108 replies to this topic

[niner]

Hmm, you're lucky, you see at my uni, if you don't cite any references they throw you out. Where did you go? Dreamland University?

you're one of those guys that doesn't trust his senses, I see. if you get ill, and remove factors, and find out which is doing what, then I would know more about the substance than any research, since individual results do not generalize. furthermore, corporate or government funded science is usually one of omissions of data, turning things to their own advantage and interest. even if there is no corruption going on, there is still a thing like 'publication bias', which means that only significant results usually get published.

Publication bias is a real effect, and you're right to consider it. However, the placebo effect, confirmation bias and correlations with random fluctuations in health are also real effects, and they are huge. They are the reason that people go to so much trouble and spend so much money on large randomized double-blind studies. With N=1, it's really easy to get fooled.

[DAMABO]

true; still, I would personally refrain from things that are subjectively correlated with negative results. why would one take the risk?

[Luminosity]

Don't trust a skull for health information.

Aspartame helps cause MS, it is not healthy. It contributes to cancer and growths.

For most people an occasional diet soda would be o.k. but not more than that. For some people, that is too much.

[DAMABO]

I have read similar things. I don't take the risk.

[niner]

Don't believe everything you read on the internet...

[DAMABO]

May I ask who takes aspartame daily? I want to eat chewing gums but they all have aspartame; I'm not sure whether that is ok (or better than ok: healthy).

[Mind]

There are a lot of other artificially sweetened gums out there. Just do a google search for things with stevia, xylitol, or other stuff. I am sure you will find something.

The first filter I use to judge the danger of some substance is the time it has been on the market. There are many people that will not touch anything artificial and there are a multitude of websites proclaiming everything from teflon, to fluoridated water, to microwave ovens, to aspartame, to saccharin, to dairy products, to GMO corn, to cell phones, to you name it, are absolute terrible poisons that increase every disease known to man, from cancer, to diabetes, to heart disease, to you name it.

There are some rational reasons to be skeptical of some of these things and to avoid them if you can, but the science behind most of these scare stories is shaky. Saccharin has been around for 100 years. There was one study (funded by Monsanto I believe, published around the time they wanted to dominate the sweetener market with aspartame), mostly disregarded now, that showed an increased cancer risk from saccharin. It was enough to push saccharin to the sidelines of the market. I think it might be the one time in the history of the world that so many people backed Monsanto! In any case, if saccharin was truly a poisonous product that obviously caused cancer, we would have a ton of data to prove it by now and it would be off the market. It is still in use.

Similar scare stories can be found about a lot of products. Aspartame has been around a couple decades. I am not a fan of it, and I search out other artificial sweeteners, but I am not freaked out by it.

It is always good to analyze your diet and avoid bad things, of course, but like niner said, don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

[RJ100]

Sugar is SAFE and DOES NOT cause cancer

I'm not aware of any substantive proof that Aspartame causes cancer or any other problem, but I have no reason to ingest it, so for the time being I won't.

[Mind]

Sugar is SAFE and DOES NOT cause cancer

I'm not aware of any substantive proof that Aspartame causes cancer or any other problem, but I have no reason to ingest it, so for the time being I won't.

You are going to think I am a smart-ass for posting this, but I couldn't help myself.... 10 studies linking sugar and cancer.

That being said, you make a valid point. I eat a little sugar once in a while and have no fear that it is going to increase my cancer risk. I think the main point is that excess sugar intake is the root problem.

[hivemind]

Aspartame is 50% methanol. Very tiny amounts in products, but still. In large amounts it is very deadly.

There was a study done in the University of Barcelona. Formaldehyde from the methanol accumulated in the tissues and DNA of the rats.

http://www.aspartaam.../barcelona.html

Also in Italy doctor Soffritti has done his rat studies that show increased cancer in rats consuming aspartame.

http://www.ramazzini...nd.Med_2010.pdf

Edited by hivemind, 05 October 2012 - 11:05 PM.

[hivemind]

From what I read, the decomposition products of aspartame are :
- methanol : But not much. The methanol content of fruit juice is 4 to 6 times higher

It is different kind of methanol in fruit juice. It is not absorbed.

Aspartame raises blood methanol levels many times more than any fruit juice.

[Sillewater]

.....

Also in Italy doctor Soffritti has done his rat studies that show increased cancer in rats consuming aspartame.

http://www.ramazzini...nd.Med_2010.pdf

Look at the survival curves. Basically no significant difference.

[hivemind]

.....

Also in Italy doctor Soffritti has done his rat studies that show increased cancer in rats consuming aspartame.

http://www.ramazzini...nd.Med_2010.pdf

Look at the survival curves. Basically no significant difference.

Yes, but there was a carcinogenic effect:

The present study demonstrates for the first time that
APM administered in feed to Swiss mice at doses of 32,000,
16,000, 8,000, 2,000, or 0 ppm, starting the dietary exposure
on day 12 of gestation and lasting until death, induces
significant dose-related increases of hepatocellular carcinomas
(P0.01) and of alveolar/bronchiolar carcinomas
(P<0.05) in males. In particular, the significant increased
incidences of hepatocellular carcinomas were observed at the
dietary levels of 32,000 ppm (P<0.01) and 16,000 ppm
(P<0.05) and of lung alveolar/bronchiolar carcinomas at
32,000 ppm (P<0.05). HCA and HCC (combined) resulted
significantly increased (P<0.05) in the male group treated at
16,000 ppm. A/BA and A/BC (combined) resulted significantly
increased (P<0.05) in the male group treated at
32,000 ppm. A significant dose-related trend (P<0.05) was
also observed.

[hivemind]

In particular, it cannot be disregarded that the
conversion of APM methanol into formaldehyde in the liver
may result in a generation of formaldehyde adducts [Trocho
et al., 1998], which could explain the plausibility of
hepatocarcinogenic effects of APM in male mice. The fact
that females did not develop a significantly increased
incidence of liver tumors may be explained by the gender
resistance, as already reported.
On the basis of these results, together with previous
carcinogenicity bioassays conducted on rats in our laboratories,
APM should be considered a multiple site, transspecies
carcinogenic agent. A re-evaluation of the current
regulations on APM remains, in our opinion, urgent.

[Sillewater]

Well unless cancer doesn't kill rats, the researcher either did something funky to the data or it was just a probabilistic quirk of the one study. Clearly both groups were ripe with cancer because the rats weren't well taken care of.

Also the doses consumed by the rats are far higher then what a human could ever consume. If I drank 20L a day I wouldn't be claiming that it causes edema to everyone. But I filled up rats with water maybe I could.

[hivemind]

Any food additive that causes cancer in lab animals is banned if it does not have a big enough safety margin.(usually the ADI is the smallest dose that causes harm divided by 100) Humans could be more vulnerable to the effects than rats.

Also:

Finally, the carcinogenic effects of
APMin rats were shown also at dose levels of 100 and 20 mg/
kg b.w. to which humans could be exposed [Soffritti et al.,
2006, 2007].
TABLE

That 20mg/kg is not a massive amount at all. Aspartame ADI is 40-50mg/kg. You get 20mg/kg easily by consuming diet drinks.

I'm not convinced that aspartme has a x100 safety margin.

Edited by hivemind, 06 October 2012 - 11:49 PM.

[Sillewater]

Any food additive that causes cancer in lab animals is banned if it does not have a big enough safety margin.(usually the ADI is the smallest dose that causes harm divided by 100) Humans could be more vulnerable to the effects than rats.

Also:

Finally, the carcinogenic effects of
APMin rats were shown also at dose levels of 100 and 20 mg/
kg b.w. to which humans could be exposed [Soffritti et al.,
2006, 2007].
TABLE

That 20mg/kg is not a massive amount at all. Aspartame ADI is 40-50mg/kg.

Clearly it is not certain that aspartme has a x100 safety margin.

I can of diet coke has 131mg.

Using allometric scaling with a rat that weighs 0.25kg 100mg/kg rat dose equals 24mg/kg human dose. Taking a 70kg individual that equals 1.6g of aspartame. Anyway, I'm not going to argue anymore, just want to put my thoughts out there. Lots of people think it causes cancer, others don't.

[hivemind]

The maximum allowed aspartame consentration in diet drinks is 600mg/l.

20mg/kg for a 70kg person is 1400mg and for a 30kg child 600mg.

20mg/kg was the lowest dose that caused cancer in rats in an earlier study by Soffritti et al.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ritti aspartame

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1392232/

Our study shows that APM is a multi-potential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are evident even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg bw, much less than the current ADI for humans in Europe (40 mg/kg bw) and in the United States (50 mg/kg bw).

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1964906/

The results of this study, our second long-term carcinogenicity bioassay on APM, not only confirm but also reinforce our first experimental demonstration (Belpoggi et al. 2006; Soffritti et al. 2005, 2006) of APM’s multipotental carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the human ADI. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when life-span exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.

Edited by hivemind, 07 October 2012 - 12:09 AM.

[sdxl]

Aspartame is 50% methanol.

You may want to recalculate that.

[niner]

Aspartame is ZERO% methanol. It does contain a single methyl group, and it is possible to hydrolyze that methyl off, forming methanol, but only under laboratory conditions (high heat, high pH), not in conditions found in vivo. I don't doubt that there is a tiny amount of methanol formed by aspartame under more mild conditions, but if you're scared of that, you better stop eating fruit, because fruits contain methyl esters too.

[Luminosity]

I would try not to chew artificially or naturally sweetened gum very often. Both natural and artificial sweeteners have their bad sides. Most commercial gums also have a lot of other chemicals in them. The flavoring agents can be irritating if you use too much. Gum can give you gas by introducing air bubbles into your stomach. Just get a small pack of naturally sweetened gum about once a week. Look into natural or vintage brands, as they might be better for you. There might be some kind of natural substance that is like gum that native peoples used to chew (mastic?) that might be healthier for you. Because of the air bubbles that cause some people gas and bloating, gum might not be a good thing to use all the time.

[hivemind]

Aspartame is ZERO% methanol. It does contain a single methyl group, and it is possible to hydrolyze that methyl off, forming methanol, but only under laboratory conditions (high heat, high pH), not in conditions found in vivo. I don't doubt that there is a tiny amount of methanol formed by aspartame under more mild conditions, but if you're scared of that, you better stop eating fruit, because fruits contain methyl esters too.

That 50% is wrong. It's seems to be more like 10%.

http://www.3dchem.co...cules.asp?ID=24

Aspartame is hydrolysed in the body to three chemicals, aspartic acid (40%), phenylalanine (50%) and methanol (10%).

There is much more methanol formed than from any natural food. Your fruit analogy is not valid.

Aspartame is 50% methanol.

You may want to recalculate that.

Yes, it's more like 10%. I remembered incorrectly.

[niner]

Aspartame is ZERO% methanol. It does contain a single methyl group, and it is possible to hydrolyze that methyl off, forming methanol, but only under laboratory conditions (high heat, high pH), not in conditions found in vivo. I don't doubt that there is a tiny amount of methanol formed by aspartame under more mild conditions, but if you're scared of that, you better stop eating fruit, because fruits contain methyl esters too.

That 50% is wrong. It's seems to be more like 10%.

That assumes that it's all hydrolyzed. Certainly some, and perhaps most of it is, but saying it's 10% methanol makes it sound like there's free methanol in it.

There is much more methanol formed than from any natural food. Your fruit analogy is not valid.

According to this paper, it looks like it is valid, with fruit juice containing close to three times as much methanol as the maximum available from aspartame hydrolysis:

Aspartame-sweetened beverages may provide less methanol than fruit juices. For example, the aspartame content of an aspartame-sweetened beverage is ~555 mg/L (or 55 mg/L of methanol), considerably less than the amount listed by Francot and Geoffroy (43) as the average methanol content of fruit juice (140 mg/L). Other authors have reported similar levels of methanol in fruit juices (44-47).

I'm not actually in favor of aspartame use, as long as I can get my hands on some sucralose or sugar alcohol (such as xylitol). I just think that it's better to be realistic about the potential danger of it, and focus our energy on things with a bigger payoff, like getting our macronutrient consumption right.

[hivemind]

According to this paper, it looks like it is valid, with fruit juice containing close to three times as much methanol as the maximum available from aspartame hydrolysis:

No, that study does not compare blood levels of methanol. Aspartame clearly raises methanol levels. Fruit juice does not do that or the effect is much smaller than with diet drinks.

Edited by hivemind, 07 October 2012 - 03:18 PM.

[hivemind]

I'm not actually in favor of aspartame use, as long as I can get my hands on some sucralose or sugar alcohol (such as xylitol). I just think that it's better to be realistic about the potential danger of it, and focus our energy on things with a bigger payoff, like getting our macronutrient consumption right.

If diet coke and aspartame was as healthy as water, I would drink mostly diet coke. :D

But because I am afraid of the health consequences, I try to avoid it completely.

[Sillewater]

The problem with diet coke isn't aspartame. It's more of the caramel and phosphoric acid.

[hivemind]

The problem with diet coke isn't aspartame. It's more of the caramel and phosphoric acid.

Yes, aspartame is probably not the worst thing in diet coke.

[niner]

According to this paper, it looks like it is valid, with fruit juice containing close to three times as much methanol as the maximum available from aspartame hydrolysis:

No, that study does not compare blood levels of methanol. Aspartame clearly raises methanol levels. Fruit juice does not do that or the effect is much smaller than with diet drinks.

How could drinking free methanol in fruit juice result in lower blood levels than consuming a third as much in the form of a methyl ester that has to be hydrolyzed? Is there any evidence for this?

I'm not actually in favor of aspartame use, as long as I can get my hands on some sucralose or sugar alcohol (such as xylitol). I just think that it's better to be realistic about the potential danger of it, and focus our energy on things with a bigger payoff, like getting our macronutrient consumption right.

[...] because I am afraid of the health consequences, I try to avoid it completely.

You might be afraid because people on the internet have made it sound scary, but when we look at the evidence, it doesn't look so bad. It's still ok to avoid it- I avoid it most of the time, just like I avoid sugar if I can help it (or control myself...).

[hivemind]

How could drinking free methanol in fruit juice result in lower blood levels than consuming a third as much in the form of a methyl ester that has to be hydrolyzed? Is there any evidence for this?

Aspartame methyl ester is hydrolyzed. It only takes more time for the blood level to rise than with free methanol.

http://jn.nutrition....8/1600.full.pdf

(42)
compared the disposition of radioactively la
beled methanol and methyl-labeled aspar
tame in rats and monkeys. In monkeys, they
reported equivalent conversion of labeled
methyl groups to CO2 with both compounds.
However, less CO2 was expired during the
first hour after aspartame administration
than after methanol treatment. This differ
ence may be due to more rapid absorption
of methanol from the stomach, since aspar
tame must pass into the small intestine before
hydrolysis to yield methanol.

I do not have information about fruit juices and resulting blood methanol levels. Fruit juices also contain ethanol which protects from the effects of methanol.

Edited by hivemind, 07 October 2012 - 10:49 PM.

[Hebbeh]

It is different kind of methanol in fruit juice. It is not absorbed.

Aspartame raises blood methanol levels many times more than any fruit juice.

There is much more methanol formed than from any natural food. Your fruit analogy is not valid.

No, that study does not compare blood levels of methanol. Aspartame clearly raises methanol levels. Fruit juice does not do that or the effect is much smaller than with diet drinks.

Yes, aspartame is probably not the worst thing in diet coke.

I do not have information about fruit juices and resulting blood methanol levels.

Aspartame is 50% methanol.

Yes, it's more like 10%. I remembered incorrectly.

Aspartame methyl ester is hydrolyzed. It only takes more time for the blood level to rise than with free methanol.

A lawyer would love to get you on the stand. The way you make things up then waffle and finally deny and change your story, you should run for President. Classic.