The Aspartame Thread

Options
15681011

Replies

  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    Well, since anecdotal evidence seems to be carrying the day, I'll provide mine. I drink diet soda, quite a bit of it actually, and have absolutely no headaches, nausea, tremors, panic attacks or any other discernible negative effects. In fact, I don't think I've ever experienced a migraine in my 41 years and if I get a regular headache every couple months, that's unusual. I must be super-human by some people's account.

    My mom this weekend told me to avoid aspertame. I asked her why. "They" say that it's bad, she says. I asked her who were "they". She couldn't give me a definitive answer. I told her it was rubbish. Unfortunately, my mom isn't the only one who is susceptible to junk science and authoritative-sounding advice aimed at the easily swayed and confused.
  • LabRat529
    LabRat529 Posts: 1,323 Member
    Options

    "FDA does not approve something just because a powerful man wants it to be approved. They just don't."

    You know that because?

    All we're doing at this point is throwing around opinions.

    I know that because I have a PhD in pharmacology, which requires an understanding of how drugs are approved for human use. Food compounds would have to follow a similar process, including countless hours at the bench doing biochemical and cell work, countless hours testing the compounds in mice and/or rats, and then in "higher" mammals like dogs, cats, pigs, and/or primates. You have to have AT LEAST two species before you can move into human trials. It then has to go through multiple phases of human trials, in double blind, placebo controlled studies. The FDA reviews all the literature available on the compounds including any literature that contradicts the findings presented by the people "pushing" the drug. Most compounds are rejected by the FDA.

    Of course, this is the internet. You're welcome to disbelieve my credentials.
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    I know that because I have a PhD in pharmacology, which requires an understanding of how drugs are approved for human use.
    Oh snap! No worries. The anti-science forces will spin an argument to discredit your obvious expertise on the subject.
  • dolldreams
    dolldreams Posts: 245 Member
    Options

    "FDA does not approve something just because a powerful man wants it to be approved. They just don't."

    You know that because?

    All we're doing at this point is throwing around opinions.

    I know that because I have a PhD in pharmacology, which requires an understanding of how drugs are approved for human use. Food compounds would have to follow a similar process, including countless hours at the bench doing biochemical and cell work, countless hours testing the compounds in mice and/or rats, and then in "higher" mammals like dogs, cats, pigs, and/or primates. You have to have AT LEAST two species before you can move into human trials. It then has to go through multiple phases of human trials, in double blind, placebo controlled studies. The FDA reviews all the literature available on the compounds including any literature that contradicts the findings presented by the people "pushing" the drug. Most compounds are rejected by the FDA.

    Of course, this is the internet. You're welcome to disbelieve my credentials.

    Surely you don't believe that the FDA is somehow made up of super humans that are incapable of being corrupted.
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    Options

    "FDA does not approve something just because a powerful man wants it to be approved. They just don't."

    You know that because?

    All we're doing at this point is throwing around opinions.

    I know that because I have a PhD in pharmacology, which requires an understanding of how drugs are approved for human use. Food compounds would have to follow a similar process, including countless hours at the bench doing biochemical and cell work, countless hours testing the compounds in mice and/or rats, and then in "higher" mammals like dogs, cats, pigs, and/or primates. You have to have AT LEAST two species before you can move into human trials. It then has to go through multiple phases of human trials, in double blind, placebo controlled studies. The FDA reviews all the literature available on the compounds including any literature that contradicts the findings presented by the people "pushing" the drug. Most compounds are rejected by the FDA.

    Of course, this is the internet. You're welcome to disbelieve my credentials.

    Surely you don't believe that the FDA is somehow made up of super humans that are incapable of being corrupted.
    It would only work in the short-term because science would eventually uncover the truth. It's been over 30 years.
  • LabRat529
    LabRat529 Posts: 1,323 Member
    Options
    Surely you don't believe that the FDA is somehow made up of super humans that are incapable of being corrupted.

    Super human? No. Humans with above-average intelligence and a higher than average level of education? Yes.

    Some individuals within the FDA are undoubtably corrupt.

    The entire FDA? I find that highly unlikely.

    But then, I've never been prone toward conspiracy theories, and I am instead inclined to believe that most scientists, most analysts, and most people in the FDA are inclined to objectively look at the data and protect humans from dangerous substances.

    The system is not perfect, but it's good and I have faith in it.
  • LabRat529
    LabRat529 Posts: 1,323 Member
    Options
    It would only work in the short-term because science would eventually uncover the truth. It's been over 30 years.

    This too :D
  • cutethang1
    cutethang1 Posts: 239 Member
    Options
    From my endocronoligist:

    Espartame safe (Acceptable Daily Intake- 40 mg/kg body weight per day.
    For example: a 50 kg (110lbs) person could SAFELY have 2000mg of spartame per day. One can of diet pop contains up to 200 mg of aspartame.


    Surcralose (Same as above but ADI = 9mg/kg of body weight per day.

    Saccacharin AVOID

    Cyclamate AVOID (Sucaryl, Sugar Twin, Seet N Low)
  • dolldreams
    dolldreams Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    Surely you don't believe that the FDA is somehow made up of super humans that are incapable of being corrupted.

    Super human? No. Humans with above-average intelligence and a higher than average level of education? Yes.

    Some individuals within the FDA are undoubtably corrupt.

    The entire FDA? I find that highly unlikely.

    But then, I've never been prone toward conspiracy theories, and I am instead inclined to believe that most scientists, most analysts, and most people in the FDA are inclined to objectively look at the data and protect humans from dangerous substances.

    The system is not perfect, but it's good and I have faith in it.

    Well, since I'm an un-intelligent, uneducated, snaky, childish, rude conspiracy theorist...I'll let you scientists form a consensus without me. :laugh:

    No seriously, it was fun but it's dinner time! I don't really care what you guys are drinking with yours but mine will be sans Aspartame. :drinker:
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    Well, since I'm an un-intelligent, uneducated, snaky, childish, rude conspiracy theorist...I'll let you scientists form a consensus without me.
    We will and we don't need your permission.
  • LabRat529
    LabRat529 Posts: 1,323 Member
    Options
    Well, since I'm an un-intelligent, uneducated, snaky, childish, rude conspiracy theorist...I'll let you scientists form a consensus without me. :laugh:

    No seriously, it was fun but it's dinner time! I don't really care what you guys are drinking with yours but mine will be sans Aspartame. :drinker:

    I didn't call you un-intelligent, uneducated, or a conspiracy theorist, but comments like this do make me wonder about your ability to engage in respectful debate.

    Regardless, I'm not really trying to convince you. As mentioned earlier, I've learned that true believers cannot be swayed. The true believer assumes that all science is corrupt except for the science that favors their particular bias.

    No... I get drawn into these types of discussions because I hope that my words will prevent someone else from 'drinking the cool-aid'. I don't care one way or the other whether someone drinks aspartame. Indeed, I have friends and family that choose not to drink it and I fully support them in their choice. My concern is with the myths that make aspartame seem more dangerous than it really is. I think its especially sad when people try to blame a brain tumor on diet pepsi or Alzheimer's disease on diet coke. These conditions are tragic enough without heaping scorn on the sufferer for choosing to drink sweet-tasting low-calorie beverages, especially when there's no evidence at all that their choice contributed to their condition.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,568 Member
    Options
    I would blame people like Jillian Michaels (whom I truly respect as a trainer, but not as a nutritionist) and other celeb trainers who follow the fitness industry lead.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • PS2CR
    PS2CR Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    I'm a moderate diet soda drinker now (Sprite Zero), but used to drink diet sodas often in place of water (maybe 2-3 cans a day). I have had a few attacks of vertigo in recent years. But I suspect this is more related to my age and Menieres disease than artificial sweeteners (Menieres runs in my family--my dad has it); there is a strong hereditary component to this disease. (I'll also note my dad has never touched artificial sweeteners.) One thing not mentioned in here (at least that I've not seen) is that soft drinks have a LOT of sodium. I've noticed a greater frequency of morning vertigo attacks after indulging in excessive salty snacking, and also after drinking alcohol instead of water at dinnertime.There is some science out there that says vertigo and ear crystal problems can be triggered by dehydration. So I'm working on upping my water intake, and going for moderation in my caffeine, sodium, and alcohol--all known causes of dehydration. That seems to be working, for me at least.

    JMO, but I'd guess excessive caffeine intake is the likely culprit in a 3-5 can/day Dr Pepper habit leading to anxiety or panic attacks. Excessive caffeine has definitely been linked to anxiety attacks in people, whereas 'allergic' reactions to artificial sweeteners are more individual. In other words, there's no science that can (yet) say artificial sweeteners are bad across the board for all humans b/c they universally cause migraines, or universally cause anxiety attacks,or universally cause vertigo, etc. If an artificial sweetener is responsible at all for those effects, it seems to be only on an individual reaction/allergy level. So caffeine would seem the most suspect, here.

    One more plus for artificial sweeteners; a decline in tooth decay.
  • dayone987
    dayone987 Posts: 645 Member
    Options
    I'm a moderate diet soda drinker now (Sprite Zero), but used to drink diet sodas often in place of water (maybe 2-3 cans a day). I have had a few attacks of vertigo in recent years. But I suspect this is more related to my age and Menieres disease than artificial sweeteners (Menieres runs in my family--my dad has it); there is a strong hereditary component to this disease. (I'll also note my dad has never touched artificial sweeteners.) One thing not mentioned in here (at least that I've not seen) is that soft drinks have a LOT of sodium. I've noticed a greater frequency of morning vertigo attacks after indulging in excessive salty snacking, and also after drinking alcohol instead of water at dinnertime.There is some science out there that says vertigo and ear crystal problems can be triggered by dehydration. So I'm working on upping my water intake, and going for moderation in my caffeine, sodium, and alcohol--all known causes of dehydration. That seems to be working, for me at least.

    JMO, but I'd guess excessive caffeine intake is the likely culprit in a 3-5 can/day Dr Pepper habit leading to anxiety or panic attacks. Excessive caffeine has definitely been linked to anxiety attacks in people, whereas 'allergic' reactions to artificial sweeteners are more individual. In other words, there's no science that can (yet) say artificial sweeteners are bad across the board for all humans b/c they universally cause migraines, or universally cause anxiety attacks,or universally cause vertigo, etc. If an artificial sweetener is responsible at all for those effects, it seems to be only on an individual reaction/allergy level. So caffeine would seem the most suspect, here.

    One more plus for artificial sweeteners; a decline in tooth decay.

    The average can of diet soda has less than 50 mg of sodium. Not a lot. Even if you drank 10 cans a day that's less 20% of RDA
  • Charliebarleymo
    Options
    Do what you're going to do and I'll do what I'm going to do. We're both going to die anyways. :)

    Best answer ever.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    I haven't read all the replies, but I think this is an interesting article on artificial sweeteners.

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/which-sweetener-should-you-choose/
    ...
    Dr. Willett said the long-term safety of the artificial sweeteners remained an open question. “It’s interesting to keep in mind, if you smoke cigarettes, the lung cancer risk doesn’t go up for 30 years,” he said. “And that’s a really powerful carcinogen. A lot of things don’t show up for several decades.”
    ...
    In terms of relative risk — the known dangers of sugar and weight gain versus the uncertainties of artificial sweeteners — “artificially sweetened beverages are much less bad than the full-sugar beverages,” Dr. Willett said. Still, diet sodas are less than optimal. “I view them like a nicotine patch,” he said.

    The better solution to protect health: Eat and drink less sweet stuff.
  • poulingail
    poulingail Posts: 110
    Options
    I rarely drink beverages with sugar in them. I steer away from the added calories and now that I am type 2 diabetic, I have to control my carb intake. Why would I waste my carbs on a sugary beverage =O That being said, I avoid saccharin because years ago we were told of it's issues. My preferred sweetener is Splenda in the yellow packet. I do not avoid Aspartame but I don't like the taste and might avoid it if I read a label.

    The big culprit in the sweetener story is sorbitol, a natural sugar substitute made by hydrogenation, which causes diarrhea - big time. Ever try to eat a few sugar-free chocolates or put extra sugar-free syrup on your pancakes? It is one of the Polyols - Erythritol, HSH, Lactitol, Maltitol, Mannitol, Sorbitol, Xylitol, Isomalt

    [One source I checked never mentioned the GI side effects of sorbitol and seemed to be industry driven. http://www.caloriecontrol.org/sweeteners-and-lite/polyols/sorbitol

    Another source said, "This medication is used as a laxative to treat occasional episodes of constipation." http://www.medicinenet.com/sorbitol-oral/article.htm ]

    Getting back to the OP question on aspartame, I don't care for the taste as much. I always ask for Splenda if I don't see it on the table at a restaurant and it's first to disappear at convenience store coffee bars.

    My favorite SF beverage is Diet Coke or Coke Zero, both with Splenda.

    Thanks to the OP for trying to maintain a well thought out thread on aspartame. It's refreshing!
  • bionicrooster
    bionicrooster Posts: 353 Member
    Options
    not got time to read the whole thread, but I'm very intolerant to aspartame. It does bad things to my digestive system (or you could say my digestive system simply refuses to have anything to do with it and shows it the door LOL) but yeah I avoid that stuff like the plague.

    ....edited for brevity...

    It annoys me when people totally dismiss the health issues with aspartame, they may not affect everyone but they are real and some people don't realise what's causing them. (and yes I know that can happen with intolerances and allergies to natural things as well) I do wish they wouldn't put it in so many different things though, or at least produce aspartame free diet soft drinks, just like you can get gluten free, dairy free etc.

    This is why this subject never dies. No matter what the OP says about facts you get statements like.... "I haven't read the whole thread, but aspartame causes health issues...." without one substantial fact to back them up.

    It can be frustrating...
  • BrettPGH
    BrettPGH Posts: 4,720 Member
    Options
    This is why this subject never dies. No matter what the OP says about facts you get statements like.... "I haven't read the whole thread, but aspartame causes health issues...." without one substantial fact to back them up.

    It can be frustrating...

    SO frustrating! But at least there is SOME good information in this thread.

    The funny part is it all comes from the "aspartame is safe for use" crowd. Because that's just the fact of the matter.

    It's simple logic. Aspartame is very widely used. If it really did cause death, cancer, or constant explosive diarrhea as these people are claiming wouldn't we have noticed it by now? Or is that part of the conspiracy?
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    ASPARTAME IS THE DEVIL! THERE'S A WORLD-WIDE CONSPIRACY SPEARHEADED BY DONALD RUMSFELD TO KILL THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE! IT'S SUCH AN EVIL DIABOLICAL CONSPIRACY THAT A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH COMPLTELY REVEALS THE ENTIRE THING!

    I mean, it's not like the entire world would actually know how to use Google, right? Nah, Google is obviously some secrecy conspiracy exposing web site, that only people who know about the conspiracy are able to access and use. Nobody at all in government, or law enforcement can access Google and discover the evil truth... :huh:

    I'll link to this again:
    http://sci-ence.org/red-flags2/
    Panel number 4.