• 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
147 replies to this topic

#1 opales

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

Posted 02 October 2005 - 08:34 PM


Jay McCombs debunks the myths about artificial sweeteners' dangers at AvantLabs (hope I didn't break any copyright laws here by copy pasting the entire article). At this moment I am with Jay 100%. What do other people here think?

BTW, we should have this same this discussion here about other similar issues, like controlling acidity to enhance health (i.e alkaline water), dangers of microwaving (or other types of radiation), maybe metabolic typing by blood type, for starters. There are at lot issues reprsented by some Imminst members as being somewhat "obvious", even though I don't see any science (or even rationale for that matter) backing up these claims.

Artificial Sweeteners
by Jay McCombs


Debunking the Myths

“Tonight at 10 on the local news, find out which ingredient in your diet Coke is going to give you cancer!”  I don’t even have to watch.  I know they are talking about aspartame and that the horse has long since been dead, yet still they continue to beat it.  So what is the truth?  Saccharine-containing products contain warning labels about causing cancer in animals, but saccharine is now absent from many lists of carcinogens—why?  Aspartame has been reported to cause brain tumors and nearly every other disease known to man, yet it’s still an ingredient in nearly every “diet” food—why?    What about the new guys like sucralose (Splenda)? Are they going to kill us?  Well, I think the best place to start with every story is at the beginning.



Artificial sweeteners have been around since 1879, and for 90 years things were really, um, sweet.  Then 1970 rolled around, and in the world of artificial sweeteners, the sky began to fall.  Chicken Little reported the events and chaos ensued.  To make a long story short, several countries (including the US) banned the use of cyclamate due to an article in Science that demonstrated rats fed the sweetener showed an increased risk of developing bladder cancer [1].  But wait, there’s more!  After the review of a long-term study on primates that showed cyclamate conveyed no risk of cancer, although there was much debate about the validity of the experiment due to small sample size, many countries, under the advice of the WHO, repealed their bans (actually every country other than the US) [2].  Cyclamate was the first on the chopping block, but many others would follow.



Perhaps one of the best known, and most falsely maligned, sweeteners is saccharine.  There is copious research on this compound and to cover it all in this text would be impractical.  Instead I am going to try and hit the high points and focus on the widely publicized bladder cancer controversy. 



Saccharine seemed safe in rat studies at first; however, when the progeny of rats fed cyclamate was also fed saccharine, several studies showed that the saccharine-fed rats had an increased risk of cancer (there are many studies on this topic, only the largest has been sited) [3].  As it turns out, the problem wasn’t so much with the saccharine as it was with the rats.  Rats have higher osmolar urine, thus allowing for the formation of damaging crystals in the bladder [4].  Humans do not concentrate their urine as much and consequently do not have the same problem.  There are, unfortunately, no direct studies on humans consuming saccharine and, therefore, I feel it is not worth mentioning the few descriptive studies that found saccharine benign. 



Aspartame is another widely consumed first generation artificial sweetener. You can find it in everything from diet Coke to protein powders.  There are lots of things people bring up about aspartame and the majority of them are not based on science.  They are based on ideas that make some non-scientific assumptions.  The best example is the brain tumor scare. 



The trouble began on account of rats (again)—specifically, rats eating aspartame and subsequently developing brain tumors [5].  In addition, a study showed that nitrosated aspartame had mutagenic properties and it was possible that aspartame could be nitrosated in the gut (although there is no research to verify if this actually happens) [6].  Combine this with the rising rate of brain tumors since 1981 (the year aspartame was introduced) and you’ve got yourself a brain tumor scare [7].  Fact-twisting leaches, er, excuse me, the media, began to warn against the dangers of aspartame.  Shortly thereafter my mom started calling me telling me how terrible aspartame was and Mercola recorded a gagillion hits to his website. 



You want the truth?  First the rats.  Subsequent studies could not recreate and confirm the findings of the previous authors [8].  In the world of science, that means the study can’t be used to definitely pin the blame on aspartame and could involve some other unknown source of error.  Next, the ensuing backlash from the scientific community.  Basically, an editorial written by Ross stated (please allow me to paraphrase) that the argument was completely asinine due to the tremendous amount of other common things that were introduced in and around 1981 that could also be said to contribute to brain tumors using the same logic:  VCR’s, computers, etc. [9].  And if editorial beat downs weren’t sufficient, the completion of a controlled study evaluating the potential link between brain tumors and aspartame in children pretty much put this one to bed [10].  They found no link to brain tumors secondary to aspartame consumption by children or by their mothers during gestation or breast feeding. 



If you feel like you’ve read enough about aspartame skip ahead because I am tired of this beast rearing its ugly head.  A website that spawns “the world’s most popular natural health newsletter” warns of the dangers of aspartame based on some pretty deceptive information (it would not be a stretch to say lies).  First, the article creates the guise of being scientific using lots of esoteric words, scary medical conditions, and tactics such as putting numbers in parenthesis after particularly dramatic statements but failing to include a bibliography on the page.  It makes it very, very difficult to verify the veracity of a work when the author doesn’t provide the sources he has used (some might even call this plagiarism); fortunately, I was up to the task.  Bellow I’m going to try and deal with many of the common anti-aspartame arguments that I see on the internet.



1) Most sites point out a shocking revelation that 75% of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA were due to aspartame. We aren’t talking about death certificates after autopsy.  We are talking about complaints to the FDA that anyone can make at anytime based on their own personal thoughts and experiences with no burden to prove them scientifically.  In fact, a study that inspected people that claimed to have an allergy to aspartame found aspartame was no more likely than placebo to cause allergic reactions in said individuals [27]. 



I feel it important to mention something called the nocebo effect.  Basically, when someone has negative expectations of a harmless substance they find themselves suffering from the negative symptoms they expected to experience, despite the innocuous nature of said substance.  With the public media falsely reporting on the many dangers and side effects of aspartame, it is no wonder so many people feel they are suffering from its ill effects.



2) Aspartate and phenylalanine, amino acids, are two of the 3 components that aspartame is made from and completely broken down when ingested.  The web critics try to paint this as something terrible, mentioning a disease called phenylketonuria (PKU) that causes permanent mental retardation.  They also mention the damaging effects of glutamate and tell you that aspartame will raise blood levels to dangerous levels.  One article points to some editorial letters written by Olney in 1975 [11, 12]. A strong part of said article’s argument seems to neglect current evidence that shows aspartame consumption has no dangerous effect on blood levels of aminos when taken alone or with meals, with MSG, after chronic consumption, and after abuse doses, even when looking at children and those heterozygous for the PKU gene defect or diabetics or people in liver failure [13-24]. 



Furthermore, research shows that aspartame consumption doesn’t negatively affect brain receptor chemistry [25, 26] nor does it cause seizures—even in individuals who anecdotally relate that aspartame is a trigger for their seizures [28, 29].  To go one step further it has been shown that cognitive function after chronic and acute use of aspartame remains unaffected, even in people heterozygous for the PKU defect. [30-32].



3) There is also the lesser constituent of aspartame, methanol, or “wood poison” as one anti-aspartame author refers to it.  Methanol poisoning is very serious; however, becoming poisoned by methanol from aspartame would be quite challenging since aspartame doesn’t appreciably raise blood levels of methanol [20].  Not to mention many foods, like tomato juice, contain far more methanol than aspartame; however, some critics counter this with the argument that these foods also contain an “antidote,” ethanol.  This is laughable and demonstrates a poor understanding of how ethanol acts as an antidote.  Methanol itself isn’t toxic.  It must be converted to a toxic substance, formestate, by alcohol dehydrogenase—an enzyme that also acts on ethanol.  The way ethanol works as an antidote is by overwhelming the enzyme system with an alternative substrate.  The medical dose of ethanol is 7.5 ml/kg.  So unless you are drinking your glass of tomato juice with a fifth of vodka (Bloody Mary anyone?) you aren’t getting the antidote effects of ethanol. 



Finally we come to the new kids on the block.  Unfortunately there is a paucity of information on sweeteners such as sucralose (Splenda), acesulfame-K, and neotame.  There are several animal studies, but few directly examining their effects on humans beyond those tests needed to receive the generally-accepted-as-safe (GRAS) stamp from the FDA.  These tests are quite rigorous and leave little question as to the safety of the new sweetener. However, if you still feel apprehensive and would like to review the data yourself it is all on file with the FDA.



Artificial sweeteners have received criticism far beyond what they deserve.  They offer safe ways for diabetics to sweeten foods and for the general public to reduce calorie consumption.  A can of Coke contains about 36g of obesity-epidemic-driving, insulin-resistance-promoting, non-Adkins-approved sugar.  A diet Coke, on the other hand, sweetened with aspartame contains no sugar and zero calories.  Perhaps the critics of sweeteners could do more good for the public if they focused their zeal and energy on some of the more important scourges of society rather than getting worked up about fringe outliers in esoteric epidemiology studies.



References



1.      Wagner, MW. Cyclamate acceptance.  Science. 1970 Jun 26;168(939):1605 (PMID: 5420548)

2.      Takayama S, Renwick AG, Johansson SL, Thorgeirsson UP, Tsutsumi M, Dalgard DW, Sieber SM.  Long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity study of cyclamate in nonhuman primates. Toxicol Sci. 2000 Jan;53(1):33-9. (PMID: 10653518)

3.      Squire RA. Histopathological evaluation of rat urinary bladders from the IRDC two-generation bioassay of sodium saccharin. Food Chem Toxicol 1985; 23: 491–497. (PMID: 4040097)

4.      Cohen SM, Anderson TA, de Oliveira LM, Arnold LL. Tumorigenicity of sodium ascorbate in male rats. Cancer Res 1998; 58: 2557–2561. (PMID: 9635578)

5.      Study E33-34 in Master file 134 on aspartame. On file at the FDA Hearing Clerk's Office 2001

6.      Shephard SE, Wakabayashi K, Nagao M. Mutagenic activity of peptides and the artificial sweetener aspartame after nitrosation. Food Chem Toxicol 1993; 31: 323–329.

7.      Olney JW, Farber NB, Spitznagel E, Robins LN. Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame? J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 1996; 55: 1115–1123.

8.      Anonymous. Aspartame. Review of safety issues. Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA 1985; 254: 400–402.

9.      Ross JA. Brain tumors and artificial sweeteners? A lesson on not getting soured on epidemiology. Med Pediatr Oncol 1998; 30: 7–8.

10.  Gurney JG, Pogoda JM, Holly EA. Aspartame consumption in relation to childhood brain tumor risk: results from a case-control study [published erratum appears in J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89: 1460]. Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89: 1072–1074.

11.  Olney JW. Letter: 1-Glutamic and L-aspartic acids--a question of hazard? Food Cosmet Toxicol. 1975 Oct;13(5):595-6. PMID: 811518

12.  Olney JW.  Letter: Aspartame as a sweetener. N Engl J Med. 1975 Jun 5;292(23):1244-5. PMID: 1128585

13.  Silva LC, Pires RF, Coelho JC, Jardim LB, Giugliani R.  Evaluation of an aspartame loading test for the detection of heterozygotes for classical phenylketonuria.  Clin Genet. 1997 Apr;51(4):231-5.  PMID: 9184243

14.  Stegink LD, Lindgren SD, Brummel MC, Stumbo PJ, Wolraich ML.  Erythrocyte L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine hydrolase activity and plasma phenylalanine and aspartate concentrations in children consuming diets high in aspartame.  Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Dec;62(6):1206-11.

15.  Curtius HC, Endres W, Blau N.    Effect of high-protein meal plus aspartame ingestion on plasma phenylalanine concentrations in obligate heterozygotes for phenylketonuria.  Metabolism. 1994 Apr;43(4):413-6.

16.  Hertelendy ZI, Mendenhall CL, Rouster SD, Marshall L, Weesner R.  Biochemical and clinical effects of aspartame in patients with chronic, stable alcoholic liver disease.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1993 May;88(5):737-43.

17.  Gupta V, Cochran C, Parker TF, Long DL, Ashby J, Gorman MA, Liepa GU.  Effect of aspartame on plasma amino acid profiles of diabetic patients with chronic renal failure. Am J Clin Nutr. 1989 Jun;49(6):1302-6.

18.  Torii K, Mimura T, Takasaki Y, Ichimura M. Dietary aspartame with protein on plasma and brain amino acids, brain monoamines and behavior in rats. Physiol Behav. 1986;36(4):765-71.

19.  Stern SB, Bleicher SJ, Flores A, Gombos G, Recitas D, Shu J. Administration of aspartame in non-insulin-dependent diabetics. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1976 Nov;2(2):429-39.

20.  Stegink LD, Filer LJ Jr, Bell EF, Ziegler EE, Tephly TR.  Effect of repeated ingestion of aspartame-sweetened beverage on plasma amino acid, blood methanol, and blood formate concentrations in normal adults.  Metabolism. 1989 Apr;38(4):357-63.

21.  Stegink LD, Wolf-Novak LC, Filer LJ Jr, Bell EF, Ziegler EE, Krause WL, Brummel MC. Aspartame-sweetened beverage: effect on plasma amino acid concentrations in normal adults and adults heterozygous for phenylketonuria. J Nutr. 1987 Nov;117(11):1989-95. PMID: 2890728.

22.  Stegink LD, Filer LJ Jr, Baker GL. Plasma and erythrocyte concentrations of free amino acids in adult humans administered abuse doses of aspartame. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1981 Feb;7(2):291-305.

23.  Stegink LD, Filer LJ Jr, Baker GL. Plasma amino acid concentrations in normal adults fed meals with added monosodium L-glutamate and aspartame. J Nutr. 1983 Sep;113(9):1851-60.

24.  Stegink LD, Filer LJ Jr, Baker GL. Effect of aspartame and sucrose loading in glutamate-susceptible subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981 Sep;34(9):1899-905. PMID: 7282615

25.  Fernstrom JD. Dietary amino acids and brain function. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994 Jan;94(1):71-7. PMID: 7903674.

26.  Reilly MA, Lajtha A. Glutamatergic receptor kinetics are not altered by perinatal exposure to aspartame. Neurochem Int. 1995 Mar;26(3):217-22.

27.  Geha R, Buckley CE, Greenberger P, Patterson R, Polmar S, Saxon A, Rohr A, Yang W, Drouin M. Aspartame is no more likely than placebo to cause urticaria/angioedema: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993 Oct;92(4):513-20. PMID: 8409113

28.  Rowan AJ, Shaywitz BA, Tuchman L, French JA, Luciano D, Sullivan CM. Aspartame and seizure susceptibility: results of a clinical study in reportedly sensitive individuals. Epilepsia. 1995 Mar;36(3):270-5. PMID: 761491

29.  Dailey JW, Lasley SM, Burger RL, Bettendorf AF, Mishra PK, Jobe PC. Amino acids, monoamines and audiogenic seizures in genetically epilepsy-prone rats: effects of aspartame. Epilepsy Res. 1991 Mar;8(2):122-33.  PMID: 1648476

30.  Spiers PA, Sabounjian L, Reiner A, Myers DK, Wurtman J, Schomer DL. Aspartame: neuropsychologic and neurophysiologic evaluation of acute and chronic effects.  Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Sep;68(3):531-7.  PMID: 9734727

31.  Trefz F, de Sonneville L, Matthis P, Benninger C, Lanz-Englert B, Bickel H.  Neuropsychological and biochemical investigations in heterozygotes for phenylketonuria during ingestion of high dose aspartame (a sweetener containing phenylalanine).  Hum Genet. 1994 Apr;93(4):369-74.

32.  Stokes AF, Belger A, Banich MT, Bernadine E.  Effects of alcohol and chronic aspartame ingestion upon performance in aviation relevant cognitive tasks.  Aviat Space Environ Med. 1994 Jan;65(1):7-15.  PMID: 8117231



#2 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 02 October 2005 - 08:42 PM

(anyone know which avant poster Jay is BTW?)

There is a better series here:

http://thebull.bulkn...eID=6&pageID=88
http://thebull.bulkn...eID=7&pageID=95

Nevertheless you will not find the people here in agreement.

I doubt a little of any artificial sweetner is going to do much, but prefer to stick to stevia for those occasions (e.g. oatmeal) when I use one.

#3 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 02 October 2005 - 08:46 PM

oh god, dont get me started on artificial sweeteners or microwaving... deny it all you want, but they simply are not good.

FDA says its safe, so you take it.... yea...

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Guest_da_sense_*

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 02 October 2005 - 09:08 PM

i prefer honey

#5 opales

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

Posted 02 October 2005 - 09:27 PM

Good articles you provided ScottL, thx. ok, very excessive amounts of a specific sweetener (amounts usually not seen in normal diet) might be bad, that sounds plausible. especially caught my eye were the following quotes

Stevia isn't an artificial sweetener, but it is commonly promoted as a "safe alternative" to artificial sweeteners. This is based largely on the fact that it is naturally occurring.

The word "artificial" commonly has a negative connotation in our society. While this fear is explainable, since many human-made substances have proven to be very toxic, it does not represent a rational standard on which to judge the safety of a substance. Many life-saving drugs are artificial. On the other hand, many substances found in nature are very toxic. It is therefore more appropriate to evaluate the safety of a substance independently of whether or not it occurs in nature.

One study found that stevia extract decreased testosterone levels and fertility in male rats, but very high doses were used [6]. It is unlikely that this is a concern when normal amounts are used. Other safety concerns, such as a cancer risk, have been brought up by other studies, also involving very high amounts. The bulk of the evidence indicates that stevia is safe in normal amounts [7], and it has been approved in a number of countries. Nevertheless, many scientists believe that some of these problems have not been adequately addressed, and that more research is needed before stevia should be approved as a food product. Among others, the FDA, the World Health Organization, and the Scientific Committee on Food (European Union) all take the stance that there is insufficient evidence for the safety of stevia as a food additive.


The debate about the safety of artificial sweeteners will likely last for years to come. A large number of people in the general public, and even a small minority of scientists, feel threatened by artificial sweeteners. Every new development will be accompanied by at least some fear, and sometimes there is basis for that fear. However, the objections to the use of artificial sweeteners are ideological, not scientific, although they are often given under the guise of science. Study after study attests to the safety of these products, and the risks and acceptable levels of intake are well defined.

To recap, we can say the following about the artificial sweeteners we have discussed:
Sucralose appears to be the safest artificial sweetener, although there are not yet any long-term studies on human populations. Animal studies and short-term human studies indicate it to be very safe. The taste of sucralose is very close to that of sugar.


Acesulfame K should be used in moderation. Although the present research indicates that it is safe, it has not been researched as extensively as the other sweeteners.


Aspartame is very safe. It is plausible that some very sensitive people have adverse reactions to it, but even in these people it is doubtful that it would pose any risk to health. The taste of aspartame does not approximate sugar as well as the newer sweeteners.


Saccharin should be used in moderation. It is possible that it increases the risk of bladder cancer when used in high amounts.


[B]Using stevia as a sweetener is not recommended until more studies are done.[B]


Combining multiple sweeteners is an effective strategy to improve taste and to avoid consuming too much of any individual sweetener.


Why would you opt for stevia when evidence about its safety is less conclusive than for artificial sweeteners?

oh god, dont get me started on artificial sweeteners or microwaving... deny it all you want, but they simply are not good.


ajnast4r, please provide evidence and argumentation, not opinions. you could start by debunking articles provided. with microwaving the burden of proof is on the side saying they are dangerous, because quite frankly, I just don't see any reason why it should be so. I just does not make sense, and I very much doubt that there is any evidence backing this up!

Just because they are FDA does not mean they can't do at least something right.

I think what David Tolson says (on the quote above) that artificiliaty should not be used a criteria for evaluation is SO TRUE. I think this flaw in thinking troubles a lot of topics even here.

#6 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 03 October 2005 - 01:42 AM

I realy really do not like aspartame. I had a client with MS who has her symptoms worsened. I had a weird reaction to it myself the first time I had it. I will not go nuts and may have something with aspartame once a few months if there are other reasons e.g. neurostim (which I think had it).

#7 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 October 2005 - 02:09 AM

ajnast4r, please provide evidence and argumentation, not opinions.


you feel free to google that, ive read enough about aspartame to know thats its not gonna go in my body... sometimes you dont need clinical studies, you just need some common sense. theres no(to my knowledge) clinical studies telling you that you shouldnt eat white flour or sugar, but we all(should) know not to.


with microwaving the burden of proof is on the side saying they are dangerous, because quite frankly, I just don't see any reason why it should be so. I just does not make sense, and I very much doubt that there is any evidence backing this up!


theres a pretty big thread on this, just a few threads down from this one...

10/10/2003 - The November issue of the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture contains two studies that examined common food storage and preparation techniques. The studies showed that microwaving vegetables can destroy up to 97% of cancer-preventing antioxidants, and that blanching and freezing can destroy up to 70% of vitamins. Eating fresh fruits and vegetables, combined with vitamin and mineral supplementation, maximizes the protective effects.

In the first study, broccoli lost 97 percent of flavonoids, 74 percent of sinapics and 87 percent of caffeoyl-quinic derivatives (three different types of antioxidants) when it was microwaved. When boiled broccoli lost 66 percent of its flavonoids; when tossed in a pressure cooker, broccoli lost 47 percent of its caffeoyl-quinic acid derivatives. Steamed broccoli, on the other hand, lost only 11 percent, 0 percent and 8 percent, respectively, of flavonoids, sinapics, and caffeoyl-quinic derivatives.

When boiled the conventional way (i.e., not in a pressure-cooker), this green lost 66 percent of its flavonoids; when tossed in a pressure cooker, broccoli lost 47 percent of its caffeoyl-quinic acid derivatives.

Steamed broccoli, on the other hand, lost only 11 percent, 0 percent and 8 percent, respectively, of flavonoids, sinapics, and caffeoyl-quinic derivatives.




Just because they are FDA does not mean they can't do at least something right.


the FDA will basically pass anything with enough money invested into it... so yea, i dont trust them at all.

#8 Pablo M

  • Guest
  • 636 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 03 October 2005 - 03:22 AM

I believe aspartame is an excitotoxin. Definitely not something health-concerned people want to ingest.

#9 rfarris

  • Guest
  • 462 posts
  • 7
  • Location:32° 56' 26" 117° 01' 22"

Posted 03 October 2005 - 03:57 AM

...sometimes you dont need clinical studies, you just need some common sense...

Geez, how far have we fallen? Just a week ago we were arguing that the scientific method wasn't necessary; simply clinical studies. [tung]

#10 opales

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

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:38 PM

you feel free to google that, ive read enough about aspartame to know thats its not gonna go in my body... sometimes you dont need clinical studies, you just need some common sense. theres no(to my knowledge) clinical studies telling you that you shouldnt eat white flour or sugar, but we all(should) know not to.


common sense? my common sense says that if artificial sweeteners are not dangerous used in moderation AS PROVIDED BY EVIDENCE, then I will continue using them because I can avoid using sugar (which as you know, IS dangerous, see my answer below) and also, make my life a helluva lot easier.

regarding sugar, I think there are at least epistemological studies attaching sugar consumption to various diseases, and anyway, we know sugar has (a lot of) empty calories and gives a nasty insulin spike which definately have been shown to increase risk of various conditions.

is your common sense being the exact arorementioned (irrelevant) fact that they are ARTIFICIAL and not NATURAL. do you approve of stevia, even though evidence about its safety is less conclusive than for artificial sweeteners? also regarding your trustworthy informant, Google, David Tolson's article has a good point (you should really read those articles, they are good):

The number of conditions which aspartame has been claimed to be responsible for is too many to name. However, the common theme is that the basis for the claim is a case report or a report from someone on the internet. Millions of people consume aspartame, and a great number of diseases have unknown origins. The fact that many people that get sick consume aspartame and also don't know why they got sick is of no surprise. At this point, there is more evidence for the safety of aspartame than there is for a great number of other regularly consumed substances.



I believe aspartame is an excitotoxin. Definitely not something health-concerned people want to ingest.


Is this something outside the fact that they have NOT been shown to cause neither brain tumors nor cognitive or behavioral effects (as opposed to many claims)?

One of the most persistent myths is a causative relationship between aspartame and cancer. The origin of this myth may partly be the saccharin/cancer scare in the early 80's, and many people began to lump artificial sweeteners together, despite very different chemical structures. A plethora of animal studies in different species have been conducted, finding no link between aspartame consumption (in very high amounts) and cancer [1, 9].

One article by Olney et al. on a possible link between aspartame and brain cancer has received a great deal of media attention. According to this article, brain tumor rates rose in the US at about the same time aspartame was introduced, thus aspartame was a potential causative factor [10]. Clearly, this does not hold up to any sort of critical analysis. This is described in scientific circles as an "ecologic fallacy" – just because two events occured at the same time does not mean they were related. It has been pointed out that cellular phones, home computers, VCRs, depletion of the ozone layer, and increased use of stereo headphones could all also be blamed [11]. For a population study to make any sort of determination, a direct link has to be drawn between a risk factor and a condition, for example, a study showing a greater risk of brain tumors among consumers of aspartame. Also, the increase in brain tumors and the approval of aspartame came at nearly the same point, and if aspartame was the causative factor, it would be due to cumulative effects, so there should have been a gradual rise in brain tumor rates. For these reasons, the scientific community at large has criticized this study [1].

Another piece of evidence Olney et al. used to draw a link between aspartame and brain cancer was an early animal study in which rats fed aspartame had more brain tumors. However, many have tried to replicate this study without success [1, 11]. The ability to replicate an occurence is a cornerstone of good science – if an experiment cannot be reliably replicated, the results may have been due to chance.

Another study has been conducted which also refutes the conclusions of Olney et al. In a controlled study on 150 children with brain tumors which controlled for many risk factors, no link was found between maternal use of aspartame and brain tumors [1].


Aspartame is rumored to be related to the incidence of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and many other cognitive changes. These possibilities have been examined in the research, with the conclusion that normal doses of aspartame do not pose a risk for any of these. In a placebo-controlled study with 48 subjects who received 45 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg aspartame for 20 days, both well above what the average person consumes, there were no changes in adverse effect reports, mood, neuropsychologic measures, and the EEG. This study replicated an earlier six month study on healthy subjects in which reports of side effects and blood tests were no different between 75 mg/kg aspartame daily and placebo groups [16].

A study in preschool and elementary children found no changes in behavior or activity level due to aspartame, while another placebo-controlled study found that 34 mg/kg aspartame for two weeks did not alter behavior in children with ADHD. Another study found that giving aspartame to children with epilepsy did not increase the number of seziures or epileptiform discharges. Similarly, a placebo-controlled study on adults who believed aspartame triggered their seizures found that 50 mg/kg aspartame did not trigger seizures or electrographic abnormalities [16].

In many of these studies, levels of phenylalanine in the bloodstream were measured, and aspartame does appear to consistently incease phenylalanine levels. However, these elevations have been described as "transient... at doses of aspartame nearly impossble for the average consumer to ingest, [so] it seems highly improbable that normal use could produce neurologic or neuropsychologic deficits" [16]. Also, phenylalanine levels rapidly return to normal. It is not uncommon for animals to be given large doses of aspartame and changes in behavior noted. However, these studies do not reflect the real world, in which the increases in phenylalanine concentrations, and hence the behavioral consequences, are minimal. For example, in monkeys, at least 1 g/kg daily of aspartame is needed before behavioral changes can be observed [9].


The fact of the matter is that should avoidance of artificial sweeteners be very easy, then I would just to play it safe and avoid them. truth is, however, that avoiding them is very difficult without consuming sugar, which is probably much more dangerous. stevia at the moment is hard to use, and also, it does not appear to be any safer than artificial ones, maybe even less safe.

What I am really trying find here is truthful and realistic information about what I should do to extend my life. The effect of these supplemental and substance avoidance actions are in anyway going to be small, so I'd really like to use my time into something much more effective, like SENS. I am sometimes dismayed by the low participation level at the bio-science forums at ImmInst, where the real breakthroughs are much more likely to be done. On the other hand, people seem to spend a great amount time (and money) optimizing every last detail of their diet and supplementation, even though the effect is probably going to be very small after some point. And some of actions proposed here, not only do I think that they are time consuming and expensive, they (most likely) just don't plain work (like avoiding articial sweeteners or alkalizing your water). I really don't want to waste my time on things like that.

#11 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 03 October 2005 - 08:57 PM

opales,

The issue which I don't think gets adressed enough is the following:

Are you trying to find something to "consume mass quantities" [cone heads anyone?] i.e. like previous clients who consumed 2 liters of diet soda/day and thought they were eating healthy, or are we talking small amounts?

"The fact of the matter is that should avoidance of artificial sweeteners be very easy, then I would just to play it safe and avoid them. truth is, however, that avoiding them is very difficult without consuming sugar, which is probably much more dangerous."

If you aren't consuming large quantities of diet soda (which is horrible for many reasons) what are you eating to make such a statement?

#12 opales

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

Posted 03 October 2005 - 10:03 PM

No I am not talking about consuming large amounts, but something more like average diet amount (actually probably much less than average because I have pretty good diet compared to average person). Most important point is that I don't want use my valuable focus on thinking whether something has artificial sweeteners or not, nor go to lengths avoiding it, nor I want to spend money on avoiding it, nor I want to consume sugar/excess calories. If it was really dangerous I would do it, but I just don't think it is.

Couple of examples come to mind right away: when I take my whey protein, I'd much rather take artificially sweetened one because otherwise it just too bad tasting for long time use. Adding stevia is time and energy consuming, and actually in my country, its pretty hard to get (it just has not caught on here). Also, yes, if I want to drink a Coke 1-2 times a week or maybe few or more ciders on a night out (for social reasons, trying maintain an about regular social life while aiming for immortal life. Hey, Aubrey drinks quite few pints himself, and having a social life is healthy;), I will opt for articially sweetened one rather than completely avoid it or resort to the caloric bomb/insulin skyrocketing regular ones. Why is diet soda so bad?

Basically, I just want to minimize my effort spent on these diet/supplementation related aspects of extending and enhancing my own life and still get good results, and at the same, maximize my effort spend on the more profound life-extension activities (like studying SENS and helping to get funding to it and other important life-extension areas). A lot people seem to have it the other way around, I just don't think it is the best strategy.

#13 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 03 October 2005 - 10:34 PM

No I am not talking about consuming large amounts, but something more like average diet amount (actually probably much less than average because I have pretty good diet compared to average person). Most important point is that I don't want use my valuable focus on thinking whether something has artificial sweeteners or not, nor go to lengths avoiding it, nor I want to spend money on avoiding it, nor I want to consume sugar/excess calories. If it was really dangerous I would do it, but I just don't think it is.

Couple of examples come to mind right away: when I take my whey protein, I'd much rather take artificially sweetened one because otherwise it just too bad tasting for long time use. Adding stevia is time and energy consuming, and actually in my country, its pretty hard to get (it just has not caught on here). Also, yes, if I want to drink a Coke 1-2 times a week or maybe few or more ciders on a night out  (for social reasons, trying maintain an about regular social life while aiming for immortal life. Hey, Aubrey drinks quite few pints himself, and having a social life is healthy;), I will opt for articially sweetened one rather than completely avoid it or resort to the caloric bomb/insulin skyrocketing regular ones. Why is diet soda so bad?

Basically, I just want to minimize my effort spent on these diet/supplementation related aspects of extending and enhancing my own life and still get good results, and at the same, maximize my effort spend on the more profound life-extension activities (like studying SENS and helping to get funding to it and other important life-extension areas). A lot people seem to have it the other way around, I just don't think it is the best strategy.


1. The average diet is aweful and is not really useful as a reference point.

2. when I take my whey protein, I'd much rather take artificially sweetened one because otherwise it just too bad tasting for long time use."

I can't imagine what you are consuming as pure whey is nearly tasteless (well unless you are consuming...isolate which is a different story).

3. "Adding stevia is time and energy consuming"

??? mine is white powdered stuff and no more time and energy consuming then salting one's potatoes (jsut an example--save the salt debate for another thread)

4. The best I can say is that you are in good company [wis]

#14 opales

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

Posted 03 October 2005 - 11:34 PM

1. The average diet is aweful and is not really useful as a reference point.


Well, in this case I think it is, because it is awful and it still manages to keep artificial sweeteners on a level that does not cause symptoms. Now having said that, using average diet as a reference point regarding macronutrient or micronutrient intake would not be very convincing [thumb]

2. when I take my whey protein, I'd much rather take artificially sweetened one because otherwise it just too bad tasting for long time use."

I can't imagine what you are consuming as pure whey is nearly tasteless (well unless you are consuming...isolate which is a different story).


Hmmm, have to look into this. Still, taste was not awful, but even slight unpleasentness becomes important on the long run because you develop kind of distaste towards it.

3. "Adding stevia is time and energy consuming"

??? mine is white powdered stuff and no more time and energy consuming then salting one's potatoes (jsut an example--save the salt debate for another thread)


Well it is more about the difficulty of aquiring stevia in my country (you wouldn't believe, the anti artificial sweetener hype just has not caught on here). But having read the article you provided, I don't think I'll have to worry about that.

#15 Pablo M

  • Guest
  • 636 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 04 October 2005 - 01:30 AM

Is this something outside the fact that they have NOT been shown to cause neither brain tumors nor cognitive or behavioral effects (as opposed to many claims)?

I didn't say it caused brain tumors. I said it was an excitotoxin which, along with MSG and free glutamine, is probably something immortalists want to avoid.

#16 icyT

  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2005 - 07:14 AM

Where's it shown to be an excitotoxin? Isn't sugar an excitotoxin? Caffeine? They both make me very excited, not sure if they're toxins though.

I googled aspartame.

#1 hit is pro-aspartame, http://www.aspartame.net/
#2 hit is anti-aspartame, http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/

So umm... here's me problem... why can't we just ask the leading activists for both parties to look through every single article in each other's site, critique it providing reference to reasonable arguments, and then we can better evaluate the truth? Too bloody confusing...

#17 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 04 October 2005 - 09:56 AM

Where's it shown to be an excitotoxin? Isn't sugar an excitotoxin? Caffeine? They both make me very excited, not sure if they're toxins though.
.


Uhhh no.

http://www.dorway.com/blayenn.html

http://www.biology-o...ary/excitotoxin

http://smart-drugs.n...xcitotoxins.htm

#18 Pablo M

  • Guest
  • 636 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Sacramento

Posted 04 October 2005 - 05:45 PM

Am I totally hallucinating or did someone post something about cysteine being excitotoxic as well? The reference was to Excitotoxins : the taste that kills. Geez, am I totally losing it?

#19 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 04 October 2005 - 05:50 PM

Am I totally hallucinating or did someone post something about cysteine being excitotoxic as well? The reference was to Excitotoxins : the taste that kills. Geez, am I totally losing it?


I don't remember but the stuff oxizizes really easily. No reason to take it. Take NAC instead...and there is no issue with that.

#20 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 04 October 2005 - 08:39 PM

Aspartame makes me sick, literally. I get nausea, tiredness, a strung out feeling and do not sleep well. I got those symptoms the first time I used aspartame and every time I used it. I was thrilled when it first came out, something that tasted sweet without the calories. At first I denied it could be it, thought I came down with something. After much trial and error, there is no doubt about it. I read a book on the subject and it seems there are lots of people with reactions like mine, some much worse. You don't read about it in the news because the makers are all big advertisers.

I just saw an article in the paper not more than a few days ago. It was a study that found people who drank soda with artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, gained more weight than people who drank normal sugar sodas. The crap not only is poison, it doesn't even do the job of helping you lose weight that is supposed to be it's main benefit. The article didn't give the reason, and I don't have a link to the article handy, try googling it. I believe the reason the crap doesn't work is because it gives you food cravings even more than regular sugar does.

Microwaving, OTOH, has never made me sick. I haven't seen a speck of proof on that so I'm waiting until the issue is settled before making a decision.

#21 icyT

  • Guest
  • 326 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 04 October 2005 - 09:40 PM

Aspartame's delicious, I wish I could trust it.

#22 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 04 October 2005 - 09:48 PM

aspartame gives me headaches.

I don't like the taste of the stevia I find at the store.

Of all artificial sweeteners i like splenda the most, and I haven't found anything to convince me that I shouldn't use it (including my own perceptions after consuming it)

#23 motomatt

  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 0
  • Location:California

Posted 04 October 2005 - 10:13 PM

Aspartame makes me tired & very hungry (binge type).

#24 lemon

  • Guest
  • 389 posts
  • -2

Posted 05 October 2005 - 11:13 AM

I'm not sure there is evidence of stevia safety. It just appeals to the all-natural crowd.


That's probably the most ignorant statement short of "I just snorted hydergine" ever made in these forums.

Hundreds of safety studies exist on stevia. Japan has EXTENSIVELY replaced refined sugar and all but banned artificial sweeteners in their food.

It's been in use for over 1,500 years in South America, 30 years of food and beverage use in Japan (40% of all sweetening). China has been using it for 20 years in food and beverage. All the pacific rim. Israel...

Billions of people and NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS EVER ATTRIBUTED.

#25 lemon

  • Guest
  • 389 posts
  • -2

Posted 05 October 2005 - 11:20 AM

Sweet is HUGE business. Do you think those people synthesizing chemical additives want their food and diet beverage market taken away from them by a plant that anyone can grow? Where is the money representing stevia?

Follow the money...

#26 lemon

  • Guest
  • 389 posts
  • -2

Posted 05 October 2005 - 11:25 AM

Justin,

Certain parts of the stevia leaf may give a bitter aftertaste. Vendor extraction methods vary. I recommend "Stevita" brand.

#27 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2005 - 07:02 PM

"I just snorted hydergine"



LOL [lol]

#28 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 05 October 2005 - 07:42 PM

Justin,

Certain parts of the stevia leaf may give a bitter aftertaste.  Vendor extraction methods vary.  I recommend "Stevita" brand.


Yes, I've noticed the aftertaste. I'll try the stevita brand you recommend.

#29 wannafulfill

  • Guest
  • 275 posts
  • 4

Posted 05 October 2005 - 08:42 PM

It's weird, I have used nothing but stevia in liquid form for several years for sweetening, even in baking. After hearing from several friends that they don't like the flavor of stevia, I was confused because I always thought it tasted good. Turns out they had been using those green packets which I had never tried. When I gave one a taste it turns out there's a HUGE difference. I buy the liquid stevia in a dropper bottle at Whole Foods.

#30 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 05 October 2005 - 09:13 PM

It's weird, I have used nothing but stevia in liquid form for several years for sweetening, even in baking. After hearing from several friends that they don't like the flavor of stevia, I was confused because I always thought it tasted good. Turns out they had been using those green packets which I had never tried. When I gave one a taste it turns out there's a HUGE difference. I buy the liquid stevia in a dropper bottle at Whole Foods.


YUk. I don't care for the taste of the brown liquid, but I gather some people feel that way about the white powder I use. YMMV.

Edit: sweetleaf brand.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users