Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
alicebhsia wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »What studies are you referring to?
try googling it. there are many. i'm not saying i won't occasionally have something with aspartame in it. as to my understanding it's only in high concentrations that it's harmful. even vitamins can be harmful in too high a concentration. but still, our brains are sensitive machines, why sell them out and our health along with it for the sake of convenience or what is easy? (to go along with whatever these money-making companies are pushing on us.) why aspartame isn't scary to me? because i take it in extreme moderation and avoid it whenever possible.
Google turns up all kinds of information about aspartame, some of it very inaccurate or misleading. Since you cited specific studies, I'm curious to know which ones convinced you. If I look up random studies, I have no idea if they are the ones you are referring to or not.
So which studies convinced you?
Edit: Never mind, I see you're citing Mercola. Please consider amping up your scientific literacy. It's of great value in helping you determine what is valid information and what is deceptive trash from quacks.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I GaleHawkins wrote: »Lawyers seem to find Aspartame good for business.
nypost.com/2017/10/18/these-diet-sodas-are-actually-making-people-fat-suit/
"The companies’ diet drinks contain aspertame, a sugar substitute, which some recent studies have shown can cause cardiovascular disease and diabetes, as well as lead to weight gain, the suits claim."
"“Our case is focused on aspertame, but all artificial sweetners” behave the same in your body, said Derek Smith, whose eponymous law firm is lead counsel in all three soda cases."
Lawyers sue over all kinds of ridiculous stuff. If you avoided everything associated with lawsuits, you'd have a very constrained life.
I can agree with that. What I do know is lawyers are out to make big bucks most always. So they had evidence to take into the courtroom before it became a "news" story I am certain. But my question was what could it be?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494042/
A bitter aftertaste: unintended effects of artificial sweeteners on the gut microbiome
"The new study by Suez and colleagues (2014) described the effects of one such dietary change — increasing use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) — on host glucose tolerance. The authors found that glucose intolerance, a marker of metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus, was increased in mice by regular consumption of the sweeteners saccharin, sucralose, or aspartame (Figure 1A). These changes accompanied altered intestinal bacterial communities, including several organisms that are associated with obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disease, and were suppressed by antibiotic treatment, suggesting a direct microbial role......."
https://consumerreports.org/soda/mounting-evidence-against-diet-sodas/
It sounds like a lot of the news article was based on this Consumer Reports story.
The court case may be interesting to hear or a total bust.
Assuming that every lawsuit is based on a foundation of truth and that we should alter our behavior accordingly is an absolutely ridiculous way to go through life.
Instead of assuming they're operating in good faith and that you should follow their lead, why not research their claims and then decide?5 -
Bump6
-
Almost ANYTHING is better than refined sugar.19
-
7
-
Aztec4Life wrote: »Almost ANYTHING is better than refined sugar.
Well that is just silly- no context, no dosage, just a blanket sweeping statement.
I agree big buckets of sugar - bad idea for anyone - but still better than, say, getting bitten by a death adder.
Or swallowing a cup of arsenic.
and in some situations, refined sugar is best thing - eg diabetic having a hypo.
And most people can have reasonable amount in sensible moderation without any issues.
and anyway, thread is about aspartame, not refined sugar.
9 -
8
-
I don't use apartame because it makes the inside of my mouth dry and itchy and gives me a migraine. The doctor said I wasn't allergic but to avoid it anyway.1
-
I don't use apartame because it makes the inside of my mouth dry and itchy and gives me a migraine. The doctor said I wasn't allergic but to avoid it anyway.
That's fine. Some people do have adverse effects to artificial sweeteners. But this thread is speaking to those who think it's bad for everyone.5 -
ANYTHING could be bad or toxic to ANYONE
0 -
I work in a research based university. People would be shocked how skewed and exaggerated research is achieved.
The amounts that test samples of those questionable said samples are fed, ingested, injected,etc at levels you and I would never take in. Do your aspartame or sucralose but beware if you are drinking a 12 pak of diet sodas a day or feeding yourself spoonfuls of artificial sweeteners by the bag. Carcinogenic possibly....at ridiculous levels...probable.
Most of this research is maketing/political movements to bring their own product within a "perceived healthy" standard.
Look out in the near future....plant based sweeteners could be next.
10 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »Almost ANYTHING is better than refined sugar.
It took 78 pages to go from "aspartame is usually fine" to "sugar is the devil." Nice.3 -
I work in a research based university. People would be shocked how skewed and exaggerated research is achieved.
The amounts that test samples of those questionable said samples are fed, ingested, injected,etc at levels you and I would never take in. Do your aspartame or sucralose but beware if you are drinking a 12 pak of diet sodas a day or feeding yourself spoonfuls of artificial sweeteners by the bag. Carcinogenic possibly....at ridiculous levels...probable.
Most of this research is maketing/political movements to bring their own product within a "perceived healthy" standard.
Look out in the near future....plant based sweeteners could be next.
Methodology and statistical testing selection can really stilt the results!0 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Aztec4Life wrote: »Almost ANYTHING is better than refined sugar.
It took 78 pages to go from "aspartame is usually fine" to "sugar is the devil." Nice.
That's pretty slow for here, we are really slacking.
2 -
I work in a research based university. People would be shocked how skewed and exaggerated research is achieved.
The amounts that test samples of those questionable said samples are fed, ingested, injected,etc at levels you and I would never take in. Do your aspartame or sucralose but beware if you are drinking a 12 pak of diet sodas a day or feeding yourself spoonfuls of artificial sweeteners by the bag. Carcinogenic possibly....at ridiculous levels...probable.
Most of this research is maketing/political movements to bring their own product within a "perceived healthy" standard.
Look out in the near future....plant based sweeteners could be next.
Yeah to be honest I don't really agree with you here. You are making a lot if unsupported allegations here and coupling that to some sort of claim to authority from some sort of undefined association with a university.
Statements you make here range from so broad and vague that they would apply to literally anything to just plain false.
In what way is aspartame probably carcinogenic and from what are you claiming that 12 sodas a day crosses that line? Are all studies for any product "marketing" or is it just for aspartame? Can you give an example of a study that was nothing more than "marketing"? Can you give an example of a study that isn't "marketing"? If a study is "marketing" is it automatically invalid or can it's findings still be relevant?
I think you are trying to be pragmatic and helpful but this sort of vague reference to a possible threat and possible conspiracy or hiding of the truth is just supporting that culture of irrational fear I'm so against. Don't make those sorts of claims lightly or flippantly, they are major accusations and should be backed up with at least something.11 -
Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
8 -
Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
I will emphasize "individuals" here because everyone can do what they like with their own thinking, however, science and those who claim to represent the body of evidence do not have such freedoms. Ethical standards for truth mean that they must not overstate what can be supported by the facts. There are too many histrionics in the anti-sweetner camps and statements made that are not supported by evidence. This is not acceptable.
9 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
I will emphasize "individuals" here because everyone can do what they like with their own thinking, however, science and those who claim to represent the body of evidence do not have such freedoms. Ethical standards for truth mean that they must not overstate what can be supported by the facts. There are too many histrionics in the anti-sweetner camps and statements made that are not supported by evidence. This is not acceptable.
I agree with what you state....and I believe we are in the same camp! I am very cynical in regards to research and my weekly diet root beer will have to be pryed from my cold dead hands.1 -
Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
To recap, you're suggesting a research scientist who does this stuff for a living shouldn't get his information from the internet? Wow.5 -
Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
So if your post was just a personal opinion why start the post by saying you work at a university involved in research? That implies that you have specific insider knowledge and examples pertaining to your claims of market-driven unethical research practices that you just sort of allude to without backing up.
If you are going to accuse researchers of behaving unethically and you start that post by stating you work at a university that does research it sort of implies that you have seen unethical practices at your workplace. Is that true?
Again don't just lob accusations like that with nothing to back it up at all.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions