COMPANIES LEAVE OUT THE!!!! & INNOVATE

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by machorox123 View Post
    there is absolutely no link between aspartame and any health risks dude..there are no controlled clinical trials that link any type of health risk to the use of artificial sweetners. And ones that do are with rats and require an insane amount of consumption and we all know the problems with observational studies so i wont go there
    Aspartame has been linked to health problems in many studies. I personally know people who get violent headaches when partaking of something that they are unaware has aspartame.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff View Post
    Aspartame has been linked to health problems in many studies. I personally know people who get violent headaches when partaking of something that they are unaware has aspartame.
    I know kids who will suffer from eating a peanut....
    The Historic PES Legend
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by chris223 View Post
    People have adverse reactions to vitamin C.
    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I know kids who will suffer from eating a peanut....
    These are the kinds of post that dumb down the forum impeding constructive debate

  4. Quote Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff

    These are the kinds of post that dumb down the forum impeding constructive debate
    I thought Adams made a good point to be honest....

    Edit: matter of fact they both made sense.
    PEScience Representative
    http://pescience.com/insider http://facebook.com/pescience

  5. Quote Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff View Post
    Aspartame has been linked to health problems in many studies. I personally know people who get violent headaches when partaking of something that they are unaware has aspartame.
    i guess i might have to explain why i didnt address OBSERVATIONAL studies..as i said there are no controlled clinical trials that links aspartame to any sort of health risks. Observational studies have way too many variables to always come up with an accurate conclusion such as people thinking that using zero calorie sweetener justifies or offsets eating a ton of calories
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by LiveToLift View Post
    I thought Adams made a good point to be honest....

    Edit: matter of fact they both made sense.
    When a debate is taking place. It really does not matter what the debate. For our case lets just say we are discussing the benefits and antioxidants in dark chocolate. Then in jumps Sammy with his red herring of chocolate being bad for dogs. Vit. C nor peanuts are under discussion these are simply thrown in the mix to muddy the waters.
    "hey man who knows if aspartame is bad or not but who cares when you can have to much C" "yeah dude peanuts cause reactions in certain people so the fact that aspartame is unhealthy is not valid."

  7. Quote Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff View Post
    These are the kinds of post that dumb down the forum impeding constructive debate
    You come here making highly variable opinions with no research besides what you heard.

    My comment was very pertinent to the debate because you are throwing out a useless fact about your friends who get headache from a diet coke.

    I know people who fart from milk.

    You know what they have in common with this debate? Nothing.

    if you want to make useless general comments that you think are supporting your claim, just expect an equally ridiculous comment back. Now post up some real information from a credible source and we can discuss it.

    Post up your "bad " research of the ones you think are bad, and away we will go.

    From my gathering, you support the OPs premise. Of which promoting the use of say stevia over sucralose... of which stevia has research showing infertility in rat models, and being a possible DNA mutagen.

    A. Yamada et al.: Chronic toxicity study of dietary stevia extracts in F344 rats. J. Food Hyg Soc Japan 26:169-183, 1985.




    The Historic PES Legend

  8. Quote Originally Posted by PreciseNstuff View Post
    When a debate is taking place. It really does not matter what the debate. For our case lets just say we are discussing the benefits and antioxidants in dark chocolate. Then in jumps Sammy with his red herring of chocolate being bad for dogs. Vit. C nor peanuts are under discussion these are simply thrown in the mix to muddy the waters.
    "hey man who knows if aspartame is bad or not but who cares when you can have to much C" "yeah dude peanuts cause reactions in certain people so the fact that aspartame is unhealthy is not valid."
    im sure they were trying to illustrate the fact that anyone can have a reaction to anything because everyones body is differnt so to say that aspartame is unhealthy jus because a few people may or might have have experienced side effects is just like saying because some people go into anaphalactic shock after eating a peanut they are therefore unhealthy? just look at all the facts i have provided bro.yet those who are trying to argue the facts have not provided any of your own

  9. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    You come here making highly variable opinions with no research besides what you heard.

    My comment was very pertinent to the debate because you are throwing out a useless fact about your friends who get headache from a diet coke.

    I know people who fart from milk.

    You know what they have in common with this debate? Nothing.

    if you want to make useless general comments that you think are supporting your claim, just expect an equally ridiculous comment back. Now post up some real information from a credible source and we can discuss it.

    Post up your "bad " research of the ones you think are bad, and away we will go.



    From my gathering, you support the OPs premise. Of which promoting the use of say stevia over sucralose... of which stevia has research showing infertility in rat models, and being a possible DNA mutagen.



    A. Yamada et al.: Chronic toxicity study of dietary stevia extracts in F344 rats. J. Food Hyg Soc Japan 26:169-183, 1985.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=Pub Med&list_uids=9598301&dopt=Abs tract


    damn i wish i could rep you again..these guys are rediculous

  10. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    You come here making highly variable opinions with no research besides what you heard.

    My comment was very pertinent to the debate because you are throwing out a useless fact about your friends who get headache from a diet coke.

    I know people who fart from milk.

    You know what they have in common with this debate? Nothing.

    if you want to make useless general comments that you think are supporting your claim, just expect an equally ridiculous comment back. Now post up some real information from a credible source and we can discuss it.

    Post up your "bad " research of the ones you think are bad, and away we will go.

    From my gathering, you support the OPs premise. Of which promoting the use of say stevia over sucralose... of which stevia has research showing infertility in rat models, and being a possible DNA mutagen.
    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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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...

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. Why do i always read these threads????
    All posts by mattys4 are the result of a very creative imagination and should not be considered advice nor taken seriously

  17. I love aspartame

    as I sip on my 44oz diet cherry limeade
    Controlled Labs Board Rep
    [email protected]
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility.

  18. 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.

  19. 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


  20. My head hurts

    BTW did you guys know there exist a diet grape juice? I'm so excited about this!
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  21. 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?

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. And as for the "natural" sweeteners...sugar alcohols can cause or exacerbate inflammatory GI syndromes. What do artificial sweeteners do in this regard? Nothing.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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)

  28. Subbed
    Use code "fl3x10" to get a free shirt with your purchase at Mind and Muscle

  29. Unsubbed
    Use code "fl3x10" to get a free shirt with your purchase at Mind and Muscle

  30. 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
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. a thank you to IA.. check out the pics
    By LakeMountD in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-30-2003, 02:06 PM
  2. Check out the Optimim Price at the boys' site
    By scotty2 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-25-2003, 05:33 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, 02:42 AM
Log in
Log in