Public Service Announcement: Aspartame is...

[turbozed]

I'm siding with Sinister here.

If there was a shred of actual empirical evidence demonstrating any ill effects of aspartame, I'm sure we'd have seen it by now. Furthermore, it would've been quoted thousands of times by anti-aspartame alarmists. You'd have to really not be paying attention to know that there's a public perception that there's something harmful about aspartame (although what they cannot quantify). It's part of the zeitgeist now and there's no way to 'put the genie back in the bottle.'

Just today, I told my roommate that I used to drink 5-6 Diet Cokes a day back when I was unhealthy. He replied that he heard that Diet Coke is more unhealthy than regular Coke. Why does he think that? He knows absolutely nothing about nutrition. Could aspartame be so bad for me that consuming 180g of carbs a day is preferable? Only a great fool would believe that. Since a lot of people 'questioning' aspartame's safety are not great fools, what explains this?

I would compare it to things like the moon landings and the evolution debate. People choose to subscribe to conspiracy theories about the moon, or introduce doubt to the evolutionary record not for the sake of scientific argument and debate, but rather to advance their own preconceptions about how they understand the world. For moon conspiracy proponents, it's a mistrust of government and a desire to be 'in the know' and stand apart from the rest of society (one scientists attributed it to the same desire of some to 'deface a great work of art.'). The anti-evolutionists are merely reflecting their own religious beliefs (as well as an apparently lack of creativity in thinking about how a 'God' might choose to structure the universe).

Canadapride, you already showed your own preconceptions with a rather telling statement that aspartame is an unnatural chemical and that then it must not be healthy. Well that's not an accurate statement of molecular biology in all cases. However, it is a good rule of thumb to apply to healthy nutrition. Therein lies the problem. Even scientific-minded individuals like Dr. Eades may be abandoning the scientific evidence here and siding against aspartame as a function of a preconception against artificial substances.

I also don't like the fact that you are using the whole 'I'm just pointing out 'uncertainties' of aspartame, LOL U MAD?' line against Sinister. This seems like the same thing I've heard some creationists say to bolster their own 'theories.' What they don't understand is that arguing against a theory (which is by definition unprovable) by stating that it is not complete is not a theory (or science per se) on its own. It's merely a dismissal of science. This is something all intelligent individuals should rally against.

 

[canadapride**]

If there was a shred of actual empirical evidence demonstrating any ill effects of aspartame

Oh, the evidence is on pubmed. It's just a matter of reading and reviewing the pro and anti aspartame studies. So, have you gone and read these studies, or are you just trusting KK on this one? If you have read these studies, how long did it take you?

You'd have to really not be paying attention to know that there's a public perception that there's something harmful about aspartame

I guess me, and anyone else whose unaware about the public perception against aspartame just wasn't 'paying attention'. :icon_chee And what's this about your roommate? I thought pro-aspartame people are against anecdotal evidence :icon_chee

I would compare it to things like the moon landings and the evolution debate.

Aspartame to the moon landing evolution debate? Seriously? I know you believe that aspartame is harmless, and that you believe you have good evidence, but don't you think that's sorta of ridiculous? Well, maybe if you were a hardcore diet coke addict :icon_chee

you already showed your own preconceptions with a rather telling statement that aspartame is an unnatural chemical and that then it must not be healthy

Yeah. . . .that's another reason why I'm not to trusting of Mr.S or not you for that matter: reading comprehension. I probably said that aspartame is an artificial substance, but where have I said that therefore it is not healthy? For the record, I say that they tend to be unhealthy. The best stuff to put inside your body are natural stuffs. But there are exceptions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, on here (and the bodybuilding forums), nothing incites anger like not believing aspartame is 100% safe. Hell, even believing in the lipid hypothesis doesn't bring this much drama.

Edit: I didn't mean everyone, probably 3-4 people at a time.

Even scientific-minded individuals like Dr. Eades may be abandoning the scientific evidence here and siding against aspartame as a function of a preconception against artificial substances.

Well, his recommendations were from first hand experiences dealing with his patents. He was the first to admit that this is merely anecdotal and of bearing no clinical significance.

This forum is a huge fan of Dr. William Davis, and a lot of the guidelines he has developed come from first hand experiences working with his patents. For example, noting that vitamin D softgels are far more effective than the tablets in raising serum vitamin D levels. Are you going to just disregard this information because it is anecdotal?

And out of curiosity, I checked Dr. Williams Davis' blog to see if he has any opinion on aspartame, only one experience was reported:

Jason came to the office because of chest pain. At 34 years old, he works as manager of a (non-fast food) restaurant, but indulges in lots of the odds and ends. Among his indulgences: Diet Coke. Every time he'd have a diet Coke, he'd have chest pain. Not drinking diet Coke--no chest pain. If Jason drank coffee, no chest pain. Other foods, no chest pain. Anyway, just eliminating the diet Coke seemed to do the trick. (Aspartame?)

The Heart Scan Blog: Search results for aspartame

Do you believe Dr. Williams Davis is telling the truth, or is he also part of this vast conspiracy to see an end to aspartame?

I also don't like the fact that you are using the whole 'I'm just pointing out 'uncertainties' of aspartame, LOL U MAD?' line against Sinister. This seems like the same thing I've heard some creationists say to bolster their own 'theories.'

Like me get this straight. Someone should wade through the hundreds of studies on aspartame, sometimes even having to pay to read these studies, to develop a solid stance on Aspartame ( I agree with that part). And if they don't, they should just trust that Aspartame is completely harmless anyway? Without a proper foundation to develop that position? And disregard respected doctors (especially respected on this forum) and trainers, peer-reviewed medical studies, and all the independent individuals who make aspartame the most complained about product? If you are uncertain about it, you have the intelligence of someone who believes the moon-landing is a conspiracy ?

 

[N-do]

The Heart Scan Blog: Search results for aspartame

Do you believe Dr. Williams Davis is telling the truth, or is he also part of this vast conspiracy to see an end to aspartame?

Do I believe Dr. Davis is telling the truth about what?

He doesn't even discuss Aspartame, he notes how a certain individual patient has a negative reaction to Diet Coke, and in the margin puts Aspartame with a question mark. Said patient as it turned out had a heart condition, which the good doctor chalked up to genetics, and not Aspartame. He then credits the Diet Coke reaction for saving his patient, because it got him to the doctor to look into it, where his non-Aspartame related heart problem was brought to light.

Presenting this kind of stuff as "evidence", you really are kind of starting to sound "conspiracy moon landing" crazy.

Do you think you can just post up random nonsense links as evidence for your argument simply because they contain the word Aspartame, and nobody is going to actually read them?

 

[turbozed]

Yeah. . . .that's another reason why I'm not to trusting of Mr.S or not you for that matter: reading comprehension. I probably said that aspartame is an artificial substance, but where have I said that therefore it is not healthy? For the record, I say that they tend to be unhealthy.

But considering that this is a man-made additive whose side effects can only be negative, these are an awful lot of red flags.

Seriously man, how do you break out the "reading comprehension" card and yet not even go through your old posts to see what statement I was referring to?

For the record: can only be = must be = is. There's no other way to interpret the statement you made so either own up to it or say you misspoke.

Like I said before, I think your preconceptions against artificial substances and support of natural substances give you too much a 'stake' in this matter. I dropped Diet Coke a long time ago. I don't even use aspartame. As a whole, I embrace your 'natural' nutritional philosophy.

However, what I don't particularly like (and the reason why I felt like giving my long-winded opinion) is your tone and overall style of argument. I hope that doesn't sound offensive. I know a lot of cool people that tend come across at very uncool in a debate. The major issues I have with your arguments isn't just that they aren't really based in science, but that you avoid science altogether (e.g. by asserting 'flaws' without even explaining what exactly is flawed).

I didn't intend any dramatics in anything I have written so far and I was trying to give my assessment of why you seem to hold the belief you do. It's just the way I view people that hold strong beliefs against what most consider to be fact.

As far as the pubmed studies go, I haven't read any aspartame studies that actually demonstrate harm by taking normal amounts. If you could link us to some, that would be far more helpful.

 

[canadapride**]

Presenting this kind of stuff as "evidence", you really are kind of starting to sound "conspiracy moon landing" crazy.

Do you think you can just post up random nonsense links as evidence for your argument simply because they contain the word Aspartame, and nobody is going to actually read them?

lol, wtf up with the reading comprehension of hardcore pro-aspartame people? Where did I say Dr. Williams experience is 100% 'evidence' that aspartame is bad for you?

It's pretty obvious from the passage I quoted that he suspects aspartame for aggravating a condition caused by his genetics.

If that's not how you comprehended the passage, fine. Btw, to anyone whose interested, here's the entire post:

Diet Coke saves father's life

Jason came to the office because of chest pain. At 34 years old, he works as manager of a (non-fast food) restaurant, but indulges in lots of the odds and ends. Among his indulgences: Diet Coke. Every time he'd have a diet Coke, he'd have chest pain. Not drinking diet Coke--no chest pain. If Jason drank coffee, no chest pain. Other foods, no chest pain. Anyway, just eliminating the diet Coke seemed to do the trick. (Aspartame?)

Anyway, that's not why I tell you Jason's story. In the midst of his evaluation, an echocardiogram showed a mildly enlarged aorta, measuring 4.0 cm in diameter. So we obtained lipoproteins. Jason showed lipoprotein(a) and small LDL particles, the dreaded duo. We talked about how to correct this pattern. Among the strategies we discussed was niacin.

But what bothered me was that neither of Jason's parents had a diagnosis of heart disease. Jason had to have gotten Lp(a) from either his mother or father, since you obtain the gene from one or the other parent. You cannot acquire Lp(a). So one of Jason's parents was sitting on a genetic time bomb of unrecognized Lp(a) and hidden heart disease.

Because Jason's paternal grandfather had a heart attack at age 62, only Jason's Dad had the heart scan (though I urged both to get one). Score: 1483. Recall that heart scan scores >1000 carry a risk of death or heart attack of 25% per year if no preventive action is taken. Now, of course, we have to persuade Jason's Dad that a program of prevention--intensive prevention is in order, including a measure of Lp(a).

So that's the curious story of how Diet Coke probably saved Jason's Dad's life. The lesson is that if you or someone you know has Lp(a), think about their children as well as their parents, each of whom carry a 50% chance of having the pattern.

The Heart Scan Blog: Search results for aspartame

I'm not sure what you got out of this post. Maybe that people who have Lp(a) should watchout for diet coke and since there is no evidence that it was the aspartame that caused it, it was probably something else in the diet coke like the food coloring even though Dr. Williams only suspected the aspartame?

For the record: can only be = must be = is. There's no other way to interpret the statement you made so either own up to it or say you misspoke.

My quote:

But considering that this is a man-made additive whose side effects can only be negative, these are an awful lot of red flags.

You're Responce:

Seriously man, how do you break out the "reading comprehension" card and yet not even go through your old posts to see what statement I was referring to?

For the record: can only be = must be = is. There's no other way to interpret the statement you made so either own up to it or say you misspoke.

Yes, there is another way to intrept that statement: the right way. I was describing aspartame as being man-made and whose side-effects can only be negative. I dd not say it's side-effects are negative because it's man-made. Unless you guys are now claiming that aspartame has positive health benifits, but I haven't even seen Mr.Sinister made those claims.

Like I said before, I think your preconceptions against artificial substances and support of natural substances give you too much a 'stake' in this matter.

Wtf, I just explained that there are exceptions. I mean, what else can I seriously do to explain this? I got an idea, I'll go on the record and say that artificial vitamin K2 probably has very solid health benifits, the wholehealthsource blog persuaded me:
Whole Health Source: Vitamin K2, menatetrenone (MK-4)

Hopefully this will give you an idea of my philosophies, because I'm not sure what I can do to explain this any further.

The major issues I have with your arguments isn't just that they aren't really based in science, but that you avoid science altogether (e.g. by asserting 'flaws' without even explaining what exactly is flawed).

If you consider not taking into acount the first-hand experiences by doctors, trainers, and all the fact that aspartame is the most complained about product to the FDA, and all the peer-reviewed studies on aspartame as 'avoiding science', I don't even know where to begin. But, what I find most amusing is that:

As far as the pubmed studies go, I haven't read any aspartame studies that actually demonstrate harm by taking normal amounts. If you could link us to some, that would be far more helpful.

This hasn't explained the depth of your research of the pro and anti aspartame papers floating around on pubmed. But considering that's what I asked you for, I'm guessing it wasn't very in depth (prove me wrong). If that's true, I find it ironic that you're telling me that I'm avoiding science.

Also, you still haven't answered by question: If a person if not willing to spend the time and money to exhaustive review of all the aspartame (btw, which even a doctor finds exhasutive), it is wrong for that person to be uncertain about aspartame, in light of first-hand experiences by doctors, trainers, and all the fact that aspartame is the most complained about product to the FDA, and all the peer-reviewed studies against aspartame?

 

[turbozed]

Yes, there is another way to intrept that statement: the right way. I was describing aspartame as being man-made and whose side-effects can only be negative. I dd not say it's side-effects are negative because it's man-made. Unless you guys are now claiming that aspartame has positive health benifits, but I haven't even seen Mr.Sinister made those claims.

This is a pretty laughable explanation. You state that it is artificial it's side-effects can only be negative. The issue here is whether this signifies (1) a linkage between artificial substances and negative side-effects, or (2) an added statement that claims no relationship between the artificiality and negative side-effects. (2) makes absolutely no sense but let's go with it anyway....

Even in the second scenario, you're still claiming that aspartame, specifically, must only have negative side-effects. Why is this the case? I'm not arguing that aspartame has beneficial side-effects (generally speaking, the term "side effects" has negativity built-in). I'm not even claiming that you're wrong. I'm merely pointing out the fact that you've already made that conclusion about it without a shred of scientific evidence (of which you still haven't provided).

If you're going to use the quaint online blogs of a few doctors and nutritionists as some sort of unconquerable mountain of evidence of aspartame's hazards, you might want to put on the other side of that scale the experience of millions around the world consuming aspartame, the fact that it's been around for decades, and the fact that there's been no convincing study that any of us here have been able to find (including you).

Like I said earlier, if you have a good study casting it in a negative light, feel free to add to the discussion. Simply stating that the information is out there for me to find is not enough (I read a few studies a couple of months ago and didn't find one). You're the one making the argument contradicting the OP. The onus is on you to back it up with facts and figures. So far you haven't done any of that.

 

[N-do]

lol, wtf up with the reading comprehension of hardcore pro-aspartame people? Where did I say Dr. Williams experience is 100% 'evidence' that aspartame is bad for you?

It's pretty obvious from the passage I quoted that he suspects aspartame for aggravating a condition caused by his genetics.

For starters I am not pro-Aspartame, I don't consume Aspartame. My problem is not your position, merely your flimsy emotional arguments, and inability to supply a single solitary shred of actual evidence to back up your assertions.

The only thing obvious here is your tremendous bias, and the fact that it colors everything you read.

Dr. Williams article isn't even about Aspartame. Patient Jason comes to the doctor because he has chest pains after drinking Diet Coke, Dr.Williams speculates this may be due to a sensitivity to Aspartame, as this is one of the major differences detween Diet Coke and regular Coke, which Jason can drink without a problem. In the process of looking into Jason's issue, he uncovers a genetic risk factor for heart disease. Diet Coke may have saved this man's life the Dr. speculates, because it prompted hinm to come in and get checked out.

Since the word Aspartame appears only once, and not even in a sentence, there is nothing obvious about the Doctors feelings toward Aspartame. The Dr. makes no reference about it aggravating his pre-existing condition, merely that his negative reaction to Diet Coke was the impetus for his initial visit.

No causation is discussed at any point, and you are merely interjecting your own feelings on Aspartame, and attributing them to Dr. Williams.

I don't read this forum so I can find out about other people's feelings, I'm interested in data, studies, useful information.

If you have any actual information to provide, I'd be very interested to read it.

 

[canadapride**]

This is a pretty laughable explanation. You state that it is artificial it's side-effects can only be negative.

No, my statement is:
"is a man-made additive whose side effects can only be negative"
Note, I used whose, not therefore. :icon_chee

Even in the second scenario, you're still claiming that aspartame, specifically, must only have negative side-effects. Why is this the case?.

You're right. The only reason why I'm claiming this is because Mr.Sinister would have already touted any health benifits it has. I agree, this is unscientific :icon_chee, but considering how butthurt Mr.Sinister gets when you don't trust him on the aspartame issue, I'm sure he would have brought up any health benefits.

You're the one making the argument contradicting the OP. The onus is on you to back it up with facts and figures. So far you haven't done any of that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the argument in the OP that methanol is also found in Oranges in much greater quantities? My argument is that I haven't read the studies for myself, so I'm not going to trust you guys and I will have no strong position on aspartame.

For starters I am not pro-Aspartame, I don't consume Aspartame. My problem is not your position, merely your flimsy emotional arguments, and inability to supply a single solitary shred of actual evidence to back up your assertions.

The only thing obvious here is your tremendous bias, and the fact that it colors everything you read.

You're not pro-aspartame? Ok, I believe you:icon_chee. But when is uncertainty and not trusting people on the internet an assertion and a bias?

Since the word Aspartame appears only once, and not even in a sentence, there is nothing obvious about the Doctors feelings toward Aspartame. The Dr. makes no reference about it aggravating his pre-existing condition, merely that his negative reaction to Diet Coke was the impetus for his initial visit.

Oh, I thought it was pretty clear that he suspects aspartame as aggrevating Jason's condition. I never said that I have interpreted Dr. Williams findings as him being 100% certain that aspartame aggravated Jason's condition. His quote:

Jason came to the office because of chest pain. At 34 years old, he works as manager of a (non-fast food) restaurant, but indulges in lots of the odds and ends. Among his indulgences: Diet Coke. Every time he'd have a diet Coke, he'd have chest pain. Not drinking diet Coke--no chest pain. If Jason drank coffee, no chest pain. Other foods, no chest pain. Anyway, just eliminating the diet Coke seemed to do the trick. (Aspartame?)

The Heart Scan Blog: Search results for aspartame

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the "(Aspartame?)" is indicative of his suspicion.

I don't read this forum so I can find out about other people's feelings

lol, wtf :icon_chee. Then why are you so butthurt that I am uncertain about this issue and that I just don't trust you, and that I won't form a solid opinion unless I see the data myself?

I asked this question before, and I'll ask it again:
-If a person if not willing to spend the time and money to exhaustive review of all the aspartame (btw, which even a doctor finds exhaustive), it is wrong for that person to be uncertain about aspartame?
-Is it wrong to be uncertain about aspartame especially in light of first-hand experiences by doctors and trainers, the fact that aspartame is the most complained about product to the FDA, the fact that japan has banned it from being used as an artificial sweetener, and all those peer-reviewed studies against aspartame?

 

[turbozed]

I found the link for the original article. Here it is:

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/aug/chemistry-of-artificial-sweeteners

 

[Ares.420]

fuck aspartame

 

[10thpjj]

fuck aspartame

lulz!

 

[Byron Pechorin]

I rarely drink soda but when I do it's always diet.

 

[Pinoy Badboy**]

O noez it has taht esparteme stuff!!, ur gonna die of aids I am Korean!

STOP IT NAO!!!111one11

 

[Urban]

*eats bowlfull of aspartame*

*grows third nostril on his chin*

 

[canadapride**]

I found the link for the original article. Here it is:

The Chemistry of . . . Artificial Sweeteners | Senses | DISCOVER Magazine

Interesting.

Here is the reader's responces to the same article:
Letters | DISCOVER Magazine

In the same magazine, here is a review of a book by Devra Davis, who is the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. Aspartame is called a potential carcinogen in the article:
Expert: Modern Chemicals Brought Cancer Epidemic | Cancer | DISCOVER Magazine

 

[N-do]

In the same magazine, here is a review of a book by Devra Davis, who is the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. Aspartame is called a potential carcinogen in the article:
Expert: Modern Chemicals Brought Cancer Epidemic | Cancer | DISCOVER Magazine

My favorite part of the article:

 

[canadapride**]

My favorite part of the article:

 

[turbozed]

Whenever I hear somebody say something is 'potentially dangerous' the way I interpret it is that person is trying to scare me into thinking a certain way instead of offering evidence.

You should hold people to high standards of proof for their comments, canadapride. Instead you appeal to the person's 'authority.' Weaksauce...

 

[canadapride**]

Whenever I hear somebody say something is 'potentially dangerous' the way I interpret it is that person is trying to scare me into thinking a certain way instead of offering evidence.

You should hold people to high standards of proof for their comments, canadapride. Instead you appeal to the person's 'authority.' Weaksauce...

Whenever I hear 'trust me, I did the research, you don't have to do the research', somehow that raises a few red flags.

I guess you forgot our discussion, because my point was the uncertainty of how safe aspartame is, not the certainty that aspartame is 100% safe. For which I had quite a few reasons. All you had was 'you don't have to do the research for yourself, I did the research, trust me, I'm a random guy in the internet'.

And you're disagreeing with the principle that we should tend to live naturally? Because I think quite a few people here would have a bone to pick with you.

 

[turbozed]

Whenever I hear 'trust me, I did the research, you don't have to do the research', somehow that raises a few red flags.

I guess you forgot our discussion, because my point was the uncertainty of how safe aspartame is, not the certainty that aspartame is 100% safe. For which I had quite a few reasons. All you had was 'you don't have to do the research for yourself, I did the research, trust me, I'm a random guy in the internet'.

And you're disagreeing with the principle that we should tend to live naturally? Because I think quite a few people here would have a bone to pick with you.

Lol, there's uncertainty about everything. That's no reason to avoid shit. You avoid it when there's evidence that it causes harm. Me and you only differ on what type of standards to use for 'evidence.' You think anecdotal stories and doctors saying 'potential' is enough against the mountain of real scientific study.

Also "living naturally" doesn't have anything to do with this. Have you ever taken medicine when you were sick? Then you're not living 'naturally.' The sooner you realize that since your birth you've been exposed to hundreds of different manmade chemicals that have had no negative effects on you, the sooner you'll stop using shaky evidence to support your viewpoint.