diet coke/ aspartame

[nynone]

Glycemic Index Values
Maltodextrin: 89
Sucrose: 65
Glucose: 100

Aspartame: 0

Might wanna recheck your facts bud.

hmmm... i thought maltodextrin had a higher GI than glucose... guess i might be thinking of something else? :think:

Wait... what? Diet sodas don't register on the glycemic index. Just because aspartame has maltodextrin listed as an ingredient doesn't make it high-glycemic. Dude, it has no carbohydrates. :think:

The only real diet danger associated with diet soda is that artificial sweeteners cause sugar cravings, which can lead to unwise carbohydrate choices for undisciplined dieters.

i do know about the sugar cravings, but i thiought there were some other risks involving artificial sweeteners. maybe i have a missing link here somewhere... big foot maybe? (bad joke i know lol). here's another way i kind of think of this whole thing: butter vs. margarine is about the same as natural vs artificial sweeteners. butter/natural sweeteners have been around for ages, and our bodies have adapted to them because of this. since margarine/artificial sweeteners are man-made, and our bodies haven't had as much tiem to adapt to these substances/compounds. also, due to the lack of exposure, we may suffer from some ill side effects major/minor/moderate/whatever. that's just my outlook.

and to both above quotes... sorry for the wrong way of putting it in my last post. i was thinking ahead about the maltodextrin. it came out weird, and i forgot to proof read due to typing it too quick while at work

 

[madds87]

oh ok..... well ill just turn around and walk the other way. . But i dont have any proof or anything. I just think that stuff cant be healthy. When i was talking about artificial sweetner i was not talking about aspartame. I was saying that some art sweetners have in the past. I cant remember then name of the sweetner but its the pink packets with the pink panther as there logo? anybody know about this? i think i heard something about that sweetner causeing cancer..... Then again i might be wrong. Which im sure you will not hesitate to prove me wrong.

Anyway my uncle has one kidney. Diet coke was all he drank never drank water just diet coke. So since sodas can cause kidney stones wouldnt that have something to do with that? Maybe your just talking about aspartame. Then maybe its not the aspartame and just the soda itself.

 

[madds87]

If that were true, then your uncle would be F*CKING RICH NOW!!! LOL!

Only if you sue! :tongue2:

 

[doingwork30]

. When i was talking about artificial sweetner i was not talking about aspartame. I was saying that some art sweetners have in the past. I cant remember then name of the sweetner but its the pink packets with the pink panther as there logo? anybody know about this? i think i heard something about that sweetner causeing cancer..... Then again i might be wrongf.

This sweetener is sweet n low, it is aspartame.

 

[PublicEnemy]

hmmm... i thought maltodextrin had a higher GI than glucose... guess i might be thinking of something else?

I've seen a couple conflicting stats for it. I just googled and I got 89 and 105.... oh well, its around there.

here's another way i kind of think of this whole thing: butter vs. margarine is about the same as natural vs artificial sweeteners. butter/natural sweeteners have been around for ages, and our bodies have adapted to them because of this. since margarine/artificial sweeteners are man-made, and our bodies haven't had as much tiem to adapt to these substances/compounds.

Not trying to be a ****, but I have several problems with that. First, that's causative reasoning. There's no empirical evidence provided to support that analogy. Its very much a comparison of apples to oranges, um yeah... they're both fruit and thats it. You're comparing a situation with scientific proof to another situation with opposing scientific proof. Trans-fats in margarine (btw trans fats do occur in nature, just not in concentrated quantities like margarine) have a body of scientific evidence supporting their detrimental effects on health. Artificial sweeteners, aka "unnatural," also have a body of scientific evidence pointing towards their safety. I agree the scientific evidence is conflicting, but overall it leans towards their safety.

EDIT: Just in case I gave off the impression that I'm a staunch believer in the safety of artificial sweeteners, I'm not. You're entitled to your own opinion, I'm entitled to mine. I see no problem with them, but at the same time; because of some conflicting scientific evidence I wouldn't say its out of the question that they might have some effect on health.

Second. Just because something is natural DOES NOT MEAN its better for you. Just because something "doesn't occur in nature" or is "man-made" DOES NOT MEAN that its bad for you. (btw that wasn't just directed at you)

The whole "natural is better for you because its found in "nature" argument is repackaged vitalism. Wikipedia Vitalism if you don't know what it is. Its pure garbage (IMO). Can you guess what the difference between "natural" vitamin C and "man made" vitamin C is?

Botulism is "natural." Its found in nature. Because its "natural" and found in "nature" is it good for me? Piracetam is "man-made" and "not found in nature." Compare the LD-50 of Piracetam to the LD-50 of Botulism. Piracetam also has a plethora of proven cognitive benefits and is neuroprotective to boot. The terms natural/man-made are marketing schemes. They play on the fears of the health conscious individual in order to sell a more expensive product. They lack any real factual basis and sadly they have an army of dedicated followers.

3) Adaptation is only going to occur if those with the unfavorable genes don't survive to pass on their genes.

[/RANT]

 

[rubberring]

This sweetener is sweet n low, it is aspartame.

No... it's not. The pink packets contain saccharin. It's included in the 3rd link in my above post... and it has never been proven to cause cancer.

Anyway my uncle has one kidney. Diet coke was all he drank never drank water just diet coke.

My uncle died of malnutrition because his diet consisted entirely of lettuce. Lettuce killed my uncle.

 

[doingwork30]

My uncle died of malnutrition because his diet consisted entirely of lettuce. Lettuce killed my uncle.



No... it's not. The pink packets contain saccharin. It's included in the 3rd link in my above post... and it has never been proven to cause cancer.

my mistake. i was told it was aspartame and never bothered to look it up.

 

[madds87]

No... it's not. The pink packets contain saccharin. It's included in the 3rd link in my above post... and it has never been proven to cause cancer.



My uncle died of malnutrition because his diet consisted entirely of lettuce. Lettuce killed my uncle.

View attachment 32615

Dude...... really? I understand your logic. But wow. Maybe you should work for the government.

How could it be healthy? :suspect:

 

[madds87]

Plus so yall are telling me if i drank diet sodas instead of water for the rest of my life i will not run into any problems that could relate to these unproven myths?
Im trying to understand yalls logic.
But the ones im arguing with are the ones who drink diet sodas..... .
Im just saying fellas i just think, it cant be healthy. I think its problomatic. But then again i do not drink sodas. I drink juice and use natural sweetners. Oh dont forget water.

Even if the product has not been proven to be unhealthy does not mean it is not. Aspartame also has not been proven to be healthy either. Comparitive to natural sweetners like honey..... Which has all sorts of beneficial factors.
This might be a little extremeist but smoking was not proven to be unhealthy or healthy for a long time.

 

[walker2]

1 pound of fat burns only 2 calories a day while 1 pound of muscle burns 6 calories a day, three times the amount. And it takes 20% of your thermal metabolism to burn each protein calorie, 8% of each carbohydrate calorie and 2% of each fat calorie for digestion. So remember to increase lean protein into your diet

 

[rubberring]

I drink juice and use natural sweeteners.

That's ironic. As a rule, I never drink fruit juice unless it's post-workout and I need to refill glycogen stores. Spiking insulin with natural sweeteners is not very beneficial at any other time. There's far more evidence to suggest that heavy liquid fructose/glucose consumption (minus the pulp of fresh fruit) contributes to type-II diabetes than there is hard data to propose that artificial sweeteners lead to disease.

No offense, but in general I don't find your logic to be all that... logical. :suspect:

 

[rubberring]

1 pound of fat burns only 2 calories a day while 1 pound of muscle burns 6 calories a day, three times the amount. And it takes 20% of your thermal metabolism to burn each protein calorie, 8% of each carbohydrate calorie and 2% of each fat calorie for digestion. So remember to increase lean protein into your diet

Da phuck you talkin' about?

 

[madds87]

That's ironic. As a rule, I never drink fruit juice unless it's post-workout and I need to refill glycogen stores. Spiking insulin with natural sweeteners is not very beneficial at any other time. There's far more evidence to suggest that heavy liquid fructose/glucose consumption (minus the pulp of fresh fruit) contributes to type-II diabetes than there is hard data to propose that artificial sweeteners lead to disease.

No offense, but in general I don't find your logic to be all that... logical. :suspect:

I did not say i drink juice all the time. The times i drink it is in the morning. The juice i drink is from a juicer.... Mostly drink water and my greenteas. Sounds logical to me..... And on top of this i dont drink diet sodas. :silly:
But thats a great rule you have. I consider the same rule. Except for morning or if i got a cold and need the extra vit c.

The people that are getting type II diabetes im sure is drinking a gallon of juice daily..... Or even on top of this im sure there diet is full of sweets. Your body gets used to having so much sugar and if you dont get it your body will crave it. I get headaches off of a soda or even cake.

 

[doingwork30]

. Your body gets used to having so much sugar and if you dont get it your body will crave it. I get headaches off of a soda or even cake.

This. I went to a friends and had a few sodas, felt a weird sugar rush and then came the pounding headache.

 

[madds87]

This. I went to a friends and had a few sodas, felt a weird sugar rush and then came the pounding headache.

Ha yeah those headaches suck! i noticed i rarely get headaches since i stopped eating so much sugar.... Yeah my captain bought some doughnuts and i gave in to have one..... i threw up after lol! It was not worth it... I will admit it was pretty dang good though.

 

[doingwork30]

Ha yeah those headaches suck! i noticed i rarely get headaches since i stopped eating so much sugar.... Yeah my captain bought some doughnuts and i gave in to have one..... i threw up after lol! It was not worth it... I will admit it was pretty dang good though.

Hell yeah haha having real soda was like drinking straight syrup. It was great, for a little while at least.

 

[CrazyChemist]

Hell yeah haha having real soda was like drinking straight syrup. It was great, for a little while at least.

This is why i prefer diet soda. Regular is too sweet.

 

[Doc Holliday]

This is why i prefer diet soda. Regular is too sweet.

Yeah, I agree - it's like dessert to me now.

 

[nynone]

I've seen a couple conflicting stats for it. I just googled and I got 89 and 105.... oh well, its around there.



Not trying to be a ****, but I have several problems with that. First, that's causative reasoning. There's no empirical evidence provided to support that analogy. Its very much a comparison of apples to oranges, um yeah... they're both fruit and thats it. You're comparing a situation with scientific proof to another situation with opposing scientific proof. Trans-fats in margarine (btw trans fats do occur in nature, just not in concentrated quantities like margarine) have a body of scientific evidence supporting their detrimental effects on health. Artificial sweeteners, aka "unnatural," also have a body of scientific evidence pointing towards their safety. I agree the scientific evidence is conflicting, but overall it leans towards their safety.

EDIT: Just in case I gave off the impression that I'm a staunch believer in the safety of artificial sweeteners, I'm not. You're entitled to your own opinion, I'm entitled to mine. I see no problem with them, but at the same time; because of some conflicting scientific evidence I wouldn't say its out of the question that they might have some effect on health.

Second. Just because something is natural DOES NOT MEAN its better for you. Just because something "doesn't occur in nature" or is "man-made" DOES NOT MEAN that its bad for you. (btw that wasn't just directed at you)

The whole "natural is better for you because its found in "nature" argument is repackaged vitalism. Wikipedia Vitalism if you don't know what it is. Its pure garbage (IMO). Can you guess what the difference between "natural" vitamin C and "man made" vitamin C is?

Botulism is "natural." Its found in nature. Because its "natural" and found in "nature" is it good for me? Piracetam is "man-made" and "not found in nature." Compare the LD-50 of Piracetam to the LD-50 of Botulism. Piracetam also has a plethora of proven cognitive benefits and is neuroprotective to boot. The terms natural/man-made are marketing schemes. They play on the fears of the health conscious individual in order to sell a more expensive product. They lack any real factual basis and sadly they have an army of dedicated followers.

3) Adaptation is only going to occur if those with the unfavorable genes don't survive to pass on their genes.

[/RANT]

didnt sound like a **** to me :439:

and as for my analogy goes... well i guess i could have used a better one, but typing out this stuff while at work makes me explanations go to hell (at least for me). my job requires me to stoop down to lower intelligence levels to communicate with customers.... lol JK. that would be flight attendant/stewardess hahaha.

anyways, your little piece on the natural stuff is quite true. and i do agree with you on having different opinions. i try and keep myself all natural in what i consume just for my own reasons. i like to know what's in my food, and be able to control that, as opposed to letting companies process my food, and bleach out the nice nutrients we really want. also you were right when you talked about comparing apples and oranges. since there is conflicting evidence about the artificial sweetners being healthy or not, i prefer to sit on the side where there is some caution thrown into the wind, and take it easy with them. don't over do it, and try to regulate the use to as minimal just in case of something being found highly negative about them

 

[PublicEnemy]

didnt sound like a **** to me :439:

With a :439: face like that I think its safe we say we understand each other :sasmokin:

anyways, your little piece on the natural stuff is quite true. and i do agree with you on having different opinions. i try and keep myself all natural in what i consume just for my own reasons. i like to know what's in my food, and be able to control that, as opposed to letting companies process my food, and bleach out the nice nutrients we really want.

I agree with you on knowing what's in my food and being able to control it. I think everyone will agree that the closer the food you eat is to its natural state, the better it is for you. The real sad part is, like with bleached flour, most our food supply has to go through the preservative process in order to have a longer shelf life... Just a necessary evil that comes with the American lifestyle being built around profits, consumerism and materialism.

On a side note I find it funny that Food Science and Dietetics (I'm going to school to become a Dietitian) are both classified as Nutrition majors at my University. One idealizes health through smart choices, and the other modifies food in such ways that sometimes it can't reasonably be recognized as such. I met a woman who used to be a Food Scientist for Kraft (our Food Science program is invested with corporate interests) and she said she ended up quitting her career and joined a volunteer organization instead. She said that ethically she couldn't continue to work in that environment because, through means of chemistry, she was creating "food" that wasn't food, just to maximize profits.

also you were right when you talked about comparing apples and oranges. since there is conflicting evidence about the artificial sweetners being healthy or not, i prefer to sit on the side where there is some caution thrown into the wind, and take it easy with them. don't over do it, and try to regulate the use to as minimal just in case of something being found highly negative about them

I can agree with throwing caution to the wind, I'm also glad that you're not taking an extremist stance. Taking an extreme stance in any situation leaves no room for reasoning, especially when most extremists refuse to acknowledge the possibility of conflicting evidence.

That's what frustrates me about preachers of the whole "organic" lifestyle (i.e. my rant). The nutritional content of fresh produce is based purely on soil quality, regardless of organic or agribusiness growing practices.

The difference between organic and regular produce is that one is allowed to use synthetic pesticides, while the other only uses "natural" pesticides certified by the FDA. Most people won't admit that the classification is irrelevant, a pesticide that is harmful to your body is harmful. Regardless of organic or synthetic origin. And organic farmers can even use synthetic pesticides up to a certain point, its not as clear cut as some people would like to believe. The same applies to GM crops, most GM crops are modified so that not as much pesticide is needed, among other things. GM crops have their drawbacks and controversies, as do organic.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to advocate one side or another or antagonize ideals, just presenting what is IMO impartial evidence. If someone happens to take offense at this then its because you can't stand the thought of your beliefs being challenged or wrong, not because I'm personally attacking them.

EDIT: Just to add on, I saw something that made me laugh today. At the vitamin/mineral section in the grocery store they had "Organic Vitamin C" right next to the regular Vitamin C at a much higher price. Too bad "Organic" and Regular Vitamin C both have the chemical formula C6H8O6, the same chemical structure 2-oxo-L-threo-hexono-1,4- lactone-2,3-enediol, and the same common name of L-Ascorbic Acid. Whoever did that is laughing their ass off at the person stupid enough to buy it.

 

[rubberring]

With a :439: face like that I think its safe we say we understand each other :sasmokin:



I agree with you on knowing what's in my food and being able to control it. I think everyone will agree that the closer the food you eat is to its natural state, the better it is for you. The real sad part is, like with bleached flour, most our food supply has to go through the preservative process in order to have a longer shelf life... Just a necessary evil that comes with the American lifestyle being built around profits, consumerism and materialism.

On a side note I find it funny that Food Science and Dietetics (I'm going to school to become a Dietitian) are both classified as Nutrition majors at my University. One idealizes health through smart choices, and the other modifies food in such ways that sometimes it can't reasonably be recognized as such. I met a woman who used to be a Food Scientist for Kraft (our Food Science program is invested with corporate interests) and she said she ended up quitting her career and joined a volunteer organization instead. She said that ethically she couldn't continue to work in that environment because, through means of chemistry, she was creating "food" that wasn't food, just to maximize profits.



I can agree with throwing caution to the wind, I'm also glad that you're not taking an extremist stance. Taking an extreme stance in any situation leaves no room for reasoning, especially when most extremists refuse to acknowledge the possibility of conflicting evidence.

That's what frustrates me about preachers of the whole "organic" lifestyle (i.e. my rant). The nutritional content of fresh produce is based purely on soil quality, regardless of organic or agribusiness growing practices.

The difference between organic and regular produce is that one is allowed to use synthetic pesticides, while the other only uses "natural" pesticides certified by the FDA. Most people won't admit that the classification is irrelevant, a pesticide that is harmful to your body is harmful. Regardless of organic or synthetic origin. And organic farmers can even use synthetic pesticides up to a certain point, its not as clear cut as some people would like to believe. The same applies to GM crops, most GM crops are modified so that not as much pesticide is needed, among other things. GM crops have their drawbacks and controversies, as do organic.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to advocate one side or another or antagonize ideals, just presenting what is IMO impartial evidence. If someone happens to take offense at this then its because you can't stand the thought of your beliefs being challenged or wrong, not because I'm personally attacking them.

EDIT: Just to add on, I saw something that made me laugh today. At the vitamin/mineral section in the grocery store they had "Organic Vitamin C" right next to the regular Vitamin C at a much higher price. Too bad "Organic" and Regular Vitamin C both have the chemical formula C6H8O6, the same chemical structure 2-oxo-L-threo-hexono-1,4- lactone-2,3-enediol, and the same common name of L-Ascorbic Acid. Whoever did that is laughing their ass off at the person stupid enough to buy it.

 

[Tone]

aspartame is nurotoxic, it has absolutely NO benefits, so why would you take it????? I don't even understand why this is being debated... its not good for you.. PERIOD

Possible Side Effects of NutraSweet (aspartame to the retarded)

I copied and pasted from this website http://www.mac-archive.com/ns/side.html

Here is the list of reasons why you should NOT take diet pop or aspartame[/SIZE]

"There is a seemingly endless list of side effects from aspartame ingestion. Since it was discovered, scientist have found adverse effects through experimentation including brain tumors, headaches, vision loss, and many other neurological problems. They have also reached conclusions about the causes of these adverse affects. In 1994, a report was released that listed 92 symptoms associated with aspartame ingestion and said that aspartame accounted for 75 percent of all adverse reactions reported to the Adverse Reaction Monitoring System.

Some of the 92 long-term and immediate adverse effects of aspartame ingestion are:

Abdominal Pain
Anxiety attacks
Arthritis
Asthma
Asthmatic Reactions
Bloating, Edema (Fluid Retention)
Blood Sugar Control Problems (Hypoglycemia or Hyperglycemia)
Brain Cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals)
Breathing difficulties
Burning eyes or throat
Burning Urination
Can't think straight
Chest Pains
Chronic cough
Chronic Fatigue
Confusion
Death
Depression
Diarrhea
Dizziness
Excessive Thirst or Hunger
Fatigue
Feel unreal
Flushing of face
Hair Loss (Baldness) or Thinning of Hair
Headaches/Migraines dizziness
Hearing Loss
Heart palpitations
Hives (Urticaria)
Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)
Hysterical pregnancy
Impotency and Sexual Problems
Inability to concentrate
Infection Susceptibility
Insomnia
Irritability
Itching
Joint Pains
Laryngitis
"Like thinking in a fog"
Marked Personality Changes
Memory loss
Menstrual Problems or Changes
Migraines and Severe Headaches (Trigger or Cause From Chronic Intake)
Muscle spasms
Nausea or Vomiting
Numbness or Tingling of Extremities
Other Allergic-Like Reactions
Panic Attacks
Phobias
Poor memory
Rapid Heart Beat
Rashes
Seizures and Convulsions
Slurring of Speech
Swallowing Pain
Tachycardia
Tremors
Tinnitus
Vertigo
Vision Loss
Weight gain
In addition, aspartame can mimic symptoms or worsen the following diseases:
Fibromyalgia
Arthritis
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Parkinson's Disease
Lupus
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)
Diabetes and Diabetic Complications
Epilepsy
Alzheimer's Disease
Birth Defects
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Lymphoma
Lyme Disease
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Panic Disorder
Depression and other Psychological Disorders



If you have these problems:
CancerLinksUSA.com - Starting point for cancer information on the web. A physician guided web site for cancer patients, families, and care givers.

So what causes these problems? Scientist believe that when aspartame is ingested it breaks down into 3 potentially harmful products:

Phenylalanine
Aspartic Acid
Methanol
There is also concern over aspartame forming diketopiperazine in liquids when stored for a long time.




Phenylalanine
Phenylalanine is normally found in the brain but excessive levels of it can be dangerous. This is the problem that people with phenylketonuria have; they are unable to metabolize phenylalanine and as a result dangerously high levels of it can build up in their brain. Excessive amounts of phenylalanine in the brain can lead to schizophrenia and depression. Too much phenylalanine in the brain also increases a person's chances of having a seizure. All of these problems caused by phenylalanine have also been associated with aspartame ingestion. Studies have shown that the amount of phenylalanine in the blood increases in people who use aspartame regularly. This increase in the amount of phenylalanine in the body leads to an increase in the amount of phenylalanine in the brain. As with many of the amino acids that we eat, phenylalanine enters the brain on transport molecules; phenylalanine shares its transport molecule with two other amino acids. Normally, when people eat food, they ingest many amino acids that then have to compete for space on the shared transport molecules thus limiting the amount of each amino acid that can enter the brain. With aspartame, however, phenylalanine is the only amino acid for that particular transport molecule that is ingested so, as a result, there is less competition and more phenylalanine enters the brain. This increase in phenylalanine in the brain explains some of the side effects that result from aspartame ingestion.



Aspartic Acid
When broken down, aspartame is 40 percent aspartic acid and this means that ingesting aspartame increases the amount of aspartic acid in the body. Like the glutamic acid found in monosodium glutamate, or MSG, aspartic acid is an excitatory amino acid that can have many adverse effects. Aspartic acid, also referred to as aspartate, can act as an excitotoxin in the human body. Normally, aspartate acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain. However, as with other excitotoxins, the presence of too much aspartate in the brain can cause the killing of certain brain cells by over-stimulating them. This slow damaging of neurons can lead to Parkinson's disease and memory loss as well as many other neurological problems. These are some of the long-term side effects that have been associated with aspartame ingestion. Because of its composition, aspartame acts very similar to MSG, a chemical which is generally known to have adverse effects. However, MSG use has been reduced whereas aspartame is being consumed in large amounts daily.



Methanol
Methanol is ten percent of what is released from aspartame when it is broken down by the digestive system. Methanol is released by aspartame when the methyl group (CH3) of aspartame comes in contact with the enzyme chymotrypsin in the small intestine. Inside the body, methanol breaks into formic acid and formaldehyde. Both of these products are toxic and symptoms of poisoning include headaches and nausea. Methanol poisoning can also result in retinal damage leading to vision problems including blurring and blindness. In addition, formaldehyde is both a neurotoxin and a carcinogen. These severe effects of methanol poisoning were seen in a study of the effects of aspartame on humans. Methanol is also released from aspartame when it is heated above 86 oF. This could happen when storing foods or drinks in hot places or by cooking with aspartame. Some people have attributed the Desert Storm Syndrome, which has symptoms similar to those of formaldehyde poisoning, to the large consumption of methanol from aspartame-containing drinks that had been heated to over 86 oF in the desert sun. The ingestion of free methanol that has already been released from overheated aspartame greatly increases the body's absorption of methanol. Methanol takes a long time to be excreted from the body and as a result, ingesting large amounts can cause methanol to build up in the body. This is similar to a drugs with a long half-life. The recommended limit of consumption for methanol is 7.8 milligrams per day but a twelve ounce can of a diet cola with aspartame contains about 20 milligrams of methanol. Even though it is likely that not all of this 20 milligrams is released from the aspartame and absorbed by the body, consuming a lot of aspartame daily will cause the amount of methanol in the body to slowly build up. It should be noted that people ingest methanol from other sources such as fruit juices and alcoholic beverages. In these cases, however, the ingestion of methanol is accompanied by the ingestion of ethanol which counteracts the effects of methanol. In aspartame, there is only methanol present and no ethanol to counteract the methanol. This addition of methanol from aspartame into the body results in many of the side effects associated with aspartame ingestion.



Diketopiperazine
The breaking down of aspartame into its components is not the only way that the artificial sweetener creates chemicals which have an adverse effect on humans. It is known that if a liquid containing aspartame is stored for a long time, diketopiperazine is formed in the liquid. Scientist have concluded that diketopiperazine causes brain tumors. According to Dr. John W. Olney, once digested, diketopiperazine produces a compound that is similar to a carcinogenic chemical called N-nitrosourea. Studies using rats that were conducted by NutraSweet have shown that aspartame causes brain tumors. One of these studies showed 12 out of 320 rats getting brain tumors, and this is even with NutraSweet falsifying the results. The production of diketopiperazine by aspartame explains how aspartame causes brain tumors.
If there are all of these side effects and aspartame is bad, why is it sold and why was it it approved? Find out."


Here is the reason you should drink it.... NO CALORIES
I guess you people will have to make the decision..... I NEVER drink diet soda, but I do eat/drink some things with aspartame in it, I do not recommend regular use of any diet products because of the fact that they are unnatural... Why don't you drink anti freeze, or battery acid, or oil????? same answer to why you shouldn't drink aspartame

 

[rubberring]

Did you notice that "Can't think straight" was listed as an adverse side-effect in your oh-so-very scientific link? :lol: "Death" was another one listed... which, in and of itself, removes all legitimacy from this supposed study.

There's a boatload of methanol in tomatoes... so, should I not eat them? I mean... they're natural.

 

[Tone]

Did you notice that "Can't think straight" was listed as an adverse side-effect in your oh-so-very scientific link? :lol: "Death" was another one listed... which, in and of itself, removes all legitimacy from this supposed study.

There's a boatload of methanol in tomatoes... so, should I not eat them? I mean... they're natural.

Apparently you didn't understand my post.

 

[rubberring]

Apparently you didn't understand my post.

Enlighten me. Your position seems to be that aspartame is (1)harmful and (2)unnatural... and that (3)drinking motor oil makes as much sense.

 

[Tone]

Enlighten me. Your position seems to be that aspartame is (1)harmful and (2)unnatural... and that (3)drinking motor oil makes as much sense.

1 and 2 are right on... 3 was an exageration on my part. Im not saying don't drink diet soda... Im just putting in my 2 cents... To each their own, do what makes you happy. If you love diet pop go ahead and drink it.

Too many people aren't living life to their fullest, they aren't as healthy as they could be, and they are dying too early. I know that diet pop and aspartame is one of the reasons for that... And hey, if one person reads this thread and gives up diet pop because of what I said, then I have done my job.... If people sit back and laugh at me because I am warning them about the dangers of aspartame than thats fine too, but at least I tried. And thats all I can do.

 

[rubberring]

1 and 2 are right on... 3 was an exageration on my part.

Well, if you read my earlier posts, you'll see that #1 hasn't been proven, and we could really get into a semantic debate on #2.

Too many people aren't living life to their fullest, they aren't as healthy as they could be, and they are dying too early. I know that diet pop and aspartame is one of the reasons for that.

No... you absolutely don't know. You speculate. That's my point. Life expectancy has increased since the invention of artificial sweeteners, btw.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

As is common for these types of debates, there is little to contend with in regard to the anti-sweetener posts, as there are no references provided, no empirical data, and no plausible explanations as to how artificial sweeteners could potentially hurt us.

Here is an even bigger issue: Dr. Bowen - the de-licensed doctor that produced that list of "potential" side effects, as well as the commentary on phenylalanine, and so on - has completed no peer-reviewed studies to verify his contentions. And further, he provides no evidence in his books, websites or otherwise to substantiate a single one of those side effects mentioned above. Let me repeat that: there is no evidence in humans that substantiates a single word of what has been said against sweeteners in this thread. At all. As in, "none."

In relation to Dr. Bowen’s various comments regarding hepatic, renal and metabolic conditions, those acute symptoms have in fact been noted in certain animal trials. However, what was not noted in this thread, on any of Dr. Bowen's sites, or really, within the anti-sweetener literature more generally, is that the acute toxicity dose noted for hepatic swelling, for example, is well over 1000mg(1g)/kg in rat assays. This equates to, in my case, nearly 95,000mg of Sucralose, or in simpler terms, almost a quarter of a pound of Sucralose in one sitting.

For reference sake, and because I work for USPlabs, and JACK3D is a popular supplement, one would have to ingest several hundred consecutive tubs of JACK3D in one sitting in order to broach the acute toxicity levels. Yes, several hundred to even broach the level at which 'hypothetical' hepatic swelling 'may' occur. With reference to the carcinogenic action of acesulfame-K, for example, the results are even more telling: well over 7000mg/kg/day in order to cause acute, point mutation - and this research was done in vitro, and never produced in living models.

In fact, the clinical trials that Dr. Bowen incessantly fucking refers to noted no acute and/or chronic toxicity in animal studies when reasonable-dose, longitudinal studies were conducted. Even lauded studies showing the “deficiencies” of these sweeteners in humans, such as the Walton et al., study on behavioral disruption while using Aspartame, have been largely discredited and disputed. The evidence has more bark than bite, so to say.

Though it is anybody's choice to ingest whatever they choose, it is important to keep in mind that there is no suggestive literature which points to health consequences in humans from the use of “artificial sweeteners.” There is nominal research in rats, which I have disputed above, that seems to suggest a potential carcinogenic effect, and other research which illuminates the possibility for neurological damage viz., genomic alteration and reductions in DNA and total protein content in brain cells. However, as I have said, what is often lost in the fray is that all these data require doses of sweeteners which are both physically and practically impossible to achieve: obviously, due to the production of various gases through the bio-breakdown of sweeteners, such rates of ingestion are quite literally impossible. You would vomit and/or experience severe diarrhea long before.

And even if those doses were achievable, in order to reproduce the adverse health consequences noted in the animal studies, us humans would have to consume several pounds of sweetener daily for several years to even broach the possibility of genetic and/or metabolic damage.

Unfortunately, the misinformation and propaganda surrounding the use of “artificial” sweeteners is positively rampant, and leads otherwise intelligent people to blindly spit out bull**** and pseudo-science.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Ruberring, do you have a "p0wn3d" GIF to provide here?

 

[Tone]

Well, if you read my earlier posts, you'll see that #1 hasn't been proven, and we could really get into a semantic debate on #2.




No... you absolutely don't know. You speculate. That's my point. Life expectancy has increased since the invention of artificial sweeteners, btw.

YES.... I absolutely do know and believe -- maybe life expectancy has increased, but because of evolution. Brain tumors have gone up I think about 300% since the invention of artificial sweetners... and since you are so hung up on "proof" prove to me that its not because of artificial sweetners.

 

[Tone]

As is common for these types of debates, there is little to contend with in regard to the anti-sweetener posts, as there are no references provided, no empirical data, and no plausible explanations as to how artificial sweeteners could potentially hurt us.

Here is an even bigger issue: Dr. Bowen - the de-licensed doctor that produced that list of "potential" side effects, as well as the commentary on phenylalanine, and so on - has completed no peer-reviewed studies to verify his contentions. And further, he provides no evidence in his books, websites or otherwise to substantiate a single one of those side effects mentioned above. Let me repeat that: there is no evidence in humans that substantiates a single word of what has been said against sweeteners in this thread. At all. As in, "none."

In relation to Dr. Bowen’s various comments regarding hepatic, renal and metabolic conditions, those acute symptoms have in fact been noted in certain animal trials. However, what was not noted in this thread, on any of Dr. Bowen's sites, or really, within the anti-sweetener literature more generally, is that the acute toxicity dose noted for hepatic swelling, for example, is well over 1000mg(1g)/kg in rat assays. This equates to, in my case, nearly 95,000mg of Sucralose, or in simpler terms, almost a quarter of a pound of Sucralose in one sitting.

For reference sake, and because I work for USPlabs, and JACK3D is a popular supplement, one would have to ingest several hundred consecutive tubs of JACK3D in one sitting in order to broach the acute toxicity levels. Yes, several hundred to even broach the level at which 'hypothetical' hepatic swelling 'may' occur. With reference to the carcinogenic action of acesulfame-K, for example, the results are even more telling: well over 7000mg/kg/day in order to cause acute, point mutation - and this research was done in vitro, and never produced in living models.

In fact, the clinical trials that Dr. Bowen incessantly fucking refers to noted no acute and/or chronic toxicity in animal studies when reasonable-dose, longitudinal studies were conducted. Even lauded studies showing the “deficiencies” of these sweeteners in humans, such as the Walton et al., study on behavioral disruption while using Aspartame, have been largely discredited and disputed. The evidence has more bark than bite, so to say.

Though it is anybody's choice to ingest whatever they choose, it is important to keep in mind that there is no suggestive literature which points to health consequences in humans from the use of “artificial sweeteners.” There is nominal research in rats, which I have disputed above, that seems to suggest a potential carcinogenic effect, and other research which illuminates the possibility for neurological damage viz., genomic alteration and reductions in DNA and total protein content in brain cells. However, as I have said, what is often lost in the fray is that all these data require doses of sweeteners which are both physically and practically impossible to achieve: obviously, due to the production of various gases through the bio-breakdown of sweeteners, such rates of ingestion are quite literally impossible. You would vomit and/or experience severe diarrhea long before.

And even if those doses were achievable, in order to reproduce the adverse health consequences noted in the animal studies, us humans would have to consume several pounds of sweetener daily for several years to even broach the possibility of genetic and/or metabolic damage.

Unfortunately, the misinformation and propaganda surrounding the use of “artificial” sweeteners is positively rampant, and leads otherwise intelligent people to blindly spit out bull**** and pseudo-science.

OK OK OK OK... You got me.... IT IS MY THEORY and MY BELIEF, That my above posts are to be true....

 

[Tone]

http://www.321recipes.com/aspartame.html

 

[rubberring]

As is common for these types of debates, there is little to contend with in regard to the anti-sweetener posts, as there are no references provided, no empirical data, and no plausible explanations as to how artificial sweeteners could potentially hurt us.

Unfortunately, the misinformation and propaganda surrounding the use of “artificial” sweeteners is positively rampant, and leads otherwise intelligent people to blindly spit out bull**** and pseudo-science.

Solid post, Mullet.

YES.... I absolutely do know and believe -- maybe life expectancy has increased, but because of evolution. Brain tumors have gone up I think about 300% since the invention of artificial sweetners... and since you are so hung up on "proof" prove to me that its not because of artificial sweetners.

My uncle died of testicular cancer. Prove to me it wasn't because he liked Asian women.

Ruberring, do you have a "p0wn3d" GIF to provide here?

Nah man, but I agree with you that this thread is headed here:

 

[PublicEnemy]

YES.... I absolutely do know and believe -- maybe life expectancy has increased, but because of evolution. Brain tumors have gone up I think about 300% since the invention of artificial sweetners... and since you are so hung up on "proof" prove to me that its not because of artificial sweetners.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Just had to add that

 

[Tone]

Solid post, Mullet.



My uncle died of testicular cancer. Prove to me it wasn't because he liked Asian women.



Nah man, but I agree with you that this thread is headed here:

View attachment 32898

being that your uncle is related to you, im sure he couldn't get women, let a lone pick and chose which ones he got.... :laugh:

 

[Tone]

Im done with this thread

 

[doingwork30]

YES.... I absolutely do know and believe -- maybe life expectancy has increased, but because of evolution. Brain tumors have gone up I think about 300% since the invention of artificial sweetners... and since you are so hung up on "proof" prove to me that its not because of artificial sweetners.

I dont know about that one.

 

[madds87]

I dunno guys honey brown sugar cane sugar fructose etc. All of the sweetners that was provided by this earth i think is better. Besides obesite, diabetes, etc how could it hurt to have natural sweetners in moderation? now of course im not considering just regular soda, non soda. Im talking oj, lets say i made it fresh? Would you still consider a juice that was sweetened with aspartame or would you drink the freshly handmade juice?

Why do you drink diet sodas? whats the point? nothing beneficial i would think or maybe im wrong.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I dunno guys honey brown sugar cane sugar fructose etc. All of the sweetners that was provided by this earth i think is better. Besides obesite, diabetes, etc how could it hurt to have natural sweetners in moderation? now of course im not considering just regular soda, non soda. Im talking oj, lets say i made it fresh? Would you still consider a juice that was sweetened with aspartame or would you drink the freshly handmade juice?

Why do you drink diet sodas? whats the point? nothing beneficial i would think or maybe im wrong.

MG for MG a "natural" sweetener is no better for you than an "artificial sweetener," in the grand scheme of things. Any micronutrient value can be more easily obtained elsewhere - so no. And diet sodas/products sweetened with aspartame are a popular choice because of the lack of caloric value.

 

[madds87]

how?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

how?

Fantastic question! Direct, clear, and to the point. How, what?

How are light bulbs made? How to people convince themselves, despite a complete lack of evidence, that artificial sweeteners are bad? How did Michael Jackson get acquitted?

 

[rubberring]

how?

Fantastic question! Direct, clear, and to the point. How, what?

How are light bulbs made? How to people convince themselves, despite a complete lack of evidence, that artificial sweeteners are bad? How did Michael Jackson get acquitted?

Oh, way to be culturally insensitive, Mullet... you jerk. Clearly, madds is Native American, and was just bidding you hello.

Clearly.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Sorry, my bad!

How, maddas.

 

[madds87]

Fantastic question! Direct, clear, and to the point. How, what?

How are light bulbs made? How to people convince themselves, despite a complete lack of evidence, that artificial sweeteners are bad? How did Michael Jackson get acquitted?

how can you convince yourself that there good? ill ignore the BS. From you trying to be sarcastic.

 

[CrazyChemist]

Oh, way to be culturally insensitive, Mullet... you jerk. Clearly, madds is Native American, and was just bidding you hello.

Clearly.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to rubberring again. :lol:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

how can you convince yourself that there good? ill ignore the BS. From you trying to be sarcastic.

Where did I say, "They are "good" for you"? Did I claim they led to positive health outcomes, possessed any micro or macronutrient value and/or had any tangible physiological benefit? That is the difference between a positive claim, and a negative one.

A positive claim is not a claim that walks around with a large grin, and says, "Hello! Nice day, huh?" to passersby. Instead, a positive claim is one that posits something in particular, or in other words, it puts forward some thing in particular as fact, as pre-given and/or as the basis of an argument. In doing that, you make a definite claim to some truth: you claim that some thing in particular "is."

A negative claim is, again, not a claim that walks around going, "Man, I could have done that, it's just my boss is a total jerk and he rides me harder than everybody else." Instead, a negative claim is something that negates some thing in particular, or in other words, it denies that some thing in particular put forward as fact, as pre-given, and/or as the basis of an argument is not factual, is not pre-given, and/or cannot logically or practically be the basis for an argument. In doing that, you make no definite claims to some truth: you are not claim that some thing in particular "is," rather, you are just claiming that some thing in particular "is not."

A negative claim often requires much less evidence than a positive one, because you are not vested with the responsibility of proving that some thing has these particular characteristics - only that it does not have the characteristics somebody else has claimed. Think of it like this: in a murder case, the prosecution is attempting to prove that one person in particular is a murderer, and they are therefore required to show, through evidence, that this person has those properties of a murderer. The defense, on the other hand, is only required to show that literally anybody else in the world other than the murderer has committed the murder: they simply must negate the positive claim by the prosecution.

That's where we are at right now. You, the prosecution, are attempting to show that some thing in particular, namely, a sweetener, has particular characteristics, namely, being dangerous. Myself, on the other hand, as the defense, only needs to show that your claims are untrue, as I am not making any type of positive claim on the nature of sweeteners. Therefore, there's no need to convince myself of anything.

Logic is power!

 

[madds87]

Whoa...... Naw im just saying that with you backing up AS that you do not think at the moment that they are not healthy. What is your reasoning? Is it because there is no scientific evidence saying so? If so is this your logic on everything and life?

Im not being disrespectful towards you at all and is not my motive. Just never had a full blown out discussion on AS and is kinda interesting how you all look at this.....

 

[madds87]

Where did I say, "They are "good" for you"? Did I claim they led to positive health outcomes, possessed any micro or macronutrient value and/or had any tangible physiological benefit? That is the difference between a positive claim, and a negative one.

A positive claim is not a claim that walks around with a large grin, and says, "Hello! Nice day, huh?" to passersby. Instead, a positive claim is one that posits something in particular, or in other words, it puts forward some thing in particular as fact, as pre-given and/or as the basis of an argument. In doing that, you make a definite claim to some truth: you claim that some thing in particular "is."

A negative claim is, again, not a claim that walks around going, "Man, I could have done that, it's just my boss is a total jerk and he rides me harder than everybody else." Instead, a negative claim is something that negates some thing in particular, or in other words, it denies that some thing in particular put forward as fact, as pre-given, and/or as the basis of an argument is not factual, is not pre-given, and/or cannot logically or practically be the basis for an argument. In doing that, you make no definite claims to some truth: you are not claim that some thing in particular "is," rather, you are just claiming that some thing in particular "is not."

A negative claim often requires much less evidence than a positive one, because you are not vested with the responsibility of proving that some thing has these particular characteristics - only that it does not have the characteristics somebody else has claimed. Think of it like this: in a murder case, the prosecution is attempting to prove that one person in particular is a murderer, and they are therefore required to show, through evidence, that this person has those properties of a murderer. The defense, on the other hand, is only required to show that literally anybody else in the world other than the murderer has committed the murder: they simply must negate the positive claim by the prosecution.

That's where we are at right now. You, the prosecution, are attempting to show that some thing in particular, namely, a sweetener, has particular characteristics, namely, being dangerous. Myself, on the other hand, as the defense, only needs to show that your claims are untrue, as I am not making any type of positive claim on the nature of sweeteners. Therefore, there's no need to convince myself of anything.

Logic is power!

I was not calling your logic BS. Just ignore that statement i was finishing up things with work and i htink anything would have just got me pissed that day. But what set me off was the how thing.... Dont know why.... maybe it was your sarcasm but anyway back to the discussion.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Whoa...... Naw im just saying that with you backing up AS that you do not think at the moment that they are not healthy. What is your reasoning? Is it because there is no scientific evidence saying so? If so is this your logic on everything and life?

You would have point if there were no evidence on the issue whatsoever, and I was concluding, by that lack of evidence, that they were not not healthy. That is not the case, though: there is evidence examining the health consequences of acesulfame-K and sucralose, and I speak about it above. Any data which shows some tangible health consequence either a) is in vitro, cell culture work which the authors admit use dosages which cannot be reproduced in humans or b) is in vivo, animal model work which the authors admit use dosages which cannot be reproduced in humans.

It is not a lack of evidence, it is that the issue has been studied that leads me to my conclusion. You know, that pesky logic gets in the way of "everything and life."

 

[Tone]

Where did I say, "They are "good" for you"? Did I claim they led to positive health outcomes, possessed any micro or macronutrient value and/or had any tangible physiological benefit? That is the difference between a positive claim, and a negative one.

A positive claim is not a claim that walks around with a large grin, and says, "Hello! Nice day, huh?" to passersby. Instead, a positive claim is one that posits something in particular, or in other words, it puts forward some thing in particular as fact, as pre-given and/or as the basis of an argument. In doing that, you make a definite claim to some truth: you claim that some thing in particular "is."

A negative claim is, again, not a claim that walks around going, "Man, I could have done that, it's just my boss is a total jerk and he rides me harder than everybody else." Instead, a negative claim is something that negates some thing in particular, or in other words, it denies that some thing in particular put forward as fact, as pre-given, and/or as the basis of an argument is not factual, is not pre-given, and/or cannot logically or practically be the basis for an argument. In doing that, you make no definite claims to some truth: you are not claim that some thing in particular "is," rather, you are just claiming that some thing in particular "is not."

A negative claim often requires much less evidence than a positive one, because you are not vested with the responsibility of proving that some thing has these particular characteristics - only that it does not have the characteristics somebody else has claimed. Think of it like this: in a murder case, the prosecution is attempting to prove that one person in particular is a murderer, and they are therefore required to show, through evidence, that this person has those properties of a murderer. The defense, on the other hand, is only required to show that literally anybody else in the world other than the murderer has committed the murder: they simply must negate the positive claim by the prosecution.

That's where we are at right now. You, the prosecution, are attempting to show that some thing in particular, namely, a sweetener, has particular characteristics, namely, being dangerous. Myself, on the other hand, as the defense, only needs to show that your claims are untrue, as I am not making any type of positive claim on the nature of sweeteners. Therefore, there's no need to convince myself of anything.

Logic is power!

Let's get something right first: There are two different things, things that are healthy, and things that are not. Our body is programed to work right 100% of the time, and the only thing that will stand in the way of that is interference. So our body needs no help, just no interference. Now, things that give our body interference is stress. Any type of stress whether it be Physical, chemical, or emotional stress. So things that give our body stress are not healthy, or in other words bad for you because they cause stress. I think we could ALL agree that things that need to be put in the body should come from the Earth, things that are natural.... We are all made from the earth, we were made out of the earth and when we die, we will become part of the earth again. It's simple biology. So, artificial sweetners, something that is not natural, man made, a toxin so to speak would be unhealthy. It causes a toxicity in our body, which in turn causes chemical stress and therefore interference in our body -- one side effect would be headaches. Now, in that case I would call an artificial sweetner toxic, and unhealthy, or in other words "bad for you". It has no positive traits, only negetive... so if something has no positive benefts, but did have negetive traits, I would... by LOGIC, call it harmful....... There are only two ways to get sick... by either a deficiency in something, or a toxicity to something.... artificial sweetners cause a toxicity to the body. They are harmful!