[Aeternitatis]

Originally Posted by jrkarp

You can pretty much find a site for anything in the world that tells you it is bad.

Milk, meat, soy, multivitamins, aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, eggs, carbs, carbonated beverages, steroids, sugar, margarine, butter, the list goes on and on.

For every food, hobby, lifestyle choice, or job in the world, there is someone who thinks that it is the worst thing in the world for you.

/karp

But you will never find a site that claims oranges are bad for you because oranges kick ass. And by the way, sacharrin is bad for you, that's why anything that comes with it must carry a cancer warning. And yet the FDA still allows it to be marketed in food. Makes one wonder about the other sweeteners...

[Brooklyn]

Personally, I would trust aspartame over sucralose. I think the problems with aspartame come about as a result of phenylalanine imbalance which is an excitatory amino acid, can cause excito-toxicity in those people who don't eat enough complete protein sources. Sucralose on the other hand has very few studies for it, has actually been shown to get fully absorbed in some people (thus making it caloric) and to me it smells like ****ing chlorine.

See, I was trying to avoid the sucralose issue. The fact is that the only sweetener proven "safe" thus far has been stevia, and the FDA doesn't allow it to be marketed as a sweetener because big business can't patent it. Sucralose is chlorinated sucrose. The sugar molecule is radically altered by exchanging three chlorine atoms for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule, resulting in a substance 600 times sweeter than sucrose. So it's like they did to your sugar what you do to your pool. That's where the controversy comes in. Acesulfame K is worse than Splenda. However, I still believe aspartame is more dangerous. The fact that it may affect protein-deficient persons more is not the issue. It affects me, and I am not protein deficient.

The issue is that it contains substances like formaldehyde. This has never been argued. The argument has been, "How MUCH formaldehyde/methanol/formic acid/DKP is consumed by the typical aspartame user?" How much? Wouldn't you agree that ANY embalming fluid might be a bit too much for your daily diet?

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn

So it's like they did to your sugar what you do to your pool.

This statement is so ignorant and oversimplified that it defies comprehension and either indicates an extreme ignorance of chemistry (as well as biology) or is a result of you being a troll. Chlorine is also found in table salt. Maybe we should avoid that too. Oh, wait, salt is essential to life.

I'm not saying that sucralose is great for you, because I don't know enough about it, but that comment is one of the stupidest statements I have ever read. And given what I've seen on internet message boards, that's saying a lot.

/karp

[Brooklyn]

This statement is so ignorant and oversimplified that it defies comprehension and either indicates an extreme ignorance of chemistry (as well as biology) or is a result of you being a troll. Chlorine is also found in table salt. Maybe we should avoid that too. Oh, wait, salt is essential to life.

The statement is simplified in the way that saying chlorine bleach is bad for you, not table salt, which is a naturally occuring molecule. Again, you're talking about digestibility issues. Sucralose, in pre-approval studies, was shown to shrink the thymus gland by up to 40% and have possible immunosuppressive efefcts due to its chlorination. Similar molecular structures to sucralose, i.e. chlorine-replacement molecules can be found in pesticides like DDT. That doesn't seem much like table salt, does it?

The fact is that people have grown to accept processed foods which have dozens of ingredients as opposed to simplified natural foods and as a result they are fatter, dumber and sicker. Cancer, heart disease and neurological disorder rates have skyrocketed. What do you blame it on? Cell phones? It's the food. You can't just chemically extract all kinds of natural substances and expect that the human body will be able to digest them properly. This should be basic biology. Humans are not made to digest industrial chemicals. Hell, half the people out there can't digest lactose, what makes you think they can take modified food starch, autolyzed yeast extract, hydrolyzed wheat gluten, aspartame, monosodium glutamate (Wait- it's got sodium in it - that stuff's in salt, must be safe, right?) or any of the other man-made chemicals produced without a true working knowledge of what will happen when digested. Am I a molecular biologist? No, and I don't need to be. It's common sense. Calling me a troll won't change that. Go watch "Super Size Me" a few times for the extremely simplified version and get back to me.

[jrkarp]

I never said that a lot of the food that we eat isn't bad. But your original statement was the equivalent of "Chlorine is bad, mmmkay?"

/karp

[jrkarp]

You may not be a troll, but you are a zealot. And again, a lot of what you say is greatly oversimplified. The mere fact that a component of food is artificial does not make it necessarily harmful. Neither does its possible other uses or similarities it has to other chemicals.

A lot of the rhetoric you spout makes me wonder if you are from some kind of advocacy group and this whole thing is a project of yours.

/karp

[Brooklyn]

I never said that a lot of the food that we eat isn't bad. But your original statement was the equivalent of "Chlorine is bad, mmmkay?"

It's just perhaps my confidence in the intelligence (not brotelligence) of persons on this board that they would take that statement "with a grain of salt" (har har) and research it themselves before coming to a conclusion. I did. I hate having to watch what I eat. If I could, I'd eat junk all day, because it's convenient, sweet and that's what I was fed growing up. But I can't, in good conscience, do that while knowing what I have learned about nutrition. Being as this is a "Nutrition and Diet" section of a forum with guys who it seems are generally very keen on maintaining a proper diet, I thought some stimulation of thought into nutrition of diet foods might be a good idea. Some people might read it and blow it off, and maybe somebody will say, "Hey, maybe the headaches and weird symptoms I've been having might have something to do with the aspartame and stuff I take in?" and they'll stop using it and feel better. That would be the goal, not to troll around.

[Brooklyn]

You may not be a troll, but you are a zealot. And again, a lot of what you say is greatly oversimplified. The mere fact that a component of food is artificial does not make it necessarily harmful. Neither does its possible other uses or similarities it has to other chemicals.

A lot of the rhetoric you spout makes me wonder if you are from some kind of advocacy group and this whole thing is a project of yours.

I'm no more a zealot than Morgan Spurlock in "Super Size Me". He didn't provide science any more detailed than mine, yet watching McDonalds fries stay exactly the same for 8 weeks with no visible degradation says enough on its own. People that complain about advocacy groups are usually in the Republican fold... but isn't the backbone of the Republican Party supposed to be red meat and decisive action? You can't worry about everything you eat, however, if there are 100 studies which show that an additive chemical sweetener contains formaldehyde, and the argument is whether it's too much for human consumption, I'm sorry, I'm a little concerned.

Overcomplicating things is the problem here. Formaldehyde, methanol, formic acid, DKP = bad. Aspartame contains formaldehyde, methanol, formic acid, DKP. Pretty simple to figure out whether you would like the stuff or not. When we allow excessive complication we end up with cigarette companies claiming their product does not cause cancer. Monsanto, the GMO producer which owned NutraSweet, is no more ethical than Philip Morris. They still claim that Agent Orange is not toxic.

The National Soft Drink Association, of which Coke is a member, wanted to keep aspartame out of soda. They stated in a protest letter prior to it's unbanning, "aspartame is uniquely unstable in aqueous media." If Coke says aspartame is unstable, why do you have such a problem taking my word for it?

[TheTom]

You know its one thing to put your opinions up and your reasons behind them, and let the people decide.

It's another to constantly reiterate the same exact points and redundantly shove them down peoples throats.

This is why your being called a Troll.

You've said what you wanted to say and you've said it the same exact way many times over and over again.

How about we either let this never-ending argument die now, or we go back to arguing on why it shouldn't be called Pop.

[Brooklyn]

You know its one thing to put your opinions up and your reasons behind them, and let the people decide.

It's another to constantly reiterate the same exact points and redundantly shove them down peoples throats.

Didn't I say, way back here...

I don't want to be disruptive on the board, so I'd like to end it there. You don't believe me, ok. But I'm not making this stuff up.

Then somebody had to keep posting studies, stating that I was speaking "rhetoric" and "jumping on a bandwagon" etc etc. I felt like I was target of the night on Bill O'Reilly lol. So I backed up my points with solid research and facts, and what do you say?

You've said what you wanted to say and you've said it the same exact way many times over and over again.

No, I said it once, you questioned it, and I explained. You debated, and I expounded in great detail. I could say that you've repeatedly shoved "aspartame is safe" down people's throats in this thread. So once again, believe what you like. Even Coke has stated differently in the past. Oh, and it's soda.

[Aeternitatis]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn

See, I was trying to avoid the sucralose issue. The fact is that the only sweetener proven "safe" thus far has been stevia, and the FDA doesn't allow it to be marketed as a sweetener because big business can't patent it. Sucralose is chlorinated sucrose. The sugar molecule is radically altered by exchanging three chlorine atoms for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule, resulting in a substance 600 times sweeter than sucrose. So it's like they did to your sugar what you do to your pool. That's where the controversy comes in. Acesulfame K is worse than Splenda. However, I still believe aspartame is more dangerous. The fact that it may affect protein-deficient persons more is not the issue. It affects me, and I am not protein deficient.

The issue is that it contains substances like formaldehyde. This has never been argued. The argument has been, "How MUCH formaldehyde/methanol/formic acid/DKP is consumed by the typical aspartame user?" How much? Wouldn't you agree that ANY embalming fluid might be a bit too much for your daily diet?

I know what you're saying about the sucralose issue. But speaking of formaldehyde, how much of that do you think you breathe from hot water vapors when you shower? How much chlorine vapor? I'm just going off on a tangent.

Stevia is the ****, it tastes the best too. That's why my favorite protein is NOW Foods Whey Protein Isolate. $16 for 2 lbs of WPI and it is all natural.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn

I'm no more a zealot than Morgan Spurlock in "Super Size Me". He didn't provide science any more detailed than mine, yet watching McDonalds fries stay exactly the same for 8 weeks with no visible degradation says enough on its own. People that complain about advocacy groups are usually in the Republican fold... but isn't the backbone of the Republican Party supposed to be red meat and decisive action? You can't worry about everything you eat, however, if there are 100 studies which show that an additive chemical sweetener contains formaldehyde, and the argument is whether it's too much for human consumption, I'm sorry, I'm a little concerned.

Overcomplicating things is the problem here. Formaldehyde, methanol, formic acid, DKP = bad. Aspartame contains formaldehyde, methanol, formic acid, DKP. Pretty simple to figure out whether you would like the stuff or not. When we allow excessive complication we end up with cigarette companies claiming their product does not cause cancer. Monsanto, the GMO producer which owned NutraSweet, is no more ethical than Philip Morris. They still claim that Agent Orange is not toxic.

The National Soft Drink Association, of which Coke is a member, wanted to keep aspartame out of soda. They stated in a protest letter prior to it's unbanning, "aspartame is uniquely unstable in aqueous media." If Coke says aspartame is unstable, why do you have such a problem taking my word for it?

Part of the reason with the fries is the amount of fat. Oils can slow degredation. Put a vegatable in a jar of water and another in a jar of oil and tell me which one rots first. The fact that they didn't degrade, of course, speaks volumes about how much fat is in them.

The manner in which you post, particularly the quickness with which you respond and the length of your answers, suggests that you have this kind of information and examples ready to go, especially in the form of arguments and counterarguments (it almost seems like you have a list of talking points to use). Someone as well prepared as you are for a discussion like this (and that is a compliment) is, in my estimation, someone with an agenda, likely someone from an advocacy group.

/karp

[Brooklyn]

Rhetoric.. jumping on a bandwagon, and now "talking points." Yep, I'm on Bill O'Reilly's show. I'm quick to respond because my brain isn't weighed down by all that MSG, aspartame and trans fat The McFries were placed in a jar next to a jar with fries made at a local NYC diner. Guess what? The fresh, actual potato fries from the diner turned moldy within a day. The McDonalds fries literally looked the same as purchase after 8 weeks. It was scary. It took a Big Mac almost 2 weeks to break down and get moldy, as compared to a day for a burger from said diner. He would have run the experiment longer but some disgusted intern threw the fries out. Obviously you haven't seen the DVD, probably not the film either.

No one prepares me but myself. I'm sorry that good debate skills are at a premium today. I grew up around people who like it told as it is, not as the government or big business says it is. So I'm opinionated. That's what most news is nowadays, opinion. Just ask Mr. O'Reilly.

[jrkarp]

Yes it's always a conspiracy. Big business. Government. Maybe a military industrial complex.

The fries thing doesn't surprise me. McD's fries are so thin that they probably were soaked to the core with the grease, while fresh cut fries were probably thicker and less exposed to the oil. I haven't seen the movie yet, so that's an interesting point that I didn't see anywhere.

If you are just that well informed and prepared because this is an issue about which you care greatly, then kudos to you. There are a couple subjects about which I could respond just as quickly and completely and with just as much vigor, and I'm not a member of any advocacy groups. However, I just graduated from law school, so I recognize a well prepared adversary when I see one, and I tend to get suspicious when someone is so well prepared in this sort of context (that is, an internet forum).

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. There are studies that support your point of view, and there are studies that support mine. People will get suspicious of you, however, if every time someone points to something that contradicts your views, you claim that it is biased or influenced by "big business."

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/new...sue_detail.asp
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/aspartame-0916.html
http://www.msfocus.org/publications/...es_aspart.html
http://www.aspartame.net/media/opinion/op_aspint.html

(from the above link): "Although a 330 ml can of aspartame-sweetened soft drink will yield about 20 mg methanol, an equivalent volume of fruit juice produces 40 mg methanol, and an alcoholic beverage about 60-100 mg. The yield of phenylalanine is about 100 mg for a can of diet soft drink, compared with 300 mg for an egg, 500 mg for a glass of milk, and 900 mg for a large hamburger (1)... Clinical studies have shown no evidence of toxic effects and no increase in plasma concentrations of methanol, formic acid, or phenylalanine with daily consumption of 50 mg/kg aspartame (equivalent to 17 cans of diet soft drink daily for a 70 kg adult) (1, 2)."

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html (but that's from the government so you'll say it's biased, although please note that it's from when Clinton was in office so you at least can't blame it on a Bush administration conspiracy)

I know you're not going to say that methanol from fruit juice is ok but methanol from diet soda is not.

/karp

[TheTom]

Originally Posted by jrkarp

Although a 330 ml can of aspartame-sweetened soft drink will yield about 20 mg methanol, an equivalent volume of fruit juice produces 40 mg methanol

The yield of phenylalanine is about 100 mg for a can of diet soft drink, compared with 300 mg for an egg, 500 mg for a glass of milk
/karp

Now that is classic.