Aspartame and Cognitive Function?

Options
245

Replies

  • Kymmu
    Kymmu Posts: 1,650 Member
    Options
    I just think if it was created in a lab, I don't want to eat it.
  • choccay
    choccay Posts: 32
    Options
    Go to his website, search for "Wakefield" or "vaccination" or "autism".
    Quack, quack, quack.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Options
    http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/prod/2006/mercola2.shtml

    This articles shows nothing about Mercola being a quack only that he labeled natural products as disease cures.
    chlorella, coconut oil, and vitamin k2 are all very good for you. Unfortunately no one is willing to pay for studies on natural products since they would not have exclusive rights on them like a patent on a drug. FDA influenced by the drug companies.

    I see you conveniently ignored this one:
    On Dr. Joseph Mercola's popular website, women are warned against getting mammograms to screen for breast cancer.

    Instead, the Chicago-area physician touts thermograms — digital images of skin surface temperatures — as an early detection tool for a wide range of conditions from cancer to back pain, from lupus to arthritis.

    ...

    The American Cancer Society states that "no study has ever shown that it is an effective screening tool for finding breast cancer early. It should not be used as a substitute for mammograms."

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-fda-warns-mercola-20110425,0,7369962.story
    Sorry I didn't even look at it, but all it says is that the FDA has not approved thermography to be used as a stand-alone tool for diagnosing disease or for screening.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Options
    I just think if it was created in a lab, I don't want to eat it.

    I agree with you. I don't want any extra chemicals in my food.

    If people want to drink diet soda, go ahead, but remember that these man made chemicals may have long term side effects.
  • cooperh3
    Options
    :laugh: I love your posts. I also love aspertame/splenda.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Options
    Where are the ones that show brain damage? I can't seem to find them.

    Thus, the administration of aspartame alone or in the presence of mild systemic inflammatory response increases oxidative stress and inflammation in the brain.

    If you happen to be a lab rat, and have had the aspartame injected directly into your brain.

    If, on the other hand, you happen to be a human being drinking a diet soda you'll be just fine.


    Oh, and the rat study you posted where the aspartame was ingested?
    Rats that had received aspartame (1000 mg/kg b.wt.) in the drinking water for 180 days

    Scaled to human proportions, that's the equivalent of over 100 diet sodas a day for 6 months straight.

    If you're drinking that much diet soda, you've got bigger issues than aspartame.
    scientists don't have 20-30 years for a study to determine long term effects so they increase the dosage.
    If, on the other hand, you happen to be a human being drinking a diet soda you'll be just fine.
    I'm not willing to take that risk. Even a chance at lowering my IQ, liver disfunction, and brain damage, no thanks. I prefer to use other natural stimulants.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Options
    :laugh: I love your posts. I also love aspertame/splenda.
    yeah I know how to waste time. ever try stevia?
  • nevadjinn
    nevadjinn Posts: 75 Member
    Options
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935

    Another interesting study. Especially interesting to me, as I've had a history of depression and bipolar runs in my family.

    At any rate, I'm gonna take Mercola with a pile of salt, or should I say aspartame, from now on. He didn't include a bibliography with one of his most controversial articles and I can find no evidence that the studies he's referencing actually took place! No evidence of it whatsoever. Considering some of the studies you've posted, I would've thought he could have at least referenced those. The results are less conclusive and dramatic, but they definitely give me something to think about. He keeps referring to this evidently nonexistent study that indicated it caused a 15% drop in children's IQs :mad:
  • emmab0902
    emmab0902 Posts: 2,337 Member
    Options
    Like many other issues there will be research to support both sides, so it comes down to choosing what you want in your body.
  • Aperture_Science
    Aperture_Science Posts: 840 Member
    Options
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18627677

    Abdel-Salam OM, Salem NA, Hussein JS.
    Source

    Department of Toxicology and Narcotics, National Research Centre, Tahrir St., Dokki, Cairo, Egypt, omasalam@hotmail.com.
    Abstract

    This study aimed at investigating the effect of the sweetener aspartame on oxidative stress and brain monoamines in normal circumstances and after intraperitoneal (i.p.) administration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 100 μg/kg) in mice.


    School of Biosciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala 686560, India.
    Abstract

    ... Eighteen adult male Wistar rats, weighing 150-175 g, were randomly divided into three groups as follows...


    I'd be worried: if I were a rat or mouse.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Options
    Go to his website, search for "Wakefield" or "vaccination" or "autism".
    Quack, quack, quack.
    I read the Wakefield article. I believe him. who's to say these triple vaccines that are used are completely safe? I also believe that the vaccine manufacturers would try to stop his research if it threatened their business.
  • jennifershoo
    jennifershoo Posts: 3,198 Member
    Options
    If, on the other hand, you happen to be a human being drinking a diet soda you'll be just fine.

    Fine until when? Maybe in a few years, another study will prove that it does cause cancer.
    It's been happening a lot in history.
    Not long ago, they made thermometers with mercury...
    Not long ago, they used lead in paint...
    Humans discover new chemicals or new use to chemicals and they start using them as soon as possible to make the most profit of of them. They don't want to wait 30 years to research the long time side effects.
    Anyway, it's your body. I don't want to take the chance to maybe ''be fine''.
  • Aperture_Science
    Aperture_Science Posts: 840 Member
    Options
    Go to his website, search for "Wakefield" or "vaccination" or "autism".
    Quack, quack, quack.
    I read the Wakefield article. I believe him. who's to say these triple vaccines that are used are completely safe? I also believe that the vaccine manufacturers would try to stop his research if it threatened their business.

    "The GMC have found he was “misleading” “dishonest” and “irresponsible” in the way he described where the children in the 1998 paper came from, by implying that they were routine clinic referrals. As the GMC have also found, these children were subjected to a programme of unpleasant and invasive tests which were not performed in their own clinical interest, but rather for research purposes, and these tests were conducted without ethics committee approval."

    and

    "Even if it had been immaculately well conducted – and it certainly wasn’t – Wakefield’s “case series report” of 12 children’s clinical anecdotes would never have justified the conclusion that MMR causes autism, despite what journalists claimed: it simply didn’t have big enough numbers to do so. "

    Extract from Ben Goldacre's Report on "Bad Science" web site : http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/the-wakefield-mmr-verdict/

    Well done on reading Wakefield's original paper (no sarcasm intended in that statement), you have done more than many, myself included. But his research has been discredited by the scientific community whilst being misreported by the media.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Options
    Go to his website, search for "Wakefield" or "vaccination" or "autism".
    Quack, quack, quack.
    I read the Wakefield article. I believe him. who's to say these triple vaccines that are used are completely safe? I also believe that the vaccine manufacturers would try to stop his research if it threatened their business.

    "The GMC have found he was “misleading” “dishonest” and “irresponsible” in the way he described where the children in the 1998 paper came from, by implying that they were routine clinic referrals. As the GMC have also found, these children were subjected to a programme of unpleasant and invasive tests which were not performed in their own clinical interest, but rather for research purposes, and these tests were conducted without ethics committee approval."

    and

    "Even if it had been immaculately well conducted – and it certainly wasn’t – Wakefield’s “case series report” of 12 children’s clinical anecdotes would never have justified the conclusion that MMR causes autism, despite what journalists claimed: it simply didn’t have big enough numbers to do so. "

    Extract from Ben Goldacre's Report on "Bad Science" web site : http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/the-wakefield-mmr-verdict/

    Well done on reading Wakefield's original paper (no sarcasm intended in that statement), you have done more than many, myself included. But his research has been discredited by the scientific community whilst being misreported by the media.
    I would disapprove of the tests if they were for research (without knowledge and consent) and not diagnosis as well.
  • TheDevastator
    TheDevastator Posts: 1,626 Member
    Options
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935

    Another interesting study. Especially interesting to me, as I've had a history of depression and bipolar runs in my family.

    At any rate, I'm gonna take Mercola with a pile of salt, or should I say aspartame, from now on. He didn't include a bibliography with one of his most controversial articles and I can find no evidence that the studies he's referencing actually took place! No evidence of it whatsoever. Considering some of the studies you've posted, I would've thought he could have at least referenced those. The results are less conclusive and dramatic, but they definitely give me something to think about. He keeps referring to this evidently nonexistent study that indicated it caused a 15% drop in children's IQs :mad:
    I believe you have to take any doctor's opinion with a grain of salt. They are bombarded with conflicting ideas all the time. It comes down to either research (and a lot of it can be biased) or if there isn't enough to making an educated guess. I prefer natural sweeteners like stevia leaf or even better fresh fruit to man made chemicals.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    How about stevia? It's just been licensed for use in the UK, and I have some but it tastes funny to me. Does it have the same possible side effects as aspartame?
  • castadiva
    castadiva Posts: 2,016 Member
    Options
    My mother is a bioscientist working in food-safety, with a PhD in pathology. All aspartame-containing products were banned from our home and diets from the time I was about 8, after several articles were published in leading international 'trade' periodicals about the abnormally-high incidence of Alzheimers, Parkinson's and other neurological diseases in workers in the plants that produced aspartame. These people were exposed to high levels of the product over an extended period of time, and the ocurrence of neurological disorders was markedly higher than among the general population. Admittedly, most people's consumption will be much lower, but over a lifetime of aspartame-sweetened diet drinks, diet foods etc., that's a LOT of aspartame buliding up in the system. As I was very young at the time, I'm afraid I don't remember precisely where the articles were published, but my mother is very disinclined to react so strongly to anything she feels is 'faddy' or scientifically illogical.

    I have extremely low built-up tolerance for aspartame, because I have very rarely consumed it in the last 20-odd years (takes a LOT of label-reading to avoid it!). When I inadvertently drank a drink containing diet soda (aspartame-sweetened) several months ago, I rapidly developed a blinding headache, shaky hands and numbness in one side of my body that lasted for around 30 minutes. This chemical has not been around long enough for a conclusive study of what it does to human bodies, but based on my own experiences and the information that was around within the scientific community in the early-90s, I'd prefer not to risk it!

    I hadn't realised it converted to formaldehyde - everyone does realise that this is what is used to pickle, in effect, body parts for study? You know those big jars with random organs, foetuses etc - they're all filled with formaldehyde. Not something I'd want in my body!
  • LabRat529
    LabRat529 Posts: 1,323 Member
    Options
    Ah man. I missed all the fun :( That's what I get for going to bed on time.

    And alas, I've got a presentation due today, so only a moment to play on MFP and then I've got to get back to it.

    I will provide this opinion for you to chew on: I work in neuroscience and pharmacology (a.k.a. drug development). A compound must pass through the blood-brain barrier to directly impact CNS function. I've seen no evidence that aspartame can do that, which means it's unlikely to directly impact cognitive function.

    If aspartame has a negative impact on health, it is not likely via action on the CNS. It's effect would be peripheral, i.e. elsewhere in the body. And yes, you can get a headache due to peripheral effects.

    That said, I've read the literature on aspartame and I am not at all convinced its harmful. Regarding its metabolism into formaldehyde... many things are metabolized into formaldehyde and in small doses, formaldehyde is easily metabolized and eliminated.

    I find the inconsistencies in human behavior to be a touch amusing (Including my own inconsistencies! Yes, I can laugh at myself and do often). For those who avoid aspartame, do you also avoid green tea, black tea, coffee, and alcohol? All of those have compounds in them that are toxic to the human body when consumed in large enough concentrations. Alcohol in particular does some rather interesting things to the brain.

    I'm not saying aspartame is the new health-food, but I really don't think it's dangerous at all... unless you're planning on directly injecting it into your brain, as mentioned, in which case you will be bypassing that blood-brain barrier and you're neurons will likely be upset.
  • LabRat529
    LabRat529 Posts: 1,323 Member
    Options
    I just think if it was created in a lab, I don't want to eat it.

    I agree with you. I don't want any extra chemicals in my food.

    If people want to drink diet soda, go ahead, but remember that these man made chemicals may have long term side effects.

    Nature made chemicals may have long term side effects too.

    That's probably the one thing that bugs me the most about the 'all natural' movement. No one seems to care that nature has been poisoning us far longer than we've been poisoning ourselves.

    "Natural" is not always safe. With aspartame, at least I have clinical trials to examine, and I can choose for myself with education and information. Where are the clinical trials to prove that 'all natural' Stevia is safe?
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,709 Member
    Options
    Asparatame has absolutely NO effect on cognitive function... unless maybe you were to inject it directly into the brain. That might sting a little (I'm joking! Please don't insert a cannula and inject the stuff into your brain).

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9734727

    Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Sep;68(3):531-7.
    Aspartame: neuropsychologic and neurophysiologic evaluation of acute and chronic effects.
    Spiers PA, Sabounjian L, Reiner A, Myers DK, Wurtman J, Schomer DL.
    Source
    Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, USA.
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    Neurobehavioral symptoms have been reported anecdotally with aspartame.
    OBJECTIVE:
    This study sought to determine whether aspartame can disrupt cognitive, neurophysiologic, or behavioral functioning in normal individuals.
    DESIGN:
    Forty-eight healthy volunteers completed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. The first month was aspartame free. Subjects then consumed sodas and capsules with placebo, aspartame, or sucrose for 20 d each. Order was randomized and subjects were assigned to either a high- (45 mg x kg body wt(-1) x d(-1)) or low- (15 mg x kg body wt(-1) x d(-1)) dose aspartame group. Neuropsychologic and laboratory testing was done on day 10 of each treatment period to determine possible acute effects and on day 20 for possible chronic effects.
    RESULTS:
    Plasma phenylalanine concentrations increased significantly during aspartame treatment. Neuropsychologic results; adverse experiences; amino acid, insulin, and glucose values; and electroencephalograms were compared by sex and by treatment. No significant differences were found for any dependent measure.
    CONCLUSION:
    Large daily doses of aspartame had no effect on neuropsychologic, neurophysiologic, or behavioral functioning in healthy young adults.



    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8277950

    N Engl J Med. 1994 Feb 3;330(5):301-7.
    Effects of diets high in sucrose or aspartame on the behavior and cognitive performance of children.
    Wolraich ML, Lindgren SD, Stumbo PJ, Stegink LD, Appelbaum MI, Kiritsy MC.
    Source
    Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    Both dietary sucrose and the sweetener aspartame have been reported to produce hyperactivity and other behavioral problems in children.
    METHODS:
    We conducted a double-blind controlled trial with two groups of children: 25 normal preschool children (3 to 5 years of age), and 23 school-age children (6 to 10 years) described by their parents as sensitive to sugar. The children and their families followed a different diet for each of three consecutive three-week periods. One diet was high in sucrose with no artificial sweeteners, another was low in sucrose and contained aspartame as a sweetener, and the third was low in sucrose and contained saccharin (placebo) as a sweetener. All the diets were essentially free of additives, artificial food coloring, and preservatives. The children's behavior and cognitive performance were evaluated weekly.
    RESULTS:
    The preschool children ingested a mean (+/- SD) of 5600 +/- 2100 mg of sucrose per kilogram of body weight per day while on the sucrose diet, 38 +/- 13 mg of aspartame per kilogram per day while on the aspartame diet, and 12 +/- 4.5 mg of saccharin per kilogram per day while on the saccharin diet. The school-age children considered to be sensitive to sugar ingested 4500 +/- 1200 mg of sucrose per kilogram, 32 +/- 8.9 mg of aspartame per kilogram, and 9.9 +/- 3.9 mg of saccharin per kilogram, respectively. For the children described as sugar-sensitive, there were no significant differences among the three diets in any of 39 behavioral and cognitive variables. For the preschool children, only 4 of the 31 measures differed significantly among the three diets, and there was no consistent pattern in the differences that were observed.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    Even when intake exceeds typical dietary levels, neither dietary sucrose nor aspartame affects children's behavior or cognitive function.

    There are other studies. Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

    Good luck!
    |Nuff said.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition