Diet soda
Replies
-
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*
So you deliberately made yourself afraid of something that is not harmful? Makes sense.8 -
Sorry, but this is her life NOT yours. If she likes her diet soda so be it. It is not what hinders weight loss. While I agree it's not the healthiest thing to put in your body...it's certainly not the worst. Lighten up and let her make her own choices.3
-
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 know one that said they're bad. The one where they fed rats that get cancer from being looked at the wrong way an ungodly amount for their entire adult life that is laughed out of the house when mentioned among scientists (apparently).
Oh and ironically, the rat group that got an amount of aspartame that was more in line with normal intakes got less cancer than the group that got none at all but that doesn't even get mentioned in the "study", lol.1 -
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.
No problem, sorry if I used jargon that was confusing either in this post or others. Just to put it out there in case it is helpful:
in vitro is latin for "in glass" and basically refers to experiments conducted on a bench and not in a living organism (mutlicellular life). Testing compounds on cells in a plate would be considered in vitro even though the cells are technically alive they aren't really an organism.
in vivo is latin for "in life" and basically refers to experiments conducted with whole living organisms (generally multicellular life, experiments with single-cell eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells are often considered in vitro
b.i.d is abbreviation of the latin bis in die which just means "twice a day". So b.i.d. dosing is a dose given twice per day.
p.o. is abbreviation of the latin per os which just means "by way of the opening" and is used to refer to doses given orally.
So for example an experiment that tested a drug given twice a day to rats by inclusion in their water or food would be an in vivo b.i.d. p.o. experiment either for the purpose of efficacy (effectiveness) or to determine maximum tolerated dose (toxicity).9 -
Long story short if you want to determine if a brand new compound or drug might be toxic to humans it is generally recommended to first test in vitro against a cell line then test in vivo in a model organism such as rats or mice. Any flags that come up from those experiments will need to be explained or dealt with before applying for a phase 1 clinical trial humans (safety trial).
If, however, you have something that has been demonstrated to be safe when administered to humans and then one study somewhere shows under certain conditions in a particular circumstance with a particular breed of rat that there might be some indication of carcinogenicity or toxicity then that doesn't really mean all that much to be honest. It could be interesting, it would definitely be worth repeating by another group to see if the results are reproducible and if they are it might be worth following up to see what the difference between that species is that under those conditions there is some liability. But regardless it doesn't somehow invalidate the human safety experiments or the 50+ years of actual use by the public.
The one study I've seen refereed to with regards to aspartame is the Soffiriti paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/) whereby they tested a very large dose of aspartame daily for life to a small population of Sprague Dawley rats, some of which developed cancer in the form of large tumors. The claim was that the formation of these tumors was significant in the aspartame dosed rats relative to control. The experiment, in my opinion, did not really demonstrate significance and said claimed significant result has yet to be shown again in repeat.
There were also numerous other issues with that study detailed by a published rebuttle to the conclusions
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430246/
One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame in the Sofritti study? 43%.
How much is 5g/kg/day? Well if you weigh 80kg that would be 400 grams of aspartame per day. How much aspartame is in a can of diet coke? 0.125 grams. So how many cokes is that? That would be 3,200 cans of coke per day every day for your life. That is how much they dosed them at.
The issue is people don't read the study, they don't really comprehend it or they don't think what it means. They read a story on a website somewhere that says aspartame causes cancer in rats, and claims this one study as a source, and they just take it as true.15 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »...One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
Clearly a very disingenuous study, designed to elicit a specific outcome rather than make an objective determination. Seems like it's a classic case of "If the facts do not conform to the theory, the facts must be disposed of".
Thanks again for your input, Aaron. Always enjoy reading your posts and I've learned a lot from them.4 -
Thank you Aaron for explaining the abbreviations/Latin and further about the rat types. I do find it interesting and helpful.0
-
Which got me wondering. How much do we have in common with a mouse, a rat, or a pig? A lot.
http://www.businessinsider.com/comparing-genetic-similarity-between-humans-and-other-things-2016-5/#for-humans-were-999-similar-to-the-person-sitting-next-to-us-the-rest-of-those-genes-tell-us-everything-from-our-eye-color-to-if-were-predisposed-to-certain-diseases-1 (apes to bananas)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm (pig)
https://www.genome.gov/11511308/2004-release-scientists-compare-rat-genome/ (rat)0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »One of the biggest problems with the study honestly isn't really to do with the study it is to do with the public lack of understanding. Sprague Dawley rats are often used in cancer studies specifically because that outbred species of rat naturally develops tumours. About 45% of Sprague Dawley rats develop cancer, whether you give them aspartame or not. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf. What percent of rats developed tumors when given the highest dose of 5 g/kg/day aspartame? 43%.
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
*shouts it from the rooftop*1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
BREAKING: Aspartame reduces cancer risk!!!
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
Hmm, apparently I can't. But here is a link to it, you just have to click so sorry for that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t2-ehp0114-000379/
If you look on the far left that is the dose of aspartame (abbreviated APM) given in parenthesis in terms of mg/kg bw (bw is bodyweight).
So you have basically (5,2.5,0.5, 0.1, 0.02, 0.004 and zero g/kg as dose groups.)
Then, if you look over, there is the number of animals that developed tumors by dose group. The percentages in decending order of dose were 43%,38%,34%,40%,32%,29% and 35%.
What that means is that in their own experiment 35% of the rats that received zero aspartame developed cancer. That number went as high as 43% in the highest aspartame dosed group however the percent incidence didn't really follow along with the dose. In otherwords note that dosed at 0.5g/kg/day (equivalent of 320 sodas a day) the tumor incidents was actually lower at 34% than the undosed control at 35%.
Now that isn't because there is an actual significant difference, there is of course some error associated with any experiment. There claim is the difference between 35% in the undosed control and 43% at the highest dose is significant. But if that is significant it is interesting that 0.5g/kg of aspartame gives 34% but less aspartame at 0.1g/kg gives 40%.
Basically my feeling is with their sample size there was probably a random variation of something like 10% between their samples and they are hovering around the number you would expect for spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague Dawley rats that is well documented.
If you look more at the paper you might notice the table linked is for the male rats and the next table is the female rats which have a higher incidence. Here is the female rat table if you are curious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t3-ehp0114-000379/
There is a good reason to split the data by male and female as in the literature it has been noted that female Sprague Dawley rats have a higher tumour incident rate (around 57%) than males (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194).3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
After you click my clickbait link, you'll find that not only does aspartame reduce cancer risk, but does so by a whopping 4.44%!!!0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Hah...no. But good point about the dangers of over-interpreting data.
Let me see if I can post the actual table of their results:
Hmm, apparently I can't. But here is a link to it, you just have to click so sorry for that
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t2-ehp0114-000379/
If you look on the far left that is the dose of aspartame (abbreviated APM) given in parenthesis in terms of mg/kg bw (bw is bodyweight).
So you have basically (5,2.5,0.5, 0.1, 0.02, 0.004 and zero g/kg as dose groups.)
Then, if you look over, there is the number of animals that developed tumors by dose group. The percentages in decending order of dose were 43%,38%,34%,40%,32%,29% and 35%.
What that means is that in their own experiment 35% of the rats that received zero aspartame developed cancer. That number went as high as 43% in the highest aspartame dosed group however the percent incidence didn't really follow along with the dose. In otherwords note that dosed at 0.5g/kg/day (equivalent of 320 sodas a day) the tumor incidents was actually lower at 34% than the undosed control at 35%.
Now that isn't because there is an actual significant difference, there is of course some error associated with any experiment. There claim is the difference between 35% in the undosed control and 43% at the highest dose is significant. But if that is significant it is interesting that 0.5g/kg of aspartame gives 34% but less aspartame at 0.1g/kg gives 40%.
Basically my feeling is with their sample size there was probably a random variation of something like 10% between their samples and they are hovering around the number you would expect for spontaneous tumor formation in Sprague Dawley rats that is well documented.
If you look more at the paper you might notice the table linked is for the male rats and the next table is the female rats which have a higher incidence. Here is the female rat table if you are curious
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/table/t3-ehp0114-000379/
There is a good reason to split the data by male and female as in the literature it has been noted that female Sprague Dawley rats have a higher tumour incident rate (around 57%) than males (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194).
Ah yes, that's the one I mentioned. Notice how the lowest dose of aspartame they gave the rats was equivalent of 2 cans of diet soda every day for their adult life and had a tumor reduction of 6% compared to the control group!2 -
For me Diet Coke is a luxury and a treat so I'd never give it up. I don't think it's unhealthy if consumed in moderation. I do think it makes my sweet tooth worse..maybe I'm imagining that, but I think it does. Also, when I drink I crave salty stuff, so I have to watch it.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Ah yes, that's the one I mentioned. Notice how the lowest dose of aspartame they gave the rats was equivalent of 2 cans of diet soda every day for their adult life and had a tumor reduction of 6% compared to the control group!
I mean even if you take the Sofritti study completely at face value and focused only on comparing the highest dose with the no dose control and then accepted that the difference in their groups was significant what it is literally saying is that in this specific species of rat if that rat ingests the human-equivalent dose of 3,200 cans of soda per day worth of aspartame over their entire lifespan those rats incidence of cancer increases from 35% chance to 43% chance. And people choose to not only avoid drinking even a single can of soda because of this but also tell everyone around them how dangerous it is. It is honestly hard for me to take that seriously although I do try.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I mean even if you take the Sofritti study completely at face value and accept that the difference in their groups is significant what it is literally saying is that in this specific species of rat if that rat ingests the human-equivalent dose of 3,200 cans of soda per day worth of aspartame over their entire lifespan those rats incidence of cancer increases from 35% chance to 43% chance. And people choose to not only avoid drinking even a single can of soda because of this but also tell everyone around them how dangerous it is.
A shame, since they could be avoiding cancer by drinking two.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I mean even if you take the Sofritti study completely at face value and focused only on comparing the highest dose with the no dose control and then accepted that the difference in their groups was significant what it is literally saying is that in this specific species of rat if that rat ingests the human-equivalent dose of 3,200 cans of soda per day worth of aspartame over their entire lifespan those rats incidence of cancer increases from 35% chance to 43% chance. And people choose to not only avoid drinking even a single can of soda because of this but also tell everyone around them how dangerous it is. It is honestly hard for me to take that seriously although I do try.
According to the MSDS sheet for aspartame, LD50 (the acute dose which would be lethal for 50% of the population) is 10,000 mg/kg (for mice). So even if that translated directly to humans, it means an "average" 150 lb/68 kg human would have to ingest over 680,000 mg of aspartame to reach LD50 levels. From what I can find, Diet Coke has 187 mg of aspartame per 12-ounce serving, so that would equate to an acute dosage of just over 3,636 cans of Diet Coke.
News flash - if you somehow manage to ingest an acute dose of 3,636 cans of Diet Coke, you've got many other issues to deal with which will far supersede the dangers of the aspartame.4 -
According to the MSDS sheet for aspartame, LD50 (the acute dose which would be lethal for 50% of the population) is 10,000 mg/kg (for mice). So even if that translated directly to humans, it means an "average" 150 lb/68 kg human would have to ingest over 680,000 mg of aspartame to reach LD50 levels. From what I can find, Diet Coke has 187 mg of aspartame per 12-ounce serving, so that would equate to an acute dosage of just over 3,636 cans of Diet Coke.
News flash - if you somehow manage to ingest an acute dose of 3,636 cans of Diet Coke, you've got many other issues to deal with which will far supersede the dangers of the aspartame.
I looked at your link, actually the LD50 is given as >10,000 mg/kg. That means they tested up to 10,000 mg/kg with no toxicity seen. IE they didn't encounter a toxic dose so they reported that whatever the toxic dose is, it is higher than the highest amount they tested which is 10,000 mg/kg4 -
According to the MSDS sheet for aspartame, LD50 (the acute dose which would be lethal for 50% of the population) is 10,000 mg/kg (for mice). So even if that translated directly to humans, it means an "average" 150 lb/68 kg human would have to ingest over 680,000 mg of aspartame to reach LD50 levels. From what I can find, Diet Coke has 187 mg of aspartame per 12-ounce serving, so that would equate to an acute dosage of just over 3,636 cans of Diet Coke.
News flash - if you somehow manage to ingest an acute dose of 3,636 cans of Diet Coke, you've got many other issues to deal with which will far supersede the dangers of the aspartame.
Just for fun here is the MSDS for sucrose (ie table sugar). http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927285. It actually has a listed LD50 for acute oral toxicity. 29,700 mg/kg in rats.2 -
Gee, it sure seems as if there are a lot of accounts that espouse the food industry's POV, verbatim.22
-
There's a word for that. It's sandwiched in the dictionary, right in between the two words that surround the word "addiction".run2brazil wrote: »
Severity: I've run half marathons with her and she seeks out diet soda at the finish line instead of water.
11 -
-
There's a word for that. It's sandwiched in the dictionary, right in between the two words that surround the word "addiction".
Right. "I'm thirsty. Think I'd like a soda." = addiction.9 -
Gee, it sure seems as if there are a lot of accounts that espouse the food industry's POV, verbatim.
I notice an equal or greater number of accounts that ignore science and promote unsubstantiated fearmongering and woo.
Did you even read through the thread? Much of what has been said by the sensible people here is backed up by science, with plenty of source links posted.8 -
According to the MSDS sheet for aspartame, LD50 (the acute dose which would be lethal for 50% of the population) is 10,000 mg/kg (for mice). So even if that translated directly to humans, it means an "average" 150 lb/68 kg human would have to ingest over 680,000 mg of aspartame to reach LD50 levels. From what I can find, Diet Coke has 187 mg of aspartame per 12-ounce serving, so that would equate to an acute dosage of just over 3,636 cans of Diet Coke.
News flash - if you somehow manage to ingest an acute dose of 3,636 cans of Diet Coke, you've got many other issues to deal with which will far supersede the dangers of the aspartame.
3,636?
Damn, guess I’ll have to cut back.
3 -
Anecdotal. Broscience get's called out correctly. If it's REAL science, then let's see the refutations that support actual evidence against it.KirbySmith46 wrote: »
You serious Clark? I’ve seen plenty of bad “science” on these forums!
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
3 -
Science is a nothing more than what humans use to study the world that is. It has no point of view or agenda.stevencloser wrote: »
No, just science's POV.
10 -
Science is a nothing more than what humans use to study the world that is. It has no point of view or agenda.
Then why do you insist that those who are basing their beliefs upon science have an agenda?7 -
So let me get this straight..........................scientist's who look for a cure for cancer (or any diseases for that matter) have no point of view or agenda?Science is a nothing more than what humans use to study the world that is. It has no point of view or agenda.
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 2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.9K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions