• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

The dangers of artificial sweeteners debunked


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#91 aikikai

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 July 2006 - 04:01 PM

The book claims that at one time aspartame was being considered as a biological weapon.


That's true. Actually aspartame was created by an "accident", when some scientist in the 1960's where trying to develop a new biological weapon that would attact the nervous system. Funny that the claims about aspartames side effects, or should I say effects, is that it damages the nervous system.

And I don't care if there is "no" good scientific support of dangers with aspartame, I will never eat it again. I mean the goverments all over the world have approved dangerous chemicals through the years, and now these chemicals have been banned by the same goverments.

I live in Sweden and some year ago they introduced Splenda here. The recent weeks I highly aclaimed professor in Sweden have been warning about Splenda in the media.
(Swedish only) http://www.aftonblad...,750277,00.html

#92 kenj

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Copenhagen.

Posted 25 July 2006 - 10:35 PM

And I don't care if there is "no" good scientific support of dangers with aspartame


Aspartame is bad stuff! [nuk] [alien] [nuk] [alien]
Besides giving me a headache (who needs a thousand studies, when you can get a thousand, actual, human real-life headaches!) it tastes gross for me and is a toXin. Oh my.
This may not intelligible match this boards' preference for discussing things (I myself prefer a scientific approach), but: I'd certainly appreciate human "anecdotes" and I would definitely count them in when discussing a matter like this, to balance things wisely.
I wouldn't need to pick up the book: The Hundred-Year Lie: How Food and Medicine Are Destroying Your Health, although I'm sure it's eye-opening reading.

#93 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 26 July 2006 - 02:28 AM

Biknut, could you provide some evidence for your claim re:weight gain, because last time I heard it was not backed by scientific evidence, as is the case with pretty much every other claim about aspartame:


opales, Try a google search on,


aspartame and weight gain


Read a page or two of the 276,000 hits. I think you'll see what I mean.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#94 kylyssa

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:08 AM

I have a seizure disorder due to a head injury. Several of my doctors have cautioned me to avoid aspartame. I have avoided it just to be on the safe side. Ten years ago though I had been seizure free for over a year I had a cluster of seizures. I had no idea what was up. I later found that the lemonade (very tasty) my coworker had been sharing at work was sweetened with aspartame. This alone didn't convince me but again I've avoided it to be safe. Just this year I had a seizure after nearly ten years seizure free. The culprit this time was sugar free MDX, a Pepsi product energy drink. With the popularization of Splenda I've been drinking diet soda - this one blind-sided me in part due to laziness. I'd seen the Splenda logo and read the ingredients as far down as Splenda then said, ok, it's fine. Unfortunately Diet MDX is sweetened with both sucralose and aspartame. There's no psychological aspect to the reaction, I didn't know I'd consumed aspartame in either case. I suppose it's possible it was a coincidence but it seems a stretch for it to coincide that the only two times in ten years I had seizures coincided with the only two times in ten tears I had aspartame.

#95 opales

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 892 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Espoo, Finland

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:08 AM

I am not completely discounting anecdotal evidence, it's weak evidence but can nevertheless provide insights especially if evidence is otherwise scarce, which by the way is not case with many claims of aspartame, especially regarding cancer. But I do have to say that I trust some people's anecdotes more than others'. Anyway, with artificial sweeteners the notion of them being somehow dangerous, caused by historical reasons (the saccharin cancer study) and the appealing yet flawed naturalistic fallacy, are so infiltraded troughout society that it's almost impossible to gain any knowledge through anecdotal evidence. I mean, even if there happened to be something real to some of the claims, I am still absolutely certain that 90% of claims made re:aspartame are absolute bogus, made by people making extremely shallow inferences.

Many say it's a wise precautionary principle, and I do agree if there is no additional trouble then I guess there is nothing wrong with avoiding it if it somehow makes you feel better. However, given the importance of energy intake to overall health (ranging from beneficial aspects of CR to detrimental aspects of widespread obesity), I do think it is a little silly to pass out on a rather easy way to reduce the calorie intake of one's diet while getting some indulgence with rather substantial SCIENTIFIC evidence showing it is a safe practise. I am not sure how consistent people are with their precautionary principles anyway, stevia has quite a bit uncertainties regarding its safety yet people seem to have no problems consuming it.

Also food for thought regarding the abundance of of synthetic vs. "natural" substances with carcinogenic potential, making the decision to avoid "a potential carcinogen" (despite quite a bit of contrary evidence as in case with sweeteners) as a safety precaution even more shaky:

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n16.htm

Of  all chemicals  tested at  high  doses in  both rats  and mice
(about  400  chemicals),  about  half  are  carcinogens:  thus,
carcinogens,  as defined  by  such tests,  are  extremely common.
Synthetic industrial chemicals  account for almost  all (-85%) of
the chemicals tested.  However, despite the  fact that more than
99.9%  of the  chemicals  humans eat  are  natural, only  a small
number (about 70)  of natural chemicals have  been tested in both
rats and mice; again, about  half are carcinogens.  These results
imply that synthetic  chemicals, except in  the case of high-dose
occupational exposure,  are unlikely  to be  responsible for much
human cancer.  This is in  agreement with the  conclusion of the
epidemiologists  who  study  human  cancer:  only  a  minuscule
proportion, if any,  of cancer is  likely to be  due to pesticide
residues.

Nature's pesticides are one  important group of natural chemicals
that we have investigated.  All  plants produce toxins to protect
themselves  against fungi,  insects, and  predators such  as man.
Tens  of  thousands  of  these  natural  pesticides  have  been
discovered, and  every species of  plant contains its  own set of
different toxins, usually a few  dozen.  In addition, when plants
are  stressed or  damaged,  such as  during  a pest  attack, they
increase their  natural pesticide levels  many fold, occasionally
to levels  that are  acutely toxic  to humans.  We estimate that
99.9% of the pesticides we eat are all natural.

Surprisingly few plant  toxins have been  tested in animal cancer
bioassays, but among  those tested, again  about half (20/42) are
carcinogenic.  Even though only a tiny proportion of plant toxins
in our diet have been  tested, natural pesticide carcinogens have
been shown to  be present in the  following foods: anise, apples,
bananas, basil, broccoli,  brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe,
carrots,  cauliflower, celery,  cinnamon, cloves,  cocoa, coffee,
comfrey  tea,  fennel,  grapefruit  juice,  honeydew  melon,
horseradish,  kale,  mushrooms,  mustard,  nutmeg,  orange juice,
parsley, parsnips,  peaches, black  pepper, pineapples, radishes,
raspberries, tarragon,  and turnips.  Thus, it  is probable that
almost every  plant product  in the  supermarket contains natural
carcinogens.  The levels of the  known natural carcinogens in the
above plants  are almost  always much  higher than  the levels of
man-made pesticides,  and many are  in the range  of thousands to
millions of parts  per billion.  I pointed  out to ``60 Minutes''
that a glass  of the suspect  Alar-contaminated apple juice posed
only  1/10th  the  possible carcinogenic  hazard  of  the average
peanut butter sandwich and 1/50th that  of a mushroom, as well as
other  relevant  comparisons  [see  ``Pesticides,  Risk,  and
Applesauce,'' Science, May  19, 1989].  Furthermore,  we need not
be alarmed by the presence of low doses of synthetic toxins and a
plethora  of  natural  toxins  in  our  food.  Humans  are  well
protected by many layers of general defenses against low doses of
toxins -- defenses which do not distinguish between synthetic and
natural  toxins.    In  addition,  new  research  suggests  that
conventional worst-case extrapolations from very high-dose rodent
cancer tests to very low-dose  human exposures to chemicals, such
as  the  NRDC  performed,  enormously  exaggerate  the  possible
hazards.

Additionally, there  is a fundamental  trade-off between nature's
pesticides and man-made pesticides.  We can easily breed out many
of  nature's  pesticides, but  then  we will  need  more man-made
pesticides to protect our crops  from being eaten by insects.  In
contrast, growers are  currently breeding some  plants for insect
resistance  and  unwittingly  raising  the  levels  of  natural
pesticides.


Biknut, putting in key words to Google and thinking it is a valid form of argumentation is just REALLY lame. I bet I could put "creationism is a valid scientific theory" and get quite impressive results, but it does not make the statement any less ludicrous. Instead, I put aspartame and weight gain to Pubmed and the results were quite consistent, like this review of studies regarding weight gain and sweeteners (presented in quite prestigious journal I might add)

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

1: Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Apr;53(4):872-8. Links

    Comment in:
        Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 Jul;58(1):120-2.

    Effects of intense sweeteners on hunger, food intake, and body weight: a review.

        * Rolls BJ.

    Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205.

    The sweet taste of aspartame, saccharin, and acesulfame-K has been reported to increase ratings of hunger and, after saccharin consumption, to increase food intake. However, most investigators have found that aspartame consumption is associated with decreased or unchanged ratings of hunger. Even if aspartame consumption increases ratings of hunger in some situations, it apparently has little impact on the controls of food intake and body weight. Aspartame has not been found to increase food intake; indeed, both short-term and long-term studies have shown that consumption of aspartame-sweetened foods or drinks is associated with either no change or a reduction in food intake. Preliminary clinical trials suggest that aspartame may be useful aid in a complete diet-and-exercise program or in weight maintenance. Intense sweeteners have never been found to cause weight gain in humans.

    PMID: 2008866 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



#96 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 26 July 2006 - 05:24 AM

Hey opales, are you saying that you think the idea of weight gain caused by aspartame is ludicrous. You wouldn't REALLY think that would you, even in spite of the EVIDENCE (capitals is fun) I offered you. Ludicrous is a bit strong. You could say, OK, there might be some evidence, but I don't believe any of that.

BTW, How many overweight persons have you ever known that always drink diet soft drinks. Seems like they should all be thin by now. I hope you're not one of them?

#97 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 26 July 2006 - 05:52 AM

Hey opales, are you saying that you think the idea of weight gain caused by aspartame is ludicrous. You wouldn't REALLY think that would you, even in spite of the EVIDENCE (capitals is fun) I offered you. Ludicrous is a bit strong. You could say, OK, there might be some evidence, but I don't believe any of that.

BTW, How many overweight persons have you ever known that always drink diet soft drinks. Seems like they should all be thin by now. I hope you're not one of them?


Evidence? You said check Google. Not really evidence. All I got were hits from people using phrases like "liver filter" and "takes energy from your liver, causing you to gain fat". Definately convinced me. And there is always the blood sugar thing. I've tested my blood sugar after ingesting a diet drink with aspartame on an empty stomach. No significant change, atleast not for me.

How many overweight people do you know that have every reason to be overweight, regardless of their aspartame intake? Everyone of them that I know, have many reasons for their weight.

#98 sdxl

  • Guest
  • 391 posts
  • 47
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 July 2006 - 08:45 AM

Any one who is taking aspartame must have seriously defective taste buds. Or their brain is screwed up, so they subconsciously know it tastes bad and they eat and drink more junk to wash away the nasty taste.

#99 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 26 July 2006 - 02:44 PM

Nobody has to believe that aspartame will cause weight gain. A lot of doctors seem to think it does, but if you believe there's no way, or that it's LUDICROUS to think so, then you're probably an idiot.

It's not REALLY a factor for me because I think, like the previous poster, the taste is nasty. REALLY!

#100 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 26 July 2006 - 02:44 PM

Nobody has to believe that aspartame will cause weight gain. A lot of doctors seem to think it does, but if you believe there's no way, or that it's LUDICROUS to think so, then you're probably an idiot.

It's not REALLY a factor for me because I think, like the previous poster, the taste is nasty. REALLY!

#101 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:41 PM

Has Protandim made you go crazy?

#102 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:02 PM

Has Protandim made you go crazy?


I don't think it was the Protandim :)

#103 stephen

  • Guest
  • 202 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:28 PM

Anyway, with artificial sweeteners the notion of them being somehow dangerous, caused by historical reasons (the saccharin cancer study) and the appealing yet flawed naturalistic fallacy, are so infiltraded troughout society that it's almost impossible to gain any knowledge through anecdotal evidence.


Excellent point from opales. So many people have this flawed assumption that natural = good. It's always funny to look at the websites talking about the "dangers of artificial sweeteners". They're usually the same websites that promote junk science like acupuncture and homeopathy... therapies proven time and again to be ineffective in scientific studies.

More importantly, the comparison here isn't artificial sweeteners vs. NOTHING.

It's sucralose vs. sucrose. Which is better for you? I've found that Splenda / scuralose is highly effective, and scientifically exciting. At a ratio of 600:1, even if 1 sucralose molecule has some bad effect we haven't discovered, it's got to be better than 600 sucrose molecules we KNOW have bad effects.

#104 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:45 PM

[QUOTE=stephen
They're usually the same websites that promote junk science like acupuncture and homeopathy... therapies proven time and again to be ineffective in scientific studies.[/quote]

Acupuncture is now concidered legit for some problems.

#105 opales

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 892 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Espoo, Finland

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:58 PM

Nobody has to believe that aspartame will cause weight gain.  A lot of doctors seem to think it does, but if you believe there's no way, or that it's LUDICROUS to think so, then you're probably an idiot.

It's not REALLY a factor for me because I think, like the previous poster, the taste is nasty. REALLY!


By ludicrous I actually referred to creationism being valid scientific theory (I btw Googled that, 11 100 000 hits, lots of interesting sites, guess it proves that creationism really is a valid scientific theory then, biknut?).

You should familiarize yourself with newly emerged logical fallacy, argumentum ad google

http://en.wikipedia....entum_ad_Google

I don't have any problems basically with the possibility of sweeteners causing weight gain (although intuitively it does seem unlikely to me), although there has so much faulty claims regarding sweeteners that nowadays I am very cautious against any such claims. Anyway, luckily I don't have to rely on bunch of crazy people (no I am not referring to any of you) writing on the internet for (anecdotal) evidence, since there have actually been multiple controlled scientific studies showing that sweeteners do not cause weight gain or lead to increased food intake.

#106 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 01 August 2006 - 08:02 PM

There's a book that just came out last month that is by far the best word on toxins, artificial additives, sweeteners, colorings, etc.

The Hundred-Year Lie: How Food and Medicine Are Destroying Your Health
http://www.amazon.co...glance&n=283155

The book claims that at one time aspartame was being considered as a biological weapon. It is an extremely well researched/referenced book. Probably the best health related book I've read in the last year (and I read at least one every two weeks).

I'm about halfway through this book, and its crazy. Don't read it unless you are prepared to go all organic with your diet and synthetic chemical-free on your personal care and household products. Ignorance was bliss; now there is no turning back. [:o]

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 01 August 2006 - 08:14 PM.


#107 aikikai

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 0

Posted 03 August 2006 - 11:03 AM

They're usually the same websites that promote junk science like acupuncture and homeopathy... therapies proven time and again to be ineffective in scientific studies.


Sorry, but that is wrong. Acupuncture as been proven many many times that it is working on a lot of stuff (not on everything, but many). A new danish study has proven that acupuncture is more effective in treating infertility in women, better than regular treatments. Just go to PubMed and search on acupuncture and you will find over 10 000 stuides about acpuncture.

#108 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 14 August 2006 - 10:02 PM

Study Linking Aspartame to Cancer

The mission of the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences "B. Ramazzini" is to prevent cancer by identifying its causes and studying new strategies for early diagnosis and intensive therapies.

The European Ramazzini Foundation is a non-profit, private institution with official governmental recognition. Located in Bentivoglio, in the province of Bologna, Italy, its facilities include a Cancer Research Center (CRC) with more than 10,000 square meters of laboratories and archives and an Epidemiological Research Center. The researchers of the European Ramazzini Foundation have worked in environmental health sciences, oncology and toxicology for more than 25 years.

14 July 2005
Press Release

CRC/ERF

Results of study on the carcinogenicity of the artificial sweetener aspartame

Summary. A long-term study to evaluate the potential carcinogenic effects of aspartame, an artificial sweetener used in more than 6,000 food and pharmaceutical products has recently been completed in the experimental laboratories of its Cancer Research Center of the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences "B. Ramazzini" in Bologna, Italy. The first results of the experiment were reported to the Ministry of Health and to the Superior Institute of Health of the Italian government in April 2005. In mid-June, these findings were then communicated to the European Food Safety Authority, the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, the National Cancer Institute of the US government, and the National Toxicology Program of the US National Institutes of Health. First results demonstrate that aspartame, when administered to rats for the entire life span, induces an increase of lymphomas and leukemias in female rats. The study is currently being published in the European Journal of Oncology (available at: www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/docs/AspartameGEO2005.pdf) and final results will be presented at the 3rd international scientific conference of the Collegium Ramazzini, "Framing the Future in Light of the Past: Living in a Chemical World", to be held in Bologna, Italy from September 18-21, 2005, the proceedings of which will be published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Here's the whole study

http://www.dorway.co..._14july2005.pdf

#109 opales

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 892 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Espoo, Finland

Posted 15 August 2006 - 06:34 AM

Biknut, that study has been repeated ad nauseum here.

See comments by me and Michael:

(couple posts by me)
http://www.imminst.o...20

(comment in Michael's supplement regime)
http://www.imminst.o...96

No, I am not worried about aspartame (or sucralose, for that matter). Indeed, the recent, much-hyped report of increased cancer in aspartame-dosed rodents (14) [the one referred by biknut] actually made me LESS nervous about aspartame: it (a) really didn't clearly show any increased risk, and (b) reported IDENTICAL survival curves between treated and untreated animals (if anything, it looked like females given the highest dose lived LONGER on average than untreated animals).


Now that you went there, you should also check my post here, (another) HUMAN long-term study showing no link with cancer and aspartame:
http://www.imminst.o...hl=aspartame&s=

#110 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:34 AM

Aspartame is certainly an interesting sweetener. I think it tastes pretty nasty. However, when I go to movies, I always ask for a 50%/50% combo of Diet Coke/Coke, or Diet Coke/Cherry coke. I don't drink that kind of stuff outside of the movie, if I do feel like spending $4.00 on a drink.

I spend about an hour and a half in the gym almost every day (especially since it is the summer). I try to spend at least 20-30 minutes of that time jogging on the treadmill (which I do to conclude my workout, except for my showering routine). The other hour I am either messing around with weights or just chilling between sets. I have rockin' music on, of course.

I don't have trouble eating a good diet, including natural sugar (as it tastes MUCH better than aspartame), and even straight candy every once in a while if I feel like it. I think its a bad idea to eat too many items with high sugar, but a bit here and there, as long as you are in good shape, shouldn't do you too much harm.

#111 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:42 AM

Biknut, that study has been repeated ad nauseum here.

See comments by me and Michael:

(couple posts by me)
http://www.imminst.o...20

(comment in Michael's supplement regime)
http://www.imminst.o...96

No, I am not worried about aspartame (or sucralose, for that matter). Indeed, the recent, much-hyped report of increased cancer in aspartame-dosed rodents (14) [the one referred by biknut] actually made me LESS nervous about aspartame: it (a) really didn't clearly show any increased risk, and (b) reported IDENTICAL survival curves between treated and untreated animals (if anything, it looked like females given the highest dose lived LONGER on average than untreated animals).


Now that you went there, you should also check my post here, (another) HUMAN long-term study showing no link with cancer and aspartame:
http://www.imminst.o...hl=aspartame&s=


Aside from the fact that I think it tastes nasty and is included in everything from chewing gum to mints to other strange concoctions...it has been used in human food for quite a while and I think the evidence Oplales points to make a strong case for it being safe.

#112 aikikai

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 August 2006 - 10:21 AM

It has been reported over 90 side effects of aspartame to FDA, including death. This was some year ago I heard this.

Here is the reference;
http://www.relfe.com/Aspartame_92.html

"Note: This information required a Freedom Of Information Act request to pry it from the reluctant hands of the FDA."

I thought FDA said it was safe?

#113 opales

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 892 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Espoo, Finland

Posted 15 August 2006 - 12:26 PM

It has been reported over 90 side effects of aspartame to FDA, including death. This was some year ago I heard this.

Here is the reference;
http://www.relfe.com/Aspartame_92.html

"Note: This information required a Freedom Of Information Act request to pry it from the reluctant hands of the FDA."

I thought FDA said it was safe?


The reported side effects are based on people's self-assessed side effects, so they are not verified by any independent instances. The side-effects purportedly caused by aspartame are admittedly many (headaches, seizures etc.) and have lead to various investigations. These investigations (in form of actual trials) have over and over yielded results that aspartame does NOT cause the purported effects. Due these investigations aspartame is probably one of the most investigated dietary, hmmm, substance in the world. The aspartame research outnumbers for example stevia reserach by an order(s) of magnitude.

What can I say, maybe people can't take responsibility of their own life and instead choose to blame some common enemy such as aspartame? Or actually more likely, people are unable to appreciate the stochastic and superbly complex nature of reality, so they choose some simplistic explanation ("I have headache, I drank a soda today so it must be aspartame that caused my headache") in order to preserve sense that they understand what is going on. In reality, no one really can fully "understand" what is going (athough some can better than others), this place is just too friggin' complex.

Edited by opales, 15 August 2006 - 12:46 PM.


#114 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 15 August 2006 - 05:17 PM

Aspartame is poison and no matter how many people in denial refuse to admit it, it's true. For those it makes sick, it's nonsensical to say the studies are inconclusive therefore it must be all in their head or something. Deaths and siezures are not all in the person's head nor are many of the other serious side effects of this drug. Millions of people have been adversely affected by aspartame. It makes me nauseous, tired and wrung out. Many others have even more serious effects from it. It also does not cause weight loss so what reason is there to take it? It has no calories but it induces food cravings which undermine the goal of weight loss and in fact cause weight gain. Someone explain to me why people should use this drug?

#115 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 15 August 2006 - 08:18 PM

Aside from the fact that I think it tastes nasty

Well, this seems to be hit or miss. I seem to recall Harvey Newstrom saying that it tastes nasty to about 10% of the population. Not sure if this is genetic or what. For me, I can definitely tell the difference between aspartame and sugar. Splenda is much closer to sugar for me (on a sidenote, I actually prefer the taste of splenda in some things, like ice cream). However, aspartame only tastes nasty in a few items for me; for the most part, it's still sweet and just tastes a slight bit bitter as well, but not enough to be "nasty".

Aspartame is poison and no matter how many people in denial refuse to admit it, it's true.

People who WANT to believe that aspartame is toxic, and that there's some huge Posted ImageconspiracyPosted Image to cover up the Posted ImagefactsPosted Image, because of the amount of money at stake, should grow the hell up.
Aspartame has been proven safe in the general case, no matter how many people in denial refuse to admit it or use their brains.

For those it makes sick

A small subset of the population, based mainly on genetic factors (metabolic disorders, such as problems with phenylalanine, etc.) or other person-specific factors (perhaps diet).

For the people who get sick, many can readily reproduce the sickness in themselves with aspartame, and the symptoms go away when they stop taking aspartame. While this is a lovely experiment within the individual case, it says exactly ZERO for the general population. I don't get sick, despite at times having drunk in excess of 2 liters per day of diet soda at various points in my life. If you want to compare anecdotal evidence, MOST of it will say that aspartame is safe. For though whom it makes sick, they shouldn't take it! duh!

It also does not cause weight loss so what reason is there to take it? It has no calories but it induces food cravings which undermine the goal of weight loss and in fact cause weight gain.

Red herring. It has fewer calories than sugar, so if you compare two people eating the same exact diets, except for one drinks regular soda and the other drinks diet, the person drinking diet WILL lose more weight (or gain less) relative to the other person. If you think otherwise, then you must somehow prove that taking aspartame somehow reduces your metabolism by up to 20-40%. Now that would be something!

Yes, people who take aspartame appear to get increased appetites (the evidence isn't ironclad, but it's more than enough to convince me). However, someone in even moderate control of their diet can account for this. Education is the answer, not banning an otherwise harmless substance. Pick your battles. This one is a waste of time, and only entertains the fad of having conspiracy theories for the hell of it (as opposed to things that actually matter).

#116 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 15 August 2006 - 08:34 PM

Speaking of people in denial... Jay wrote:

"People who WANT to believe that aspartame is toxic,.."

They don't "want" to believe it, they can feel it for themselves.

"For the people who get sick, many can readily reproduce the sickness in themselves with aspartame, and the symptoms go away when they stop taking aspartame."

Correct, but you choose to believe that the rest of the population is not hurt by it in the slightest.

"Yes, people who take aspartame appear to get increased appetites"

Exactly what I've been saying. It does not cause weight loss even though in theory it should. Now, given that it's overtly toxic to many and may be slightly toxic to the rest, why should anyone use aspartame? It causes no weight loss and may make you sick. What benefits in actual fact does it have?

Next I expect you to defend MSG.

#117 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 15 August 2006 - 08:44 PM

Speaking of people in denial... Jay wrote:

"People who WANT to believe that aspartame is toxic,.."

They don't "want" to believe it, they can feel it for themselves.

Who's in denial? I was very clear about what I said:

"For the people who get sick, many can readily reproduce the sickness in themselves with aspartame, and the symptoms go away when they stop taking aspartame."

You quoted it yourself. Can you not link two thoughts together?

Aspartame is toxic for a small subset of the population. A small subset. For the general population, there is no proof whatsoever of toxic effects. The same can be said about many vitamins, shellfish, peanuts, kiwis, strawberries, etc., etc. Just because a small percentage of the population is allergic to kiwis, is it accurate to start saying that kiwis are toxic and should be banned? That a person can readily reproduce allergic reactions to kiwis is at all relevant to the general population?

"Yes, people who take aspartame appear to get increased appetites"

Exactly what I've been saying. It does not cause weight loss even though in theory it should.

No, that's not exactly what you said. I said "people who take aspartame appear to get increased appetites". "Increase appetites" does not equal "does not cause weight loss".

What benefits in actual fact does it have?

Since you obviously missed it several times, aspartame has significantly fewer calories than sugar (by a few orders of magnitude, serving for serving).

#118 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 15 August 2006 - 09:48 PM

Jay wrote:

"QUOTE
What benefits in actual fact does it have?

Since you obviously missed it several times, aspartame has significantly fewer calories than sugar (by a few orders of magnitude, serving for serving)."

Obviously you missed it when I said:

"It has no calories" (to speak of). Now, explain to me given that it does increace appetite, as you already have admitted, why people should use it?

"Aspartame is toxic for a small subset of the population. A small subset. For the general population, there is no proof whatsoever of toxic effects."

Not so small as this study of the literature shows. It was done by a highly respected doctor. Link at http://www.holisticm...artame/100.html

An analysis of peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE and other databases was conducted by Ralph G. Walton, MD, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton analyzed 164 studies which were felt to have relevance to human safety questions. Of those studies, 74 studies had aspartame industry-related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry money.

Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 7 studies which did not find a problems, 6 of those studies were conducted by the FDA. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work for the aspartame industry immediately following approval (including the former FDA Commissioner), many consider these studies to be equivalent to industry-sponsored research.

Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame. This is reminiscent of tobacco industry research where it is primarily the tobacco research which never finds problems with the product, but nearly all of the independent studies do find problems.

#119 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 15 August 2006 - 10:55 PM

Jay wrote:

"QUOTE
What benefits in actual fact does it have?

Since you obviously missed it several times, aspartame has significantly fewer calories than sugar (by a few orders of magnitude, serving for serving)."

Obviously you missed it when I said:

"It has no calories" (to speak of).

Yet you made me repeat it. So obviously you missed it. That you can point it out yourself in hindsight shows your selectivity in memory recall, or that you somehow don't consider this a benefit. Another form of denial.

Now, explain to me given that it does increace appetite, as you already have admitted, why people should use it?

If given the choices between:
a) not being able to drink soda (due to sugar),
b) drinking regular soda, knowing that your appetite will not be increased relative to diet soda,
c) drinking diet soda and being careful otherwise in the rest of your diet,

you obviously would choose a or b. Some of us might prefer c. It's a matter of preference. You would deny us that choice. Would you also deny us access to punk music because you prefer classical or hip-hop? (making up the music choices, feel free to substitute one style of music you don't like and two styles you do.)

Education is they key. Aspartame is not the problem. You obviously can't grasp that concept, but it really is that simple. Aspartame is not the problem. The toxic effects don't apply to the population in general, and those who do suffer gross ill effects will likely figure it out if they're educated about the potential risks. People want a choice in combatting sugar-driven diabetes and weight-gain. Obviously aspartame isn't for you, and you are perfectly free not to use it. I would like to be perfectly free to drink aspartame, having weighed the risks and found them grossly lacking.

#120 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 16 August 2006 - 09:34 PM

92% of non industry studies found problems with aspartame but all you were able to come up with to rebut that was lame insults and a desire to have freedom of choice. Gee, I must have missed the guy who wanted to take away your choices and make it illegal. No one said that. You are free to ingest any toxic substances you wish. The point is that aspartame is overtly toxic for many people and likely subtoxic for many others. We aren't talking about just the few who have seizures or die from it. There are millions of people who have had nasty reactions from the stuff. Many toxic reactions are low level and may not be noticed by the consumer. 92% of studies not funded by the aspartame industry found serious problems with it. Naturally, all studies funded by the manufacturers found no problem at all. Apparently you don't find that suspicious.

Here is some more info on the industry's cover ups of aspartame's toxicity. The link is at http://www.health-re..._deception.html

1969 - Dr. Harry Waisman fed ASP mixed with milk to monkeys. One died after 300 days of ASP and five others had grand mal seizures. Searle deleted this negative study when the company submitted safety evidence to the FDA.

1970 - The FDA banned cyclamate during the time that the safety of saccharin was being questioned. The time seemed ripe for ASP.

1971 - Dr. John Olney, a research psychiatrist, told Searle that aspartic acid caused "holes in the brains of mice."

1974 - Searle people said these studies raised "no health problems." Searle told the FDA about these findings after approval was granted.

1975 - Many of the test animals fed ASP developed large TUMORS. These were NOT reported to the FDA.

1977 - Despite the many complaints about ASP, William Conlon and Thomas Sullivan, the US attorneys, took no action, in five years the statute of limitations for a grand jury investigation expired. A year later Conlon took a position with the law firm that represents Searle. (U.S. Attorney, Samuel Skinner did the same and ended up Chief of Staff in Bush's White House. ed.)

1980 - A Public Board of Inquiry of three scientists was activated. These (2 MDs and one PhD) voted to ban ASP. Because of those negative findings a five member Commissioner's Team of Scientists was impaneled: Three said ban; two said it was safe. Another member was added. You guessed it: deadlock. Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, PhD, toxicologist on the team said, "Bureau officials were working up to a whitewash. Safety questions remain unanswered."

1981 - Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. was appointed the new FDA Commissioner and overuled the Public Board of Inquiry's recommended ban of ASP. He said his approval was part of the Reagan administration's new reform! Throughout the 1980's Searle has pointed out that the best evidence of ASP's safety was the fact that it had been approved in more than 60 countries. But these foreign approvals had been based on these controversial test, and the questionable approval of the FDA. It was approved as a "food additive," and hence, exempt from continued safety monitoring. (Searle is not obligated to monitor any adverse reactions.)

1983 - THE NATIONAL SOFT DRINK ASSOCIATION wrote to the FDA that ASP was breaking down in warm climates. But the Association later accepted ASP. Dr. Hayes office approved the use of ASP in soft drinks just two months before he quit his job as FDA chief. He then obtained a job with a public relations firm who represents NutraSweet.

1984 - Seven million pounds of NutraSweet are swallowed by about 100,000 people.

1985 - Reports of side-effects mount.

1987 - ACSN is founded by Mary Nash Stoddard and consumer advocate, James Turner. They believe ASP should be recalled and retested as a drug.

(Also, former US Atty. prosecuting G.D. Searle for falsifying original tests, recused himself at the last minute, taking a position with Sidley & Austin, Searle's lawfirm. He was later appointed head of the Dept. of Transportation, over the FAA, and then moved into position of Chief of Staff in Bush's White House. Skinner was honored by the Epilepsy Foundation in Chicago as their man-of-the-year. Former MONSANTO ATTORNEY, JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, amidst swirling controversy. Ed.)




18 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 18 guests, 0 anonymous users