out toxicology studies so I know what I am reading when I read it. So if you have seen such a study then please present the study.
What kind of scientist? It’s actually irrelevant to the discussion either way. I asked a simple question...
I agree that ones title or education should not be ones argument, hopefully it didn't come across that way I was just trying to emphasis that I do know how to read a scientific paper with my background. My Ph.D is in molecular biology, my graduate work was in protein biochemistry and I am currently working in drug discovery as a microbiologist. My current work involves testing compounds for efficacy but also for toxicity in various models including immortalized human cell lines and mice. Have a working knowledge of concepts related to ADME/PK
Ok thanks for providing that. I just see people throw around claims on here all the time and it’s nice to see proof. Not talking about you by the way. Just some others who are saying definitively one way or the other that something’s a certain way.
Fair enough. It can be difficult as a scientist to speak about matters like this in public for the very reason that you stated that people in colloquial language tend to state things as being definitive as a way of getting their opinion or view across. I will say unequivocally that I don't think currently there is any evidence to support the notion that diet sodas cause cancer or any actual harm to health (nor do I think there is any evidence that they improve health other than being a substitute for a high caloric beverage). I won't say "X" is 100% safe no matter what "X" is because it is literally impossible to demonstrate 100% safety for anything. As a result I can come across as using "weak" language when really I'm about as confident in what I am saying as one can be.
Awesome. Appreciate you taking the time to explain.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »In conclusion, there are scientific studies going all directions about soda...
No, actually, there aren't. There are a lot of studies that are misreported. The misreporting states that diet soda is harmful - when the actual studies don't state that at all.
So you can say with 100% confidence, you’ve seen every study ever done on the use of “soda” and furthermore that every single one of those studies showed no negative consequences???? Serious question?
Every single one? No. Off the top of my head, I'd say probably somewhere about 20 or so. And the handful that I've seen used as "evidence" of harm? Either state the opposite (that artificial sweeteners are safe for human consumption) or make no statement in either way, although the data suggests that they are not harmful.
Now, my turn for a serious question: why are you so hell-bent on white-knighting this?
Oh I’m not. When I see people make definitive statements, it naturally makes me want to question the truth behind it.1 -
Other things that are commonly tested for as potential flags for toxicity are hERG-inhibition for cardiotoxicity, CYP-inhibition for drug-drug interaction, patch-clamp for CNS effects, Ames test for mutagenicity (associated with carcinogenicity) just to name a few off the top of my head...i'm sure there are more. Can also run a generalized safety panel to look for inhibition of essential enzymes as potential off-target effects though I think Cerep has pretty much the corner on that market.
EDIT: Eurofins bought out Cerep so I guess Eurofins has that assay now.6 -
Here is a pretty good intro-primer to standard workflow for ADME/DMPK Tox assays at least for preclinical drug discovery
http://pub.iapchem.org/ojs/index.php/admet/article/view/9/14
7 -
I use to be 260 pounds heavier. When I began my new way of eating many friends and family were telling me that I needed to stop drinking diet soda. That it somehow was playing "tricks" on my mind. They seemed more concerned about me drinking a zero calorie beverage than what I was eating!
So, when I saw a registered and licensed dietitian and nutritionist I made sure to ask him about it. I was told that all of the available science has not shown diet soda/artificial sweeteners to have any negative affects and that they are actually helpful in weight loss.
And it has been helpful! I have lost over 260 pounds and am in the best shape of my life. All while drinking at least 3 diet sodas a day and using artificial sweeteners (and eating gluten, not worrying about "clean" eating, etc.).
Now, I know I am just one person and one person's personal experience doesn't hold much weight. But the scientific process does - look to the experts and avoid people who think they know better.17 -
I know I am just one person and one person's personal experience doesn't hold much weight.
You know what else doesn't hold much weight anymore...you
15 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I know I am just one person and one person's personal experience doesn't hold much weight.
You know what else doesn't hold much weight anymore...you
Haha! Thanks, made me smile
It has been a long road and I am reveling in all the comments I'm getting! 4 -
run2brazil wrote: »Ok so weight loss aside, we can all agree that excessive diet soda drinking is bad for your health? I'm wondering if anyone has tips to help her kick the habit.
Severity: I've run half marathons with her and she seeks out diet soda at the finish line instead of water.
I guess I don't see an issue with that. I tend to seek out the beer tent afterwards, but that's me.
Last marathon I ran I had 2 or 3 beers in the last two miles, that's what the frat kids were handing out, it was 85 degrees and the beer was cold... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I know I am just one person and one person's personal experience doesn't hold much weight.
You know what else doesn't hold much weight anymore...you
LOL, I had to read it 6 times to determine that it was a compliment.... I must be in a bad mood...Well played.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I know I am just one person and one person's personal experience doesn't hold much weight.
You know what else doesn't hold much weight anymore...you
LOL, I had to read it 6 times to determine that it was a compliment.... I must be in a bad mood...Well played.
It wasn't just you... I had my hand on the red button, but had to hold back.
1 -
run2brazil wrote: »Ok so weight loss aside, we can all agree that excessive diet soda drinking is bad for your health? I'm wondering if anyone has tips to help her kick the habit.
Severity: I've run half marathons with her and she seeks out diet soda at the finish line instead of water.
I guess I don't see an issue with that. I tend to seek out the beer tent afterwards, but that's me.
Last marathon I ran I had 2 or 3 beers in the last two miles, that's what the frat kids were handing out, it was 85 degrees and the beer was cold... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I ran a marathon at the beginning of the month and at the end, the first thing I looked for was the beer area for my free beer. It tasted great!1 -
I kicked soda to the curb by imagining it was no different than antifreeze. Just think of all the chemicals that are in it. Heck, I heard they put dead babies in pepsi. Yeah, I said it. Imagine drinking dead babies....or dead rats, whatever will give you nightmares.
Side note: chillax ya'll I know they don't put dead babies in soda....or antifreeze....or rats. But I do hope everyone has nightmares. *evil laugh*
18 -
JillianRumrill wrote: »I kicked soda to the curb by imagining it was no different than antifreeze. Just think of all the chemicals that are in it. Heck, I heard they put dead babies in pepsi. Yeah, I said it. Imagine drinking dead babies....or dead rats, whatever will give you nightmares.
Side note: chillax ya'll I know they don't put dead babies in soda....or antifreeze....or rats. But I do hope everyone has nightmares. *evil laugh*
Again, @JillianRumrill, keep reading...2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »KirbySmith46 wrote: »run2brazil wrote: »In conclusion, there are scientific studies going all directions about soda...
No, actually, there aren't. There are a lot of studies that are misreported. The misreporting states that diet soda is harmful - when the actual studies don't state that at all.
So you can say with 100% confidence, you’ve seen every study ever done on the use of “soda” and furthermore that every single one of those studies showed no negative consequences???? Serious question?
The responsibility to produce evidence lies on those making a claim not those skeptical of said claim. If my friend claims that there are unicorns it is their responsibility to provide evidence for their claim, not my responsibility to answer whether or not I've looked everywhere in the universe and can say with 100% confidence that their are no unicorns.
I personally have seen no studies that show harm in humans upon consumption of sodas. That doesn't mean I'm going to say 100% I've seen every study ever because that would be a ridiculous claim to make. That said I've seen reviews published on the current literature for artificial sweetners and can say with confidence that there is no evidence seen thusfar that they cause harm. I say that as a active scientist who knows how to look at the literature and who is part of a lab that actively carries out toxicology studies so I know what I am reading when I read it. So if you have seen such a study then please present the study.
What kind of scientist? It’s actually irrelevant to the discussion either way. I asked a simple question...
My current work involves testing compounds for efficacy but also for toxicity in various models including immortalized human cell lines and mice. Have a working knowledge of concepts related to ADME/PK
I'm asking this in complete seriousness...from what I've read in these forums, testing chemicals, compounds, drugs etc on mice is irrelevant because the dosage is much higher than in a human due to size ratio. I've posted studies where chemicals get tested on mice and I'm told it's irrelevant due to this very reason. Can you explain why it's relevant in some senerios (like your work), but not in others?
It isn't irrelevant to being able to understand what these assays are or what they mean when you read a scientific study which is why I brought it up. I have a working knowledge of those assays so when I read a scientific paper that references a rat study that performed bid p.o. dosing I know what that means.
As to why we would use mice to test safety for a novel compound we hope to develop into a drug its for this reason:
If you don't know the in vivo safety of a compound it would be unethical to do your first in vivo testing in humans. Mice are not equivalent to humans but they are cheap and ethically speaking considered by most to be more reasonable to test on than humans. Side-effects from dosing in mice can be informative and can give information about off target effects that can be further investigated. If an issue is identified that cannot be surmounted by modification of the molecule and that issue is potentially going to be a problem in humans as well (hepatic toxicity) then unless you have evidence that it will be safe in humans a human trial is not going to be approved. That does not mean that toxicity in mice is 100% equivalent to toxicity in humans, but if toxicity is identified and there does not seem to be a way of solving that issue nor any reasoning behind why it would only be toxic in mice then it would be unethical to take the gamble of doing a human trial.
That said the way mice and humans metabolize molecules is very different especially with regards to cytochrome p450s. So of course if a human trial or human testing has been done then those results are absolutely going to trump the results of any mouse or rat study.
Another test is to test toxicity against immortalized human liver cells (HepG2 cell line) to see if the compound kills or prevents the growth of those cells. This is considered to be an in vitro experiment however as it is not in a living organism. A compound showing toxicity against HepG2 cells can be a warning sign for potential hepatotoxicity and is a flag to continue to monitor that but it isn't a 1 to 1 correlation that HepG2 toxicity equates to in vivo toxicity.
In drug development we run these assays as a way of modeling or gauging potential problems and of course would favour compounds that do not have these flags along the way.
As for aspartame there have been zero studies in any animal that show that aspartame is toxic in vivo at all so to those who make that claim actually that is just a false statement. Not only that but it very much has been tested in humans both through repeated controlled scientific studies and for the fact it has been on the market as a product for over 50 years now. It isn't toxic.
Makes sense....most of it anyway. I admit some of the specialized scientific lingo etc is a little beyond me, but I definitely get the gist of it. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I appreciate it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions