COMPANIES LEAVE OUT THE!!!! & INNOVATE

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. Registered User
    mr.cooper69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,439
    Rep Power
    5913429

    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/
    http://selectprotein.com/
    The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES

  2. Banned
    thills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post
    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.
    Funny you should say that as SNS is one of my more prefered brands with many of their products like their agmatine being without all the...
  3. Registered User
    mr.cooper69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,439
    Rep Power
    5913429

    Quote Originally Posted by thills View Post
    Funny you should say that as SNS is one of my more prefered brands with many of their products like their agmatine being without all the...
    Well I thank you for choosing SNS; you made a wise decision. And obviously I didn't neg you.

    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/
    http://selectprotein.com/
    The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES
    •   
       

  4. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    Quote Originally Posted by thills View Post
    Funny you should say that as SNS is one of my more prefered brands with many of their products like their agmatine being without all the...
    Affiliations never have any bearing on debates.
    The Historic PES Legend
  5. Registered User
    bolt10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    8,323
    Rep Power
    3458019

    Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post
    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.
    This. I tried to ignore this thread this morning because artificial sweetener threads never end well. When confronted with studies the activists always resort to vague experiences that are supposed to add up to something I guess.
  6. Registered User
    mattys4's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  192 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    dracut,MA
    Age
    31
    Posts
    2,847
    Rep Power
    2383076

    Why do i always read these threads????
    Lecheek Nutrition Rep
    OLYMPUS LABS SPONSORED ATHLETE
    I am here to help please inbox me any questions
  7. Registered User
    Sean1332's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  217 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    11,020
    Rep Power
    2242790

    I love aspartame

    as I sip on my 44oz diet cherry limeade
    Controlled Labs Board Rep
    sean@ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility.
  8. Banned
    thills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff View Post
    I can't believe you posted an article by David Schardt of all people. You know people who fart from milk? Very mature. I do not have the posting power to link, furthermore I am on no crusade here to take the time to translate these studies here myself. It is enough for me to know that those who are following this thread and are concerned about their health have had this brought to their attention, to research or not. To find out for themselves.
    I like this post and am happy that the issue has been brought to the attention of members concerned about their heatlh.
  9. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    Rodja's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    30
    Posts
    23,074
    Rep Power
    917999

    Quote Originally Posted by thills View Post
    I like this post and am happy that the issue has been brought to the attention of members concerned about their heatlh.
    You act as though this is a new topic or there is some peer-reviewed data to back up your claims.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys
  10. Pro Virili Parte
    Board Sponsor
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    29
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    2088886

    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. Registered User
    machorox123's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    philly
    Posts
    1,488
    Rep Power
    141404

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh
    My head hurts

    BTW did you guys know there exist a diet grape juice? I'm so excited about this!
    Yumm! Welches?
  12. Banned
    thills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean1332 View Post
    I love aspartame

    as I sip on my 44oz diet cherry limeade
    Yes that is made quite clear from your photo Sean
  13. Registered User
    Aleksandar37's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,660
    Rep Power
    830325

    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.
    ***PES Representative***
    http://pescience.com/insider
    http://selectprotein.com
  14. Registered User
    mr.cooper69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,439
    Rep Power
    5913429

    And as for the "natural" sweeteners...sugar alcohols can cause or exacerbate inflammatory GI syndromes. What do artificial sweeteners do in this regard? Nothing.
    http://pescience.com/
    http://selectprotein.com/
    The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES
  15. Banned
    thills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksandar37 View Post
    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.
    Lol Aleksandar, you are not going to rope me in that easy, but yeah I see your point. It is like the lady that feeds her cat nothing but organic food but smokes 4 packs a day.
  16. Banned
    thills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by mr.cooper69 View Post
    And as for the "natural" sweeteners...sugar alcohols can cause or exacerbate inflammatory GI syndromes. What do artificial sweeteners do in this regard? Nothing.
    Maybe not in THIS regard, but in other regards much. No offense to you personally mr. cooper, you are one of those rare individuals that one can not help but like.
  17. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    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 [1]. 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 [4]. 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
    Sweeteners, UK.

    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)
  18. Registered User
    FL3X MAGNUM's Avatar
    Stats
    6'5"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Age
    28
    Posts
    11,387
    Rep Power
    4152956

    Subbed
    Genomyx Rep
    www.genomyx.com
  19. Registered User
    FL3X MAGNUM's Avatar
    Stats
    6'5"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Age
    28
    Posts
    11,387
    Rep Power
    4152956

    Unsubbed
    Genomyx Rep
    www.genomyx.com
  20. Registered User
    machorox123's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    philly
    Posts
    1,488
    Rep Power
    141404

    Quote Originally Posted by thills

    Lol Aleksandar, you are not going to rope me in that easy, but yeah I see your point. It is like the lady that feeds her cat nothing but organic food but smokes 4 packs a day.
    You lose
  21. Registered User
    machorox123's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    philly
    Posts
    1,488
    Rep Power
    141404

    Quote Originally Posted by thills

    Maybe not in THIS regard, but in other regards much. No offense to you personally mr. cooper, you are one of those rare individuals that one can not help but like.
    Get off your knees
  22. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    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.
  23. Banned
    thills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    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 [1]. 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 [4]. 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
    Sweeteners, UK.

    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)


    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.
  24. Banned
    thills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by machorox123 View Post
    Get off your knees
    Very clever Sir. And original too. Lets see is it the name calling game we are to engage in. Now I am a little out of practice so forgive me if I misquote this one that my son taught me which he learned in the playground. I think it goes, "I am rubber you are glue, what you say bounces of me and sticks on you."
  25. Registered User
    FL3X MAGNUM's Avatar
    Stats
    6'5"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Age
    28
    Posts
    11,387
    Rep Power
    4152956

    Quote Originally Posted by thills View Post

    Very clever Sir. And original too. Lets see is it the name calling game we are to engage in. Now I am a little out of practice so forgive me if I misquote this one that my son taught me which he learned in the playground. I think it goes, "I am rubber you are glue, what you say bounces of me and sticks on you."
    You're not very funny or creative....lol
    Genomyx Rep
    www.genomyx.com
  26. Banned
    PreciseNstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by thills View Post
    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.
    Don't let these shills get you down Sir. You obviously are trying to help those who are uneducated on a subject which directly concerns their health and are having to deal with immature adolescent idiots in the process.
  27. Registered User
    machorox123's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    philly
    Posts
    1,488
    Rep Power
    141404

    Quote Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff

    Don't let these shills get you down Sir. You obviously are trying to help those who are uneducated on a subject which directly concerns their health and are having to deal with immature adolescent idiot in the process.
    Are you really this delusional?
  28. The BPS Rep
    jimbuick's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,159
    Rep Power
    6628016

    So....much.....WIN!!!!
    BPS Rep
    *All posts are solely the opinions of myself and do not reflect the opinions of BPS*
    www.bpsnutrition.net

    Subscribe to the BPS VIP List for inside information on new products, promos, and introductory offers!
  29. Banned
    PreciseNstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    15
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by thills View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by machorox123 View Post
    Are you really this delusional?
    Nothing delusional about that post Filly.
  30. Registered User
    machorox123's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    philly
    Posts
    1,488
    Rep Power
    141404

    Quote Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff

    Nothing delusional about that post Filly.
    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 doses
  31. Sunz out, Gunz out...
    Board Sponsor
    AaronJP1's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  183 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The South.
    Age
    30
    Posts
    18,570
    Rep Power
    2410136

    Hardcore Purus Labs {Rep}
    Lift the fŘcking weight from the floor, or leave it on the ground. The thoughts are supposed to be daunting. The pain is meant to be tormenting.
    www.InsaneVeins.com
  32. Registered User
    T-Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northeastern United States
    Posts
    15,475
    Rep Power
    4173039

    dem studies are way to Precise N stuff.
  33. Registered User
    bioman's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,698
    Rep Power
    513131

    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.
  34. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by thills

    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.
    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.

    Even doing so, you will once again find that the credible scientific evidence lands on the opposite side of the fence.

    To wit:

    "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."

    And:

    "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)."

    http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheet...ial-sweeteners

    "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."

    http://www.fda.gov/Food/Foodingredie.../ucm208580.htm

    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.
  35. AvD
    AvD is offline
    Registered User
    AvD's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  185 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    25
    Posts
    124
    Rep Power
    16947

    Name:  21534533.jpg
Views: 117
Size:  82.5 KB
  36. Registered User
    machorox123's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    philly
    Posts
    1,488
    Rep Power
    141404

    Double post
  37. Registered User
    machorox123's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    philly
    Posts
    1,488
    Rep Power
    141404

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

    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.

    Even doing so, you will once again find that the credible scientific evidence lands on the opposite side of the fence.

    To wit:

    "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."

    And:

    "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)."

    http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheet...ial-sweeteners

    "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."

    http://www.fda.gov/Food/Foodingredie.../ucm208580.htm

    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.
    Yu a lawyer? Lol
  38. Registered User
    chris223's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  225 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    598
    Rep Power
    64751

    Quote Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff

    These are the kinds of post that dumb down the forum impeding constructive debate
    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.

    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?
  39. Banned
    thills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Rep Power
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    April 20, 2007
    "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...
    The Ramazzini study was reported in the November 2005 issue of "Environmental Health Perspectives," the peer-reviewed journal of th United States' National institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

    "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.
  40. Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
    Board Sponsor
    Mulletsoldier's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,226
    Rep Power
    27062

    Quote Originally Posted by thills

    The Ramazzini study was reported in the November 2005 issue of "Environmental Health Perspectives," the peer-reviewed journal of th United States' National institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

    "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.
    Again: the study you are quoting was fully-reviewed, and found not to demonstrate, with sufficient veracity, that aspartame possesses carcinogenicity.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. a thank you to IA.. check out the pics
    By LakeMountD in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-30-2003, 12:06 PM
  2. Check out the Optimim Price at the boys' site
    By scotty2 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-25-2003, 03:33 PM
  3. Come Check Out The Newest Board to Hit the Net
    By The Answer in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-03-2003, 12:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in