asparatame makes you fatter??

alan aragon said:
Science & business - the lines aren't always separate.
Click to expand...

Agreed... I would strengthen the statement and say the lines are rarely separate. That's why it's so important to read the actual studies and evaluate the strength of the research itself.
 
TeamSavage said:
Agreed... I would strengthen the statement and say the lines are rarely separate. That's why it's so important to read the actual studies and evaluate the strength of the research itself.
Click to expand...
Even well-designed studies can be marred with agenda bias, unfortunately.
 
alan aragon said:
Makes you say "Hmmmmm..."


Science & business - the lines aren't always separate.
Click to expand...
i remember when you posted this at bb.com. that is crazy and i have to agree that i would consider the non-funded research to have much more validity. what do they have to lose by proving its safety? whereas aspartame companies need to save their market share.
 
alan aragon said:
Even well-designed studies can be marred with agenda bias, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

A properly-designed, methodologically-sound study should eliminate the possibility of bias affecting the results. But it is quite common for researchers with agenda bias to create studies that appear well-designed at first glance but actually reflect their bias. Often, the design flaw may be a seemingly small, but still highly significant, detail. I've read trials where 99% appeared sound but a single sentence in the paper, easily overlooked, actually revealed a huge flaw. Again, that's why it's so important to read the actual research.
 
To Add:

I agree that the best we can do is critically analyze the studies in terms of strength & weakness, then look at the weight of the evidence as a whole.

What bugs me about artificial sweetener use is the fundamental hypocrisy of using them for the intention of achieving optimal health by avoiding sugar. That's like cutting off your fingers to reduce your chances of poking your eyes. There's pro's & con's to both, and as you mentioned the defining threshold thereof is a matter of dose. It's all relative. I have a personal preference to fit real sugar into my diet if/when I want to sweeten something, because the amount I need is inconsequential, and can easily be fit into my targets while continually improving my bodycomp. On the other hand, the guy who needs to pour a cup of brown sugar into his oatmeal in order to get it down might consider other alternatives.

The metabolic fate of carbohydrate given various demand states is well known. Contrast this with the absence of pre-existing metabolic pathways to utilize aspartame for either growth/maintenance of tissues or energy production.

Of course there are other non-caloric sweeteners in nature that serve no known purpose within the human body (the range of sugar alcohols, stevia, etc), but the problem with aspartame is that it comes with a few red flags; a smoke smell & writing on the wall, if you will. Whether you choose to heed the writing or smell the smoke is almost a philosophical choice.

As per my post of the funding source comparison, that was quite the eye opener for me when I read it years ago.

Here's another little tidbit for those interested in reading writing on the walls & whiffing proverbial smoke:

________________________________________________

Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Mar;114(3):379-85.

First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats.

The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation has conducted a long-term bioassay on aspartame (APM), a widely used artificial sweetener. APM was administered with feed to 8-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats (100-150/sex/group), at concentrations of 100,000, 50,000, 10,000, 2,000, 400, 80, or 0 ppm. The treatment lasted until natural death, at which time all deceased animals underwent complete necropsy. Histopathologic evaluation of all pathologic lesions and of all organs and tissues collected was routinely performed on each animal of all experimental groups. The results of the study show for the first time that APM, in our experimental conditions, causes a) an increased incidence of malignant-tumor-bearing animals with a positive significant trend in males (p < or = 0.05) and in females (p < or = 0.01), in particular those females treated at 50,000 ppm (p < or = 0.01); b) an increase in lymphomas and leukemias with a positive significant trend in both males (p < or = 0.05) and females (p < or = 0.01), in particular in females treated at doses of 100,000 (p < or = 0.01), 50,000 (p < or = 0.01), 10,000 (p < or = 0.05), 2,000 (p < or = 0.05), or 400 ppm (p < or = 0.01); c) a statistically significant increased incidence, with a positive significant trend (p < or = 0.01), of transitional cell carcinomas of the renal pelvis and ureter and their precursors (dysplasias) in females treated at 100,000 (p < or = 0.01), 50,000 (p < or = 0.01), 10,000 (p < or = 0.01), 2,000 (p < or = 0.05), or 400 ppm (p < or = 0.05); and d) an increased incidence of malignant schwannomas of peripheral nerves with a positive trend (p < or = 0.05) in males. The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake. On the basis of these results, a reevaluation of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent and cannot be delayed.


MY COMMENT: Sure, that was an abstract of an animal study. But conducting a life-long trial on humans would be economically prohibitive, and would also violate ethics standards. Again, I prefer to sweeten things with small amounts of sugar. Call me a rebel.
 
Last edited:
WannaBeHulk said:
i remember when you posted this at bb.com. that is crazy and i have to agree that i would consider the non-funded research to have much more validity. what do they have to lose by proving its safety? whereas aspartame companies need to save their market share.
Click to expand...
What's interesting (other than that study's primary finding of EXTREME difference between industry & non-industry-funded reporting of adverse effect) was that except for one, all "non-industry" studies that did not report adverse effects were those funded by the FDA.
 
Last edited:
When I have a little free time, I think I'm going to randomly pick a dozen or so from the "industry" and "non-industry" lists and read them carefully. It would be interesting to see if one category has a significantly higher percentage of methodologically flawed studies.
 
TeamSavage said:
When I have a little free time, I think I'm going to randomly pick a dozen or so from the "industry" and "non-industry" lists and read them carefully. It would be interesting to see if one category has a significantly higher percentage of methodologically flawed studies.
Click to expand...
key words bolded :D, and this is mainly speaking for myself.

But seriously, go for it. That would be a pretty ambitious undertaking to do while you should be taking a vacation from the computer, but it would undoubtedly provide some valuable info. If you get any digital files of the full texts you happen to choose, please post them in here so others can chime in.

That said, I still think that the mere existence of such an extreme disparity in adverse effect reporting is enough cause for concern.
 
alan aragon said:
key words bolded :D, and this is mainly speaking for myself.

But seriously, go for it. That would be a pretty ambitious undertaking to do while you should be taking a vacation from the computer, but it would undoubtedly provide some valuable info. If you get any digital files of the full texts you happen to choose, please post them in here so others can chime in.

That said, I still think that the mere existence of such an extreme disparity in adverse effect reporting is enough cause for concern.
Click to expand...

The disparity is definitely odd... very odd. And Arthur Hayes resigning three months after approval to collect a paycheck from Searle just reeks of corruption.

Then again, bias can affect even the interpretation of results and conclusions (i.e. "Adverse Reaction" versus "Safety Supported"), and "Adverse Reaction" is a pretty broad term that can include just about anything. Even trials on the safest drugs and foods always report "adverse reactions" of some type. As such, I'm not sure what to make of the disparity. I think it's a mistake to take it at face value without knowing more. But it's so extreme, as you said, that it certainly should not be dismissed. Hence, the need to carefully review at least some of the studies referenced.

In any case, thanks for posting it.
 
jmh80 said:
Wait - WTF happened to Ubi's avatar? Who hijacked the freaking bear picture???
Click to expand...


I hung up the hair for a new more polished look. I can only hope this doesn't affect my campaign run.

Bear? It wasn't THAT bad.. you liked to nuzzle up into it!
 
Iron Warrior said:
Alan, what's your take on Splenda, yay or nay ?
Click to expand...
My take is this.. The less the better. I don't expect everyone to avoid the stuff like I do. I have ideological issues with artificial sweeteners like splenda. It's sorta like sprinkling powdered plastic over your meals, not harmful outright, but IMO probably not a good idea to sustain over a lifetime. Funny thing is, less plastic would actually be absorbed than splenda. A bit of trivia for ya, according to the FDA, 11-37% of splenda is absorbed by the body, although it's marketed as something the passes right through.
 
yeah its a real kick in the nuts for those of us that like to use splenda on occasion,to read this and accept the negative possibilities.ive cut way back recently myself and am starting to use stevia instead.

any comments on stevia?

ive seen margarine compared to plastic,but splenda?that similar?damn

alan aragon said:
My take is this.. The less the better. I don't expect everyone to avoid the stuff like I do. I have ideological issues with artificial sweeteners like splenda. It's sorta like sprinkling powdered plastic over your meals, not harmful outright, but IMO probably not a good idea to sustain over a lifetime. Funny thing is, less plastic would actually be absorbed than splenda. A bit of trivia for ya, according to the FDA, 11-37% of splenda is absorbed by the body, although it's marketed as something the passes right through.
Click to expand...
 
I used to use the spenda all the time but a few months back I read some pretty negative information on the possible long term effects. Haven't used the stuff since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top