COMPANIES LEAVE OUT THE!!!! & INNOVATE
- 11-29-2012, 03:17 PM
Considering negging OP. I'm all up for debate, but the reason behind the neg is so that impressionable lurkers don't take him seriously. There's nothing worse than a forum that propagates misinformation.http://pescience.com/
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES
- 11-29-2012, 03:23 PM
- 11-29-2012, 03:28 PM
That said, artificial sweeteners have more safety studies than any supplement you ingest. That's right, sucralose is likely safer than basic vitamins like Vitamin C and folate. They have been tested at megadoses (acute megadoses will present with symptoms of toxicity more strongly than chronic, small doses) with no ill effect.http://pescience.com/
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES
11-29-2012, 03:29 PM
11-29-2012, 03:32 PM
11-29-2012, 03:52 PM
Why do i always read these threads????
Lecheek Nutrition Rep
XCEL SPORTS NUTRITION SPONSORED ATHLETE
I am here to help please inbox me any questions
11-29-2012, 03:56 PM
I love aspartame
as I sip on my 44oz diet cherry limeade
Controlled Labs Board Rep
CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility.
11-29-2012, 04:04 PM
11-29-2012, 04:12 PM
11-29-2012, 04:37 PM
My head hurts
BTW did you guys know there exist a diet grape juice? I'm so excited about this!
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
11-29-2012, 05:01 PM
Yumm! Welches?Originally Posted by JudoJosh
11-29-2012, 05:05 PM
11-29-2012, 05:31 PM
Are any of the posters that are against artificial sweeteners, etc. in products willing to post what supplements they do use? I always find it amusing that some are willing to mess around with their body chemistry, but step up on the soap box over what others put in their coffee.
11-29-2012, 05:42 PM
And as for the "natural" sweeteners...sugar alcohols can cause or exacerbate inflammatory GI syndromes. What do artificial sweeteners do in this regard? Nothing.
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES
11-29-2012, 05:43 PM
11-29-2012, 07:37 PM
11-29-2012, 08:28 PM
Here is a fun fact: there is not a single piece of placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized trial which demonstrates that 'artificial' sweeteners do, or are even capable of, leading to tangible adverse health effects in humans. Yet, a certain segment of the population is insistent on propagating this half-witted nonsense about the 'dangers' of artificial sweeteners, all the while touting the health benefits of processed sugar - the irony in principle and application is thick enough to cut with a knife.
I wrote this little ditty some time ago, and I like to use it sparingly - like fine china - only to admonish the most insistent, yet ill-informed hippies.
Now, on to questions about harmful side effects for long-term use. To put a very complex issue simply, there is no reliable and competent scientific data to suggest that sucralose has significant toxic potential. With regard to acute toxicity, doses of 50,000 times the RDI have not produced any detectable effects whatever . These doses were 10,000 and 16,000 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. The long term assays speak to the same safety.
To wit, 104 week (two year) oncogenicity and chronic toxicity studies in both rat and mice concluded that sucralose possessed no direct effects on the generation of oncoblasts or proliferation of cancer, nor possessed any direct toxicity in all tissue types studied. Minor decreases in organ and body weight, like the majority of other sucralose studies, were concluded to be peripheral to sucralose's direct physiological effects, and were consequences of the inpalatability of the compound [2, 3].
The doses used in the rat and mice studies were exbortinant, far exceeding what is either mechanically or physiologically possible in humans. The NOEL (no observed effect levels) was 1500mg/kg bw/day, with the LOEL (lowest observed effect level) being 4500mg/kg bw/day. To put this into more relevant terms, I would personally need to consume 1/2 lb of sucralose a day, everyday, for two consecutive years in order to broach the level at which no evidence for direct toxic effects were demonstrated.
These results are not alone. In a 12 month dietary study in Beagle dogs fed 875mg/kg bw/day of sucralose by galvage, no immunotoxic or carcinogenic effects were seen at statistically significant levels, and as in the prior rodent studies, any alterations in body weight or organ weight were concluded to be secondary . Studies on pregnant rabbits and rats using doses of up to 1000mg/kg bw/day and 2000mg/kg bw/day for the duration of the 28 week pregnancies did not evince any in utero developmental damage, while the mothers were subject, again, to secondary effects resulting from inpalatability to sucralose [5,6,7].
Finally, while they were not traditional toxicity assays, clinical trials in humans with durations up to and including 6 months, of doses up to and including 1000mg/day, found no significant alterations to major haemotological parameters, nor significant adverse effects.
Put quite simply, there is a complete dearth of evidence to suggest that sucralose is in any way harmful to human health. Unfortunately, the strictures of the scientific community do not apply to the distressing new trend of "new age health" gurus who promulgate this or that in an attempt, in the majority of cases, to push a, "natural sweetener."
Ironically enough, what the new age health community pejoratively deems "the chemical sweeteners" haveexponentially more scientific data on their various metabolic, physiologic, and pharmacological effects than do newer, "organic" sweeteners such as Stevia. Again, this seems lost amongst the uninformed fervor!
I hope that adequately answers your questions with regard to sucralose safety.
1. Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners (1989). Sucralose monographs. Unpublishedsubmission by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK, to the EC Scientific Committee
for Food, August 1989.
2. Rhenius ST, Ryder JR and Aymes SJ (1986).1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-▀-Dfructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): 104 week combined toxicity and oncogenicity study in CD rats with ‘in utero’ exposure. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 86/MSPO33/638. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
3. Aymes SJ, Ashby R and Aughton P (1986). 1,6-dichloro 1,6-dideoxy-▀-Dfructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): 104 week oncogenicity study in mice. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 86/MSPO35/179. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
4. Goldsmith LA (1985). Twelve-month oral toxicity study in dogs: 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-▀-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS). Unpublished report from Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
5. Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (1998). Evaluation of sucralose by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). Conclusions of the UK Committee on Toxicity on teratology studies. Letter dated April 17, 1998. MAFF/DH Joint Food Safety and Standards Group, London, UK.
6. Tesh JM, Willoughby CR, Hough AJ, Tesh SA and Wilby OK (1983). 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-▀-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): Effects of
oral administration upon pregnancy in the rat. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 82/MSPO22/311. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality
7. Tesh JM, Ross FW, Bailey GP, Wilby OK and Tesh SA (1987). 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-▀-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-a-D-galactopyranoside (TGS): Teratology study in the rabbit. Life Science Research Limited, UK. Report No 82/TYLO95/046. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK.
8. A six-month study of the effect of sucralose versus placebo on glucose homeostasis in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-157)
9. An evaluation of specific clinical chemistry parameters and methods in study E-157: A six-month study of the effect of sucralose versus placebo on glucose homeostasis in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-168)
10. A 12-week study of the effect of sucralose on glucose homeostasis and HbA1c in normal healthy volunteers. Unpublished report submitted by Tate & Lyle Speciality Sweeteners, UK. (Study No. E-169)
11-29-2012, 08:37 PM
11-29-2012, 08:37 PM
11-29-2012, 08:37 PM
You loseOriginally Posted by thills
11-29-2012, 08:42 PM
Get off your kneesOriginally Posted by thills
11-29-2012, 08:45 PM
On a more personal, and less scientific level, I find this thread and threads similarly distinguished to be alternatingly frustrating and fascinating. They are frustrating, inasmuch as they are perfect exemplars for one of the internet's worst characteristics: the mass proliferation of health-related charlatans who incessantly churn out invalidated or outright nonsensical information, all under the guise of, "sticking it to the man." They are fascinating, inasmuch as they demonstrate how perfectly willing otherwise intelligent individuals are to suspend their critical-analytical faculties just so long as the information they are digesting fits neatly into their worldview.
For any who are even peripherally interested in this thread, or this topic, let me make something abundantly clear: there is no clandestine, mass-conspiracy being played out before your eyes, with its perpetrators insidiously seeking to expose you and your children to harmful pollutants via the available food supply. As inept as governmental agencies can be, they approve food ingredients such as sucralose precisely because the available scientific literature supports their safety - and even if it did not, I find it painfully ironic that a certain segment of individuals mindlessly cites 'research' showing these compounds to be toxic, yet willingly ingests 'healthy' alternatives such as Stevia without a shred of legitimate evidence demonstrative of its safety.
And something else: the false equivalency being struck here between 'artificial' and 'bad' is not only scientifically incorrect, it is also philosophically absurd and lazy. Some of the earth's most toxic, most dangerous compounds are found in nature; and the notion that every- and all things man creates are inherently bad, as a function of not being 'natural,' is ridiculous. While I sympathize with the rational kernel of that thought - wishing, in some respects, to do away with the complexity of modern life - this particular instantiation is a symptom of gross romanticism that has become increasingly annoying.
11-29-2012, 08:47 PM
The application for approval as a food additive was actually turned down by an FDA expert panel-"The information submitted for our review is inadepquate to permit a scientific evaluation of clinical safety (Freeman, FDA Division of Metabolic and Enocrine Drug Products, September 1973).
However, these objections, demanding more carful research were overturned by a new FDA commissioner on the basis of studies, 80% of which were sponsored by the manufacturer, Searle.
The FDA approved aspartame for limited use on July 26, 1974. This approval came despite the fact that FDA scientists found serious deficiencies in all of the 13 test related to genetic damage which were submitted by G.D. Searle.
Later it turned out that important findings in one study, indicating harmful effects (liver cancer) of aspartame had not been reported to FDA until August 18, 1975, 27 months after it had been given to G.D. Searle and over one year after it had been approved. In another study seven infant monkeys were given aspartame with milk. One died after 300 days. Five others (out of seven total) had grand mal (epileptic) seizures. The actual results were hidden from the FDA when G.D. Searle supmitted its initial applications.
11-29-2012, 08:54 PM
11-29-2012, 08:58 PM
11-29-2012, 09:05 PM
11-29-2012, 09:10 PM
Are you really this delusional?Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff
11-29-2012, 09:17 PM
11-29-2012, 09:23 PM
11-29-2012, 10:18 PM
Ok if your not delusional your just a complete ****ing retard.. Dude idk how many ways to explain it. That might have sounded smart to yu but nothing in there supports your argument.. As i and a few other memebers have stated the studies that have been done reported side effects with megaaaaa huge dosesOriginally Posted by PreciseNstuff
11-29-2012, 10:30 PM
11-29-2012, 10:35 PM
dem studies are way to Precise N stuff.
11-29-2012, 11:30 PM
The irony of all this bitterness over sweeteners is not lost on me. lol
I like regular sugar because of the taste...and we also know exactly what it does in the body in modest amounts. Great info being posted here and I've learned a lot about sucralose and aspartame..which I do consume in certain supplements. I grew up with the taste of aspartame and back in the day..it was pretty gross. Allow me to explain...
My mother actually worked for GD Searle back in the early 80's when they were still seeking FDA approval. She was a receptionist..so not privy to any super secret details but her bosses seemed to feel that it was safe, would help diabetics, and thought that the majority of negative PR being thrown at them was coming from...the sugar industry. In a sort of OG, reverse conspiracy theory from what we hear today..that DOES make sense. Big sugar saw the writing on the wall, especially since the release of Sweet and Low in the 70's which was a minor threat given that it tastes like arse. "Nutrasweet" tasted a lot better(at least to people who are not me), so they probably feared it would cost them even more money. Plausible theory and supposedly the Searle people knew that the loudest opponents were bought off by Big Sugar.
So mom would bring home products that were being test marketed with Nutrasweet and I got to taste them long before the public ever did. Some of them were OK..like chewing gum. Many had to go back to R and D because they were god awful and I can still taste that shyiat. lol Hence, I prefer plain, old, natural sugar that will kill me in a natural way but tastes way good and even stimulates a serotonin response via insulin induction..blah blah blah.
11-29-2012, 11:47 PM
For the purpose of discussion, I am going to square away the non-trivial matters of you using data prior to 1981 (when the studies you listed were found to have serious methodological deficiencies, including, though not limited to, conclusions which human morphology rendered moot), you deliberately obfuscating the timeline of approval, and you responding to a post I made about sucralose with a post on aspartame, and address your comments at face value.Originally Posted by thills
Even doing so, you will once again find that the credible scientific evidence lands on the opposite side of the fence.
"Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals. However, results from subsequent carcinogenicity studies (studies that examine whether a substance can cause cancer) of these sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans. Similarly, studies of other FDA-approved sweeteners have not demonstrated clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans."
"Subsequently, NCI examined human data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study of over half a million retirees. Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not iassociated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (2)."
"FDA Statement on European Aspartame Study
CFSAN/Office of Food Additive Safety
April 20, 2007
FDA has completed its review concerning the long-term carcinogenicity study of aspartame entitled, "Long-Term Carcinogenicity Bioassays to Evaluate the Potential Biological Effects, in Particular Carcinogenic, of Aspartame Administered in Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats," conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF), located in Bologna, Italy. FDA reviewed the study data made available to them by ERF and finds that it does not support ERF's conclusion that aspartame is a carcinogen. Additionally, these data do not provide evidence to alter FDA's conclusion that the use of aspartame is safe."
Unless you assume that the National Cancer Institute is deliberately presenting falsified information, I hesitate to see how your position gains purchase: all the information demonstrative of adverse effects are either dubious or outright invalidated; while the methodology of studies showing no association have had their methodologies similarly vetted, and not found to be lacking.
Your intractable position lacks any credible evidence to justify it.
11-29-2012, 11:48 PM
11-30-2012, 05:53 AM
11-30-2012, 05:54 AM
Yu a lawyer? LolOriginally Posted by Mulletsoldier
11-30-2012, 08:13 AM
How does that dumb-down the forum? Because it's counter to your point? Are you suggesting that people do not report adverse reactions to vitamin C? You're basing your entire argument around anecdotal reports and a small segment of the population who is known to be unable to safely consume aspartame, against guys citing clinical research showing that things like aspartame and sucralose are safe to consume for most human beings in reasonable human dosages.Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff
So far you've twice lauded the intelligence of posters for no other reason than they agreed with you, and dismissed another as "dumb" because it disagreed with you. Is that what you consider to be constructive debate?
11-30-2012, 09:24 AM
"Our study has shown that aspartame is a mulipotential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are also evident at a daily dose of 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg), notably less than the current acceptable daily intake for humans."
Aspartame has been banned in the Philippines due to its awful effects and banned in chidren's foods in others.
Government members from countries have called for it's ban. One being Member of Parliament Roger Williams cited, "compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance to to be banned from the UK food and drinks market altogether."
As for the FDA Hull was installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor.
Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for Searle and for Monsanto, which purchased Searle in 1985.
Based on all this it is little wonder that many avoid artificial sweeteners. For those that like aspartame it is available. Companies make products in a variety of flavors so why not have an option for products sweetened with natural things so the consumer has an option.
11-30-2012, 11:17 AM
Again: the study you are quoting was fully-reviewed, and found not to demonstrate, with sufficient veracity, that aspartame possesses carcinogenicity.Originally Posted by thills
Similar Forum Threads
- By LakeMountD in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 1Last Post: 09-30-2003, 12:06 PM
- By scotty2 in forum SupplementsReplies: 13Last Post: 07-25-2003, 03:33 PM
- By The Answer in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 02-03-2003, 12:42 AM