Public Service Announcement: Aspartame is...

[N-do]

I remember laughing long and loud when I first discovered the hoopla around it, mostly because of the revelation that the man broadly responsible for its marketing was none other than Donald "kill everyone in the whole world" Rumsfeld.

It's my understanding that they use Diet Coke for waterboarding suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

"Torturing the man? I was simply offering the man a refreshing low calorie beverage."

"It's not my fault he tried to drink while strapped upside down to an inclined bench."

The terrible Aspartame flavor gets you talking in the short term, and the imminent brain cancer kills you 20 some odd years later, with no one the wiser that you've been the victim of an extremely long term assasination.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to document myself drinking a Diet Coke, to properly position myself for the upcoming Aspartame class action lawsuit.

The Coca-Cola company had revenue of over 24 Billion dollars in 2007, they have teams of lawyers and scientist on their payroll, and several options as far as what artificial sweeteners to use in their products. If there were even a shred of verifiable data connecting Aspartame to any health issues, I can think of 24 Billion reasons they would find something else to use.

 

[Sinister]

i'll give her a search when i get back to campus. searching the web for this kind of info is a real hair puller.

You ain't gotta tell me Brudda.

 

[DON FRYE]

Thanks for this info. If I drink a diet coke my buddy always says, "That shit will give you brain cancer!" So says the state of California as they shoved it down mices throats. I have a sinking sensation that ingesting copious amounts of anything for extended periods of time is harmful to your health. Hell, he has the 'holier than thou" attitude to say this while downing some alcoholic beverages, I don't even drink!

 

[canadapride**]

Yeah, if everyone who drank DC got cancer, there would be a highly correlative study done. Anyways, even if the risk is exaggerated by some websites, it's probably a good a idea to steer clear of it. It was the most complained about additive for the FDA, before the FDA took away the complain feature for some reason.

 

[Pinoy Badboy**]

I've been drinking a can of diet soda almost everyday.

It keeps me sane now that i am cutting fat, and i'm pretty sure it's better than guzzling a can of sugar water everyday.

Hey...call me undisciplined, lazy, whatever, but no one is perfect and imma have my diet coke when i need it...

Fuckin' sue me...

Sorry i just had to vent/rant :redface:

 

[Sinister]

Yeah, if everyone who drank DC got cancer, there would be a highly correlative study done. Anyways, even if the risk is exaggerated by some websites, it's probably a good a idea to steer clear of it. It was the most complained about additive for the FDA, before the FDA took away the complain feature for some reason.

The FDA sucks in general. But the sugar industry is worse. Hence the new Public Service Announcements for HFCS. While people struggle to find aspartame directly linked to any specific ailment, sugar continues to be directly linked to a plethora of them.

If a person wants to believe something is bad without evidence, they definitely will. Hell Americans completely changed their entire diet Culturally based on absolutely nothing, and adopted eating habits that have monumentally done them more harm than good. They'd still defend that dogma, though, as they inject their insulin and head off to their chemotherapy.

 

[canadapride**]

The FDA sucks in general. But the sugar industry is worse. Hence the new Public Service Announcements for HFCS. While people struggle to find aspartame directly linked to any specific ailment, sugar continues to be directly linked to a plethora of them.

If a person wants to believe something is bad without evidence, they definitely will. Hell Americans completely changed their entire diet Culturally based on absolutely nothing, and adopted eating habits that have monumentally done them more harm than good. They'd still defend that dogma, though, as they inject their insulin and head off to their chemotherapy.

Well, the FDA sucks, but I said the most complained about product, meaning the people complain. I didn't mean the FDA did the complaints.

Edit:
yeah, the FDA might suck, but it's better than most countries. Don't but all your eggs into the govt. basket.

 

[N-do]

Well, the FDA sucks, but I said the most complained about product, meaning the people complain. I didn't mean the FDA did the complaints.

I wouldn't put too much stock in people's complaints, people will spontaneously come up with complaints about a product after it has been vilified in the media.

Reminds me of an episode of Food Detectives I saw a few months back about MSG. They served everyone a free chinese food meal and asked them to rate the food on flavor. Then they revealed the food contained MSG, and the point of the meal was to guage people's reaction to eating MSG. Suddenly a significant portion of the room has headache like symptoms stomach pains etc etc because they are MSG sensitive. They interview them, and ask them to talk about their symptoms.

Then at the end, they reveal that only half the people ate food containing
MSG, and in fact most of the people who reported a reaction to eating MSG had in fact not consumed any MSG.

 

[canadapride**]

I wouldn't put too much stock in people's complaints, people will spontaneously come up with complaints about a product after it has been vilified in the media.

Reminds me of an episode of Food Detectives I saw a few months back about MSG. They served everyone a free chinese food meal and asked them to rate the food on flavor. Then they revealed the food contained MSG, and the point of the meal was to guage people's reaction to eating MSG. Suddenly a significant portion of the room has headache like symptoms stomach pains etc etc because they are MSG sensitive. They interview them, and ask them to talk about their symptoms.

Then at the end, they reveal that only half the people ate food containing
MSG, and in fact most of the people who reported a reaction to eating MSG had in fact not consumed any MSG.

That's true. But I never heard of any aspartame vilification until I did some searching, and I think I pay attention to the media more than most. Plus, it's just not a highly complained about product, it was the most complained about product. Considering all unhealthy additives and all the things that have been vilified, something that gets the most complaints should raise some red flags to anyone. Plus, I'd imagine it might take a bit of work to complain to the FDA and it's not something people would do on a whim.

If you want an unbiased and really smart opinion on this, check out Michael Eades' blog. MikeMartial loved his book Protein Power, so he is mostly likely to be very solid. I think MM said it's the best book to learn about all the biochemistry behind fats, carbs, protein and they relate to CHD. Anyways, ME tears up all those flawed aspartame studies we've been hearing about:

But there was a problem as I pointed out in my post that the authors of the study played down: namely that the rats taking the aspartame lived longer.

However, he knows that aspartame is definitely unhealthy:

After reading this paper I still don

 

[Pinoy Badboy**]

hmmm, maybe i should just drop the artificial sweeteners...or only have them every once in a while, like once a week/month only if i really need it, which i am completely capable of...I'd rather not risk it, kinda like having unprotected sex with a tijuana hooker......yeah. Don't wanna risk teh AIDz even though it's unlikely.

 

[canadapride**]

^^^
Whenever I have sugar cravings I just chug some cold water or coconut water. If that doesn't do it, I eat some fruit. If that doesn't do it, really sweet fruit like water melon or blue berries.

I think watermelon would kill just about anyone's sugar cravings.

 

[Pinoy Badboy**]

thanks for the ideas.

 

[Sinister]

Well, the FDA sucks, but I said the most complained about product, meaning the people complain. I didn't mean the FDA did the complaints.

The complaint lists of aspartame are beyond fantastical. According to everyone, it does everything from corrode your skin, to cause you to have bad acid trips.

The highly intellectually way he tears up those flawed anti-aspartame studies, I doubt he would spontanously come up with this complaint.

I can't speak for MM, but we have always had a policy about not making any one man's word dogmatic. For instance, a lot of people credit me with the FAQ around here, but initially it was a collaborative work by myself and some pretty heavily qualified posters here. Now it's got a lot more of MM's touch on it along with many other qualified posters whose input I'm not wholly familiar with.

Regarding Eades' statements, it's still largely anecdotal, experimental, etc. When making a judgment call on putting out such information in a way that suggests people abide by it, one must ask themselves this crucial question:

"Is what I'm doing going to really do the people any better than they already are?"

If the answer is a clear affirmative, then you go ahead. If the answer is unclear, then you reserve. When aspartame is DEFINITIVELY linked to causation (not correlation) of ailments then I wouldn't hesitate to suggest people not use it. So far, that has not happened in any way. Everything about it is speculative, anecdotal, and in very very small increments of occurrences. We do not spread hysteria here.

 

[canadapride**]

The complaint lists of aspartame are beyond fantastical. According to everyone, it does everything from corrode your skin, to cause you to have bad acid trips.

Well, yes. I'm not sure about the skin and acid trips problems, but Eades has also reported a variety of problems with aspartame. He's the first to admit that his findings are "anecdotal findings with little clinical significance", but I would imagine that if Eades had any sort of bias against aspartame, he wouldn't have tore up the anti-aspartame study. He would've been like "ok, this agrees with my schema, it must be good".

Also, I remember that the Iron Addict has also resolved a variety of symptoms when he took his trainees off aspartame. Again, that's only anecdotal evidence, but there are several independent sources who all are reporting a variety of problems. Unless it's a huge conspiracy and all these people are just the same person.

If the answer is a clear affirmative, then you go ahead. If the answer is unclear, then you reserve. When aspartame is DEFINITIVELY linked to causation (not correlation) of ailments then I wouldn't hesitate to suggest people not use it. So far, that has not happened in any way. Everything about it is speculative, anecdotal, and in very very small increments of occurrences. We do not spread hysteria here.

Yes, the answer is far from clear affirmative for it being dangerous, but it also seems far from clear affirmative for it being safe. There are a lot of red flags, from the ones I mentioned to the many studys you can find on pubmed.

There are a good number of studys on pubmed that report aspartame safe, but I'm not sure if they tested it in all the appropiate conditions for it to be deemed as absolutely safe. As we are all aware of, there are some major flaws in the anti-aspatame studies, but I would imagine that there also flaws for the pro-aspartame studies, especially considering that a pro-aspartame study is much more likely to have been funded by industry.

You are right, all this " about it is speculative, anecdotal, and in very very small increments of occurrences". But considering that this is a man-made additive whose side effects can only be negative, these are an awful lot of red flags. IMO, when it comes to man-made additives that offer no health benifits, there should be a substanial amount of proof that it is safe, not just depend on the proof that is unsafe. I'm sure there was a time when there was no proof that transfats were unsafe.

 

[Sinister]

Yes, the answer is far from clear affirmative for it being dangerous, but it also seems far from clear affirmative for it being safe. There are a lot of red flags, from the ones I mentioned to the many studys you can find on pubmed.

Not really, I've run the gambit on PubMed year after year on this issue. Aspartame is actually the single most clinically studied, and tested safe artificial sweetener on the market. As stated earlier, far safer than actual sugar consumption.

There are a good number of studys on pubmed that report aspartame safe, but I'm not sure if they tested it in all the appropiate conditions for it to be deemed as absolutely safe. As we are all aware of, there are some major flaws in the anti-aspatame studies, but I would imagine that there also flaws for the pro-aspartame studies, especially considering that a pro-aspartame study is much more likely to have been funded by industry.

So, because someone found flaws in anti-aspartame studies it's alright to assume without actual investigation that there are flaws in the converse? That's a very very dodgy and illogical way of looking at things. First of all, you're wrong on pro-aspartame studies being more likely than anti to be funded by industry. The sugar industry, as well as every other industry that benefits therefrom (such as corn, and produce) are far, far, FAR more influential Historically and currently than any industry that produces artificial sweeteners.

The lobbying on behalf of the industries that are, or are associated with sugar production is astronomical by-comparison. These are the people who fight to keep soda machines containing say 7 items with high amounts of sugar and HFCF, versus 3 things that are sugar free, packed into America's schools.

You are right, all this " about it is speculative, anecdotal, and in very very small increments of occurrences". But considering that this is a man-made additive whose side effects can only be negative, these are an awful lot of red flags. IMO, when it comes to man-made additives that offer no health benifits, there should be a substanial amount of proof that it is safe, not just depend on the proof that is unsafe. I'm sure there was a time when there was no proof that transfats were unsafe.

Well, the data is there, you just chose to be biased towards it with your above paragraph which shows that before you even read it, you've got the "funded by industry" mentality in an inappropriate place. You have to either remove that entirely, or leave it to the Universities who do the most unbiased work.

And don't get into the subject of fats, the vast majority of conventional wisdom has been so incorrect about fats it's absurd. A time when no proof existed of trans-fats being unsafe? Well, considering that the FDA, AHA, and countless other organizations got tons of Americans to consume polyunsaturated fats without evidence of harm, and suddenly people started getting REAL cancer from it that could be directly linked to the consumption of it, one would think that if aspartame were really such a health scourge, it'd be glaringly obvious in a similar fashion after about the same amount of time on the market.

It's not, nor has it ever been. There's a lot of smoke surrounding aspartame, but very little if any actual fire. Same for sacchrine.

 

[N-do]

Well, yes. I'm not sure about the skin and acid trips problems, but Eades has also reported a variety of problems with aspartame. He's the first to admit that his findings are "anecdotal findings with little clinical significance", but I would imagine that if Eades had any sort of bias against aspartame, he wouldn't have tore up the anti-aspartame study. He would've been like "ok, this agrees with my schema, it must be good".

Taken from Dr. Eades own blog posting you put up earlier:

Having said all this, I can tell you that I have not done an exhaustive medical literature search on aspartame, so I can

 

[canadapride**]

Not really, I've run the gambit on PubMed year after year on this issue. Aspartame is actually the single most clinically studied, and tested safe artificial sweetener on the market. As stated earlier, far safer than actual sugar consumption.

Yes, but I haven't. And while you're smart, so is Dr. Eades. Now, if everyone wants to and look on pubmed year after year, that's fine. For those who don't have the time, we have to go by other things. As you can probably infer from my other posts, I'm not saying with 100% absolute confidence that aspartame is bad for you, but without seeing the studies themselves, I don't see how can be confident in the safty of aspartame. Unless they trust you, and random person on the internet and manager of a GNC. Vs Michael Eades MD who has seen the affects of aspartame on his own patents. Ideally I don't have to trust neither of you but I'm not willing to run a gambit in pubmed. .

So, because someone found flaws in anti-aspartame studies it's alright to assume without actual investigation that there are flaws in the converse?

Like I said, it's all about the red flags.

That's a very very dodgy and illogical way of looking at things. First of all, you're wrong on pro-aspartame studies being more likely than anti to be funded by industry. The sugar industry, as well as every other industry that benefits therefrom (such as corn, and produce) are far, far, FAR more influential Historically and currently than any industry that produces artificial sweeteners.

I have seen a meta study done where pro-aspartame studies are much more likely to have been funded by industry. Also, most of the time I come across a study I can actually read (not just the abstract), I've always seen some sort of industry funding.

The lobbying on behalf of the industries that are, or are associated with sugar production is astronomical by-comparison. These are the people who fight to keep soda machines containing say 7 items with high amounts of sugar and HFCF, versus 3 things that are sugar free, packed into America's schools.

Care to show me any anti-aspartame studies funded by the sugar industry?

Well, the data is there, you just chose to be biased towards it with your above paragraph which shows that before you even read it, you've got the "funded by industry" mentality in an inappropriate place. You have to either remove that entirely, or leave it to the Universities who do the most unbiased work.

Calm down, not everyone who is not assured of aspartame's safety is "biased". Hmm, correct me if I am wrong, because I'm not too confident is this, but sometimes Universities are paid to run tests and trials that are reccomended. The parameters of these trials are reccomended by industry but industry has to provide some sort of logic to for these parameters.

Also, I've seen plenty of University studies against aspartame too.

And don't get into the subject of fats, the vast majority of conventional wisdom has been so incorrect about fats it's absurd. A time when no proof existed of trans-fats being unsafe? Well, considering that the FDA, AHA, and countless other organizations got tons of Americans to consume polyunsaturated fats without evidence of harm, and suddenly people started getting REAL cancer from it that could be directly linked to the consumption of it, one would think that if aspartame were really such a health scourge, it'd be glaringly obvious in a similar fashion after about the same amount of time on the market.

Again, you need to calm down, I was only making an analogy, I was not comparing health hazards of trans fats to aspartame. I was simply stating that:

the FDA, AHA, and countless other organizations got tons of Americans to consume polyunsaturated fats without evidence of harm

There, that's all there is too it.

 

[canadapride**]

Taken from Dr. Eades own blog posting you put up earlier:

To sum it up, he doesn't know anything about Aspartame, he doesn't thinks it's worth his time to research Aspartame, but he is going to tell you that it is bad. Pretty much the dictionary definition of bias.

He hasn't done the exhaustive research, but he has seen the effects first hand. Maybe that's not good enough for you, it is of interest to me. Like I said, if he had a bias, he wouldn't have torn up those anti-aspartame studies in a Mr.Sinister-esque fashion, and Mr.Sinister is the biggest proponent of Aspartame I've ever met.

And the anecdotal evidence is not at all compelling. A lot of people are relieved of their "negative symptoms" when they stop consuming dairy, wheat, etc. etc.

That doesn't mean those foods are somehow health hazards for the general population.

Aspartame has been widely consumed for over 30 years at this point. If you can't find the evidence at this point, it's because it isn't there.

Yeah, but he specifically said that his patents were relieved of those symptoms after specifically removing aspartame. As I mentioned before, there are a lot of red flags, all the studies floating around on pubmed, aspartame being the most complained about product to the FDA, and anecdotal evidence from Eades and IA. Maybe you can brush those off and trust Mr.S, but I can't.

Like I said before, red flags are not enough to deem something with 100% confidence that it is unsafe. But I'm not sure how anyone can be 100% confident that is safe without doing the exhaustive studies Mr.S has done. If you can suggest a way without trusting you, I'm all for it.

 

[Sinister]

Like I said, it's all about the red flags.

Or propaganda, one must be able to differentiate between the two.

I have seen a meta study done where pro-aspartame studies are much more likely to have been funded by industry. Also, most of the time I come across a study I can actually read (not just the abstract), I've always seen some sort of industry funding.

1) Meta-studies are designed to find whatever coincidences the conductor of the study WANTS to find. Gather enough paperwork over a course of years, and you can find almost any common denominator you're looking for.

2) Industry funding for studies is the first thing people cry when they don't have a sound argument. Industry funds nearly everything short of Government funding. Scientists need money. Try reading the actual results of the studies, and the pharmacokinetics of how everything happened, rather than trying to figure out the financials.

P.S. - 9 times out of 10, when you find "industry funding" in a study finance record, you can find even more funding and larger grants that came from elsewhere. Peer-review and controlled studies are the best quality, regardless of financing.

Care to show me any anti-aspartame studies funded by the sugar industry?

Follow the processes I named above and you can find your own.

Calm down, not everyone who is not assured of aspartame's safety is "biased". Hmm, correct me if I am wrong, because I'm not too confident is this, but sometimes Universities are paid to run tests and trials that are reccomended. The parameters of these trials are reccomended by industry but industry has to provide some sort of logic to for these parameters.

Also, I've seen plenty of University studies against aspartame too.

I'm not...uncalm. And yes, you are biased. You demonstrated that by your own statements, not because of your position. If you've decided how you view a subject before looking at the data, that's bias. Hate to be the bearer of bad news. You're attempting to disqualify pro-aspartame studies on their face regardless of the information. That's classic bias.

Again, you need to calm down, I was only making an analogy, I was not comparing health hazards of trans fats to aspartame. I was simply stating that:

Again, I'm not uncalm. You're analogy was a poor one, that's all.

There, that's all there is too it.

No, there isn't. There was more to that statement. I've said in this thread earlier that backing aspartame is one of the few things the FDA got right, but that I attribute that more to accident than anything else.

And yes, public demand has necessitated that Aspartame be put through clinical trial after clinical trial, and guess what?

ZERO link to any ailment in-terms of causation or direct correlation. That's actually all there is to it.

As I mentioned before, there are a lot of red flags, all the studies floating around on pubmed, aspartame being the most complained about product to the FDA, and anecdotal evidence from Eades and IA. Maybe you can brush those off and trust Mr.S, but I can't.

But I'm not sure how anyone can be 100% confident that is safe without doing the exhaustive studies Mr.S has done.

Like I said, if a person, or group of people wants to believe something without evidence they'll go to any lengths to do so. Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or another. This thread is specifically about not perpetuating falsity. And now it seems you've taken to singling me out as the sole proponent of aspartame's safeness, while attempting to disqualify data with the simple idea of possible corruption of the scientific process. A bit laughable, considering the exhaustive studies you ask for do indeed exist, and the results are out there, if you're going to choose not to accept or look at them that's completely on you. It has nothing to do with lack of trust for me.

 

[canadapride**]

Or propaganda, one must be able to differentiate between the two.

Hold on, let me get this staight. Dr. Eades and IA's acedotal evidence, all those people who complained to the FDA, and all those peer-reviewed studies on pubmed were all made up by people who have it in for aspartame? If you believe this, I find this a bit skizophrenic.

1) Meta-studies are designed to find whatever coincidences the conductor of the study WANTS to find. Gather enough paperwork over a course of years, and you can find almost any common denominator you're looking for.

2) Industry funding for studies is the first thing people cry when they don't have a sound argument. Industry funds nearly everything short of Government funding. Scientists need money. Try reading the actual results of the studies, and the pharmacokinetics of how everything happened, rather than trying to figure out the financials.

P.S. - 9 times out of 10, when you find "industry funding" in a study finance record, you can find even more funding and larger grants that came from elsewhere. Peer-review and controlled studies are the best quality, regardless of financing.

Whenever I could read the whole paper I have seen funding from industry in the pro-aspartame papers and yet to see any funding for anti-aspartame papers. I agree, you can't make any solid conclusions just from the funding.

Btw, how are you so sure that this meta-study was just done by someone who 'had it in' for aspartame? Are you trying to discredit his study without even looking at the data?

Follow the processes I named above and you can find your own.

Most of the times, I can only find abstract. Haven't been able to look at full papers with ease.

I'm not...uncalm. And yes, you are biased. You demonstrated that by your own statements, not because of your position. If you've decided how you view a subject before looking at the data, that's bias. Hate to be the bearer of bad news. You're attempting to disqualify pro-aspartame studies on their face regardless of the information. That's classic bias.

Hmmm, you're not uncalm? You're not getting worked up emotionally? Ok, I belive you. :icon_chee

If you had any sort of decent reading comprehension, you would have figured out long ago that my only bias towards this subject is uncertainty. Considering that you're getting so worked up on someone's uncertainty and not being able to trust you, I would consider that bias.

Again, I'm not uncalm. You're analogy was a poor one, that's all.

No, there isn't. There was more to that statement. I've said in this thread earlier that backing aspartame is one of the few things the FDA got right, but that I attribute that more to accident than anything else.

lmao, You just said my analogy was poor, then supported it right after. Awesome.

And yes, public demand has necessitated that Aspartame be put through clinical trial after clinical trial, and guess what?

ZERO link to any ailment in-terms of causation or direct correlation. That's actually all there is to it.

Exactly who chose the parameters for those trials?

Like I said, if a person, or group of people wants to believe something without evidence they'll go to any lengths to do so.

That's my position, but it goes both ways. If people want to believe aspartame is safe and just trust you, that's fine. No where have I said that Aspartame is 100% dangerious. My position is one of uncertainty. If people don't want to research all the studies, I don't how anyone can believe it's safe without trusting you.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or another. This thread is specifically about not perpetuating falsity. And now it seems you've taken to singling me out as the sole proponent of aspartame's safeness, while attempting to disqualify data with the simple idea of possible corruption of the scientific process. A bit laughable, considering the exhaustive studies you ask for do indeed exist, and the results are out there, if you're going to choose not to accept or look at them that's completely on you. It has nothing to do with lack of trust for me.

My position on doing all the studies is the same as Dr. Eades:

Having said all this, I can tell you that I have not done an exhaustive medical literature search on aspartame, so I can