Par Deus - Artificial Sweeteners - Debunking The Myths!

[str8flexed]

all he cited was magazine articles, opinions, and reviews. not one peer reviewed piece of scientific literature.

I'd get laughed out of a scientific meeting bringing something like that to the table

You are too stuck in "science" and fail to realize what goes on in the real (business) world. Keep supporting your industry funded research.

[str8flexed]

I"m too stuck in the science huh?

"It's not about marketing. It is about SCIENCE, which you clearly do not understand."

your words not mine. So let me get this straight, you assume I don't understand science so you make this statement, then when you realize you are dealing with someone who does indeed have a better grasp of science than yourself... you switch gears.

best to keep quiet and be thought unintelligent than open your mouth & remove all doubt

Your scientific logic is based around research which supports the large corporate enterprise. This is not REAL science.

There are multi-million dollar organizations with interests in artificial sweeteners. Look at Coca Cola and Pepsi. These are huge organizations. They are connected all the way up the ladder.

Anytime someone says something that disagrees with their business plan, it is quickly shot down.

Sure, Kevin Trudeau is a clown and former criminal. He's a perfect target, but that doesn't mean that everything that the man says is worthless. There are still MANY scientists, doctors, researchers, etc. who have made valid claims regarding the long-term dangers of artificial sweeteners.

These ideas are quickly shot down however, as it all boils down to bad business for Corporate America.

To suggest that man should not consume natural foods over these artificial sweeteners is pure ignorance speaking. Man has evolved for hundreds and hundreds of years by living off the land. In the past 100 years, everything has changed. Now, we are pumping our bodies with chemicals left and right. These are foreign items to the body. Man did not evolve on a chemically based diet.

Who cares what happens to a lab rat in a small, controlled study. Commonsense is all that you really need. Look back at the evolution of man.

I still remember taking graduate level nutrition courses that suggested 60% or more carbohydrate consumption (ie. bread, pasta, etc.). If the "scientists" could have been this wrong, what makes you so sure they are "right" about artificial sweeteners.

To suggest that highly processed grains should form the bulk of one's diet is ridiculous. Do you know the processing that takes place to a wheat kernel? Sure, we now know... but college textbooks were still making these recommedations.

You are still young. I finished my Master's 1989. You should have seen my old text book (Dartmouth College, Ivy League mind you). Much of the material from this "scientifically" derived text is now useless.

Wait another 20 years and researchers will look back at our era and laugh at society's ignorance.

To each his own, but you are scared to go against the establishment. It has been ingrained in your head. You need to take off your blinders and make your own decisions, rather than blindly following the recommedations passed along by the business world (which then end up being called "science").

Ignorance is bliss

For some "peer reviewed" research, consider reading the reports from the site referenced below. Those of particular interest came from M.I.T. (one school that you probably couldn't get into , John Hopkins University, the FDA, and even the US Air Force:

http://www.dldewey.com/columns/asparst2.htm

Now, would these reports be good enough for your science class?

Hmmm...

[str8flexed]

very well then

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Med Pregl. 2003;56 Suppl 1:27-9. Related Articles, Links

[Controversies with aspartame]

[Article in Serbian]

Jankovic SM.

slobnera@eunet.yu

INTRODUCTION: Artificial sweeteners are nowadays inevitable food additives, since they provide necessary food diversity to people suffering from diabetes. Aspartame is the most frequently used artificial sweetener ever and its safety profile is much better than that of saccharin or cyclamate. It received marketing approval in 1973, but only 3 months later aspartame was withdrawn because of allegations based on improperly designed experimental studies dealing with its carcinogen effects on rodent brain. However, extensive studies using the same model did not confirm such suspicions, and aspartame received a second marketing approval. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES: Almost two decades later an epidemiological study found a relationship between aspartame and an increased frequency of brain tumors in humans. However, this study included a short time span of observation, and it did not estimate actual intake of aspartame, which led to loss of validity. Later on no epidemiological studies found correlation between aspartame use and incidence of brain tumors in humans. Up to now the only safety concern about aspartame, which received valid scientific proofs, is pro-seizure action of its excessive intake. In patients with epilepsy, excessive intake of aspartame can decrease the threshold for seizures or prolong them once they appear. However, if the intake is not above the recommended level of 40 mg/kg b.w./day, aspartame is well tolerated even in this subpopulation. CONCLUSION: Based on detailed analysis of published studies on safety of aspartame, it should not be restricted, but used in recommended amounts.

40mg/kg means over 3g per day will be tolerated even by a person who has epilepsy. Now one liter of diet cola has only 560mg! That means you could have about 5 liters of diet soda and tolerate it well even if you were an epileptic patient! And healthy humans can tolerate more

-------------------------------------------------------

Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2002 Apr;35(2 Pt 2):S1-93. Related Articles, Links

Aspartame: review of safety.

Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Comer CP, Mayhew DA, Benninger C, Blackburn GL, de Sonneville LM, Geha RS, Hertelendy Z, Koestner A, Leon AS, Liepa GU, McMartin KE, Mendenhall CL, Munro IC, Novotny EJ, Renwick AG, Schiffman SS, Schomer DL, Shaywitz BA, Spiers PA, Tephly TR, Thomas JA, Trefz FK.


Over 20 years have elapsed since aspartame was approved by regulatory agencies as a sweetener and flavor enhancer. The safety of aspartame and its metabolic constituents was established through extensive toxicology studies in laboratory animals, using much greater doses than people could possibly consume. Its safety was further confirmed through studies in several human subpopulations, including healthy infants, children, adolescents, and adults; obese individuals; diabetics; lactating women; and individuals heterozygous (PKUH) for the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU) who have a decreased ability to metabolize the essential amino acid, phenylalanine. Several scientific issues continued to be raised after approval, largely as a concern for theoretical toxicity from its metabolic components--the amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine, and methanol--even though dietary exposure to these components is much greater than from aspartame. Nonetheless, additional research, including evaluations of possible associations between aspartame and headaches, seizures, behavior, cognition, and mood as well as allergic-type reactions and use by potentially sensitive subpopulations, has continued after approval. These findings are reviewed here. The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive. When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.

----------------------------------------------------------

Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2001 Dec;34(3):221-33. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Aspartame: scientific evaluation in the postmarketing period.

Butchko HH, Stargel WW.


Prior to marketing, the safety of the high-intensity sweetener aspartame for its intended uses as a sweetener and flavor enhancer was demonstrated by the results of over 100 scientific studies in animals and humans. In the postmarketing period, the safety of aspartame was further evaluated through extensive monitoring of intake, postmarketing surveillance of anecdotal reports of alleged health effects, and additional research to evaluate these anecdotal reports and other scientific issues. The results of the extensive intake evaluation in the United States, which was done over an 8-year period, and the results of studies done in other countries demonstrated intakes which were well below the acceptable daily intakes set by the FDA and regulatory bodies in other countries, as well as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Evaluation of the anecdotal reports of adverse health effects, the first such system for a food additive, revealed that the reported effects were generally mild and also common in the general population and that there was no consistent or unique pattern of symptoms that could be causally linked to consumption of aspartame. Finally, the results of the extensive scientific research done to evaluate these allegations did not show a causal relationship between aspartame and adverse effects. Thus, the weight of scientific evidence confirms that, even in amounts many times what people typically consume, aspartame is safe for its intended uses as a sweetener and flavor enhancer.

------------------------------------------------------

Hum Genet. 1994 Apr;93(4):369-74. Related Articles, Links

Neuropsychological and biochemical investigations in heterozygotes for phenylketonuria during ingestion of high dose aspartame (a sweetener containing phenylalanine).

Trefz F, de Sonneville L, Matthis P, Benninger C, Lanz-Englert B, Bickel H.

Kreiskrankenhaus Reutlingen, Kinderklinik, Universitat Tubingen, Germany.

Aspartame, a high intensity sweetener, is used extensively worldwide in over 5,000 products. Upon ingestion, aspartame is completely metabolized to two amino acids and methanol (approximately 50% phenylalanine, 40% aspartic acid, and 10% methanol). The effects of aspartame on cognitive function, electroencephalograms (EEGs) and biochemical parameters were evaluated in 48 adult (21 men, 27 women) heterozygotes for phenylketonuria (PKUH), PKUH subjects whose carrier status had been proven by DNA analysis ingested aspartame (either 15 or 45 mg/kg/day) and placebo for 12 weeks on each treatment using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. A computerized battery of neuropsychological tests was administered at baseline weeks -2 and -1, and during treatment at weeks 6, 12, 18, and 24. Samples for plasma amino acids and urinary organic acids were also collected during these visits. EEGs were evaluated by conventional and spectral analysis at baseline week -1 and treatment weeks 12 and 24. The results of the neuropsychological tests demonstrated that aspartame had no effect on cognitive function. Plasma phenylalanine significantly increased, within the normal range for PKUH, at 1 and 3 h following the morning dose of aspartame in the group receiving the 45 mg/kg per day dose only. There were no significant differences in the conventional or spectral EEG analyses, urinary organic acid concentrations, and adverse experiences when aspartame was compared with placebo. This study reaffirms the safety of aspartame in PKUH and refutes the speculation that aspartame affects cognitive performance, EEGs, and urinary organic acids.
__________________------------------------------------------

Arch Intern Med. 1989 Oct;149(10):2318-24. Related Articles, Links

Safety of long-term large doses of aspartame.

Leon AS, Hunninghake DB, Bell C, Rassin DK, Tephly TR.

Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Safety of long-term administration of 75 mg/kg of aspartame per day was evaluated with the use of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design in 108 male and female volunteers aged 18 to 62 years. Subjects received either aspartame or placebo in capsule form three times daily for 24 weeks. No persistent changes over time were noted in either group in vital signs; body weight; results of standard laboratory tests; fasting blood levels of aspartame's constituent amino acids (aspartic acid and phenylalanine), other amino acids, and methanol; or blood formate levels and 24-hour urinary excretion of formate. There also were no statistically significant differences between groups in the number of subjects experiencing symptoms or in the number of symptoms per subject. These results further document the safety of the long-term consumption of aspartame at doses equivalent to the amount of aspartame in approximately 10 L of beverage per day.--------------------------------------------------

Am Fam Physician. 1989 Feb;39(2):201-6.
Clinical safety of aspartame.

Yost DA.

University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson.

Aspartame is a synthetic sweetener commonly used in soft drinks and many foods. Even with high doses, the metabolites of this sweetener do not accumulate in toxic amounts. To date, no definite symptom complex has been connected with aspartame, and it is considered safe for use in all populations, including diabetics, phenylketonuric heterozygotes and pregnant women.
-------------------------------------------------

[str8flexed]

Diabetes Care. 1989 Jan;12(1):67-74. Related Articles, Links

Aspartame metabolism in normal adults, phenylketonuric heterozygotes, and diabetic subjects.

Filer LJ Jr, Stegink LD.

Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242.

This study reviews clinical studies testing the effects of various doses of aspartame on blood levels of phenylalanine, aspartate, and methanol in normal subjects and known phenylketonuric heterozygotes. The effect of aspartame on the phenylalanine-to-large neutral amino acid ratio under various feeding situations is shown. The clinical studies of aspartame in diabetic subjects are limited to observations of its effects on blood levels of glucose, lipids, insulin, and glucagon. These studies clearly demonstrate the safety of this high-intensity sweetener for use by humans.

---------------------------------------------

Diabetes Care. 1985 Sep-Oct;8(5):415-7. Related Articles, Links

Aspartame use by persons with diabetes.

Nehrling JK, Kobe P, McLane MP, Olson RE, Kamath S, Horwitz DL.

Sixty-two subjects having either insulin-dependent or non-insulin-dependent diabetes completed a randomized, double-blind study comparing effects of aspartame or a placebo on blood glucose control. Twenty-nine subjects consumed 2.7 g aspartame per day for 18 wk, given as aspartame-containing capsules with meals, while 33 subjects took identical appearing placebo capsules. After 18 wk, no changes were seen in fasting or 2-h postprandial blood glucose levels or glycohemoglobin levels in either the aspartame- or placebo-treated groups. Adverse reactions were no more common in the group taking aspartame. We conclude that use of aspartame as a low-calorie sweetener does not adversely affect glycemic control of persons with diabetes.




THAT is RECENT peer review literature. now go away

[kingfish3]

normal adults? So when you arent normal anymore you can change your mind ?

If your gonna talk studies then i have a study of 100 lifters all getting better results on mentzer hit than any other routine.

THAT is RECENT peer review literature. now go away

The structure of aspartame seems safe and simple (to those who believe everything they read), but it is actually much more complex. Two isolated amino acids in aspartame are fused together by its third component, deadly methanol. In this structure, methanol bonds the two amino acids together, but when released at a mere 86 degrees Fahrenheit, the methanol becomes a poisonous free radical.

Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde, embalming fluid. Methanol is a dangerous neurotoxin, a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage in the eye, interferes with DNA replication, and causes birth defects.

Aspartic acid makes up forty percent of the structure of aspartame. Under excess conditions, the structure of aspartic acid can cause endocrine (hormone) disorders and vision problems. Aspartic acid is a neuroexicter, which means its structure affects the central nervous system. Hyperactivity is stimulated by aspartic acid, so this structure is not good for ADD/ADHD conditions and should be avoided during pregnancy.

By the way, your form is horrible when performing the glute-ham raise. Your arms are generating momentum. Either put them behind your head (which is probably too hard for you), or hold the plates against your chest (and please use some real weight). This is a controlled movement, not one where you swing up and down.

I'll let you stay here and gather up your fans. You seem content being the resident expert on a board filled with teeny boppers.

[Par Deus]

Originally Posted by kingfish3

im bigger, stronger, have more muscle and no more about training and nutrition then you do.

Man, this is art, right here.

I am posting not to argue with anyone but to help people. My husband has been on the Atkins diet using Splenda and he is having horrible side effects from the artificial sweeteners. Now that he finally realized why he has been feeling so bad he has eliminated it completely and is having terrible withdrawal symptoms. He is young and in very good health but was trying to shed about 15 pounds using the Atkins diet. After using Splenda and Aspartame for a few months he has come to realize they are causing him headaches, making his hands shake, stuffy nose everyday (which was weird and we figure because of a lowered immune system) I think from thymus gland shrinkage which directly affects immune function, insomnia, heart palpitations, dizziness, nervousness, restlessness, anger, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, extreme sadness, lips numb and tingle at times, joint pain, nightmares. Those are the ones I can remember and we know of right now. He stopped using Splenda yesterday and the withdrawal symptoms really scared him bad. He is a PE teacher and at work yesterday he all the sudden felt so dizzy he couldn't see straight, felt nauseas and vomited, said his heart was beating so fast and hard he thought he was going to die. I am very serious to warn you! He is so furious that this stuff is on the market for sale. He would not listen to me about stopping at first because he did not realize the connection between how bad he was feeling and the Splenda but when he came to realize it and stopped, this is what has happen so far. I actually have my own testimony about aspartame. I have been drinking lots of slimfast shakes and the aspartame in them has given me horrible side effect aslo! Heart pounding and palpitations and it has been so bad that I literally lie awake at night so tired and can't sleep because of it and wake up when I finally fall asleep out of pure exaustion to heart pounding palpitating again throughout the night.

But on a positive note... I am thankful that God has shown me the truth through Jordan Rubin and I have put 2 and 2 together and realized the links between the artificial sweeteners and these problems that just suddenly came onto my husband and I. So I'm sure that if we continue not to use them and eat healthy we will be just fine real soon and I hope and pray for all who read this that you will have good health too! Smile! Jesus loves you! He paid your debt for you so you can be free if you don't undertand what I am saying by this take a look at the New Testiment in the Bible and it will all make sense! Open your heart not just your mind! God bless you!

[kingfish3]

exactly you dont see the negative effects sometimes on certain things for years. Artificial sweetners are the worst and he takes a protein supplement that has it so he has to backhimself up , but got owned

[str8flexed]

too bad you don't have any REAL science to support this

welcome to placeboville, population = you

[INGENIUM]

Originally Posted by kingfish3

exactly you dont see the negative effects sometimes on certain things for years. Artificial sweetners are the worst and he takes a protein supplement that has it so he has to backhimself up , but got owned

yeah, just stick to high fructose corn syrup, clearly the better option

[G.W. Hayduke]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The structure of aspartame seems safe and simple (to those who believe everything they read), but it is actually much more complex. Two isolated amino acids in aspartame are fused together by its third component, deadly methanol. In this structure, methanol bonds the two amino acids together, but when released at a mere 86 degrees Fahrenheit, the methanol becomes a poisonous free radical.

The interesting thing applicable to us athletes is that both aspartic acid and phenylalanine can actually be performance enhancers. Their neurotoxicity changes significantly when you deal with highly trained indiviudals.

And methanol... well, god, don't drink any orange juice.

Aspartame is no big deal, IMO. But I'm still on the fence about sucralose. It doesn't have nearly the research to support safety as aspartame does. The majority of studies deal with dental caries. Very few good human safety studies. The ones that are there have shown that in some people, sucralose actually has a decent absorption rate contrary to the claims of "zero absorption". One also need wonder why other 1st world countries have banned sucralose. Whatever... a high quality stevia extract tastes better anyways.

Anyone remember in 1984 how all the lower party members got sacharrine tabs for their synthetic coffee?

Your article is well written and well researched. I believe that every human has a different capacity for absorbing chemical compounds into their blood stream. Some of us do not metabolize artificial sweeteners.

I, for one, however, have allergic reactons to artificial sweeteners that may not be life threatening but cause severe discomfort. I break out in large hives around the mid section of my body. I get a feeling of panic and impending doom, I get severe stomach cramps and diarrhea.

Please inform the general public that there is a small percentage of people who should avoid consuming artificial sweeteners if allergic reaction symptoms occur.

Thanks

[str8flexed]

how do some of us 'not metabolize' artificial sweeteners. Are some of use just happening to be missing gut mucosa? come on now, unless you are in some sort of diseased state this is a none issue

[BustaReims]

Maybe I missed it, but there is no mention of Stevia?

[MCWTRAINER]

Originally Posted by str8flexed

lol

i'm studying at the university of illinois, my phd i'm working on is in protein & amino acid metabolism. In fact here is a link to my profile on the university website. Guess i pulled that out of my ass too?

lists my BS on there as well

http://www.nutrsci.uiuc.edu/admissio..._trainees.html

I think you photoshopped that pic on there with your name!!! Just kidding man. Hope all is well your way. Keep doin what you're doing.

How are the wedding plannings coming along? It gets old fast, I'm in the process of planning now. It's long and painful to say the least, lol. Good luck with everything Layne!

[Don997]

I have a Degree in Behavioral Sciences and at age 54 I don't claim to know everything about how minds work and I doubt a BS really knows exactly how artificial food affects the body long term chemically or he'd be one filthy rich S.O.B. with folks beating his Guru door down!

Now, I'm not a lab rat in a study, but I am a humanbeing that ate gobs of that stuff and got sick from it. I hardly know where to start with Splenda and nutrasweet except to say that I've lost 35 pounds since ending my uptake of both Splenda and Nutrasweet. I tried tried tried to lose weight for six years and funny when I gave both of those up I started losing weight in a few short months and my energy level skyrocketed.

I had irregular heart beat but no more. I had sleeplessness-but no more. I had fatigue-but no more.

My bowels have become more regular and my carb cravings have fled me completely. That stuff hurt my insides no matter what I used it with causing gas, bloating and even IBS-like symptoms. I had what I thought were cluster headaches up until two years ago after I quit using both. To me the stuff was pure poison and I have quite a few friends and family that will relate almost exactly the same results from eating that chemical cocktail.

I think the original review was tainted by either ignorance or dollar signs because when I read it I almost split a gut laughing.

I put that stuff outside and ants wouldn't eat it nor would any other insect so I guess they are smarter than me. I gave Splenda in a small amount to my dog and felt really bad when he crapped sludge for three days. Insects, animals and people have adverse reactions.

I now use small amounts of raw sugar, Agave cactus sweetner and Stevia with no ill effects.

Complaints to the FDA do NOT come from folks screwing around looking for something to do. To suggest that complaints mean nothing is insane as folks don't go out of their way in droves to invent stories.

The Review was Immature At Best and Damaging Beyond Belief If Not outright Abusive. I suggest someone lay off of the steroids.

[str8flexed]

besides the fact it was fully referenced? yes that must enrage psuedo-scientists i'm sure

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

This thread seriously made me lol.

[Don997]

Originally Posted by str8flexed

besides the fact it was fully referenced? yes that must enrage psuedo-scientists i'm sure

What that article did was cherry pick the studies to get the view across the writer was looking for instead of weighing studies that were not as supportive of that private agenda. Fully referenced to a bias and not to the entire picture merely a snap shot to support one point of view. Sort of like Bush and Cheny did to get us into Iraq just picking out "goodies" to scare the pants off of an already terrified population.

I'm not angry over that but simply amazed that a person could believe that this "Work" was a fair representation of ALL OF THE FACTS. It wasn't and I know any thinking person could see that--no matter how much in denial the writer might be.

There is no reason for artificial anything in the food chain and I think our cancer rates would be a damned sight less if food was more natural. In my home we buy organic meat-veggies and fruit where possible, make our own breads and pastas, can a lot of our own home grown stuff all to avoid chemicals and even at 54, I haven't seen an MD in 15 years. Junk medicine junk science and killer junk chemical medicines. I'll live and die my way.

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

Originally Posted by Don997

What that article did was cherry pick the studies to get the view across the writer was looking for instead of weighing studies that were not as supportive of that private agenda. Fully referenced to a bias and not to the entire picture merely a snap shot to support one point of view. Sort of like Bush and Cheny did to get us into Iraq just picking out "goodies" to scare the pants off of an already terrified population.

I'm not angry over that but simply amazed that a person could believe that this "Work" was a fair representation of ALL OF THE FACTS. It wasn't and I know any thinking person could see that--no matter how much in denial the writer might be.

There is no reason for artificial anything in the food chain and I think our cancer rates would be a damned sight less if food was more natural.

Back in my early college days, I wanted to do a research paper showing how dangerous aspartame was. I went looking for research to support my pre conceived notions. After a few days on pub med gathering all the research studies I could get my hands on, I can't tell you how disappointed I was. After spending days reviewing the actual research/physiology, there's no two ways about it. For healthy people, aspartame is safe and so are the other artificial sweeteners such as sucralose. It's FAR less dramatic than the anti-artificial/aspartame crowd would like us to believe. It's not some big conspiracy,lol. Regardless, if you aren't comfortable taking them, that is fine and I can respect this decision. But the actual peer reviewed published research and there is ALOT of it, does NOT support the opinion that aspartame is unsafe. I also used to be a fan of stevia, until I started to dig up the research on it. Very disappointing and unimpressive.

If you get your information from the actual research studies, not spun by someone bias for what ever reason. I believe you will get a much different picture than you originally believed. That is if you can view the science with open mind, not an easy thing to do if you mind is already made up though.

Originally Posted by Don997

In my home we buy organic meat-veggies and fruit where possible, make our own breads and pastas, can a lot of our own home grown stuff all to avoid chemicals and even at 54, I haven't seen an MD in 15 years. Junk medicine junk science and killer junk chemical medicines. I'll live and die my way.

I agree with the above statement and believe you can't go wrong following this way of eating as it likely optimal for health. I grew up eating like that, except we GREW our own vegetables, meats and fruits. Due to living in the city now, I can no longer, but I still do my best to eat in the same manner as much as possible.

[Don997]

Grab A Whey Shake This Is Long!

How hard did you look for research?

I found 90 non-industry funded studies showing adverse reactions that date back to the 1980's. All you had to do was look.

Due to copyright I can only publish the link. http://www.dldewey.com/columns/asparst2.htm

Now couple that with the mountain of FDA complaints and what you see is a smoking gun here and not simply my bias.

I would suggest to any prudent person that to err on the side of caution and not use these things is best.

BTW-My wife has been a diabetic type one since the age of five and uses no artificial anything except insulin. She uses Bitter Melon to control gloucose levels and *Agave Cactus sweetner. She has had no complications except when she tried to use Splenda and Nutrasweet which sent her sugar crashing nearly every night about three hours after going to bed.

We live in a chemical society that advertises miracles to a population that believes the hype.

So here I go Son,
Why is it that the USA spends more money on healthcare and medicine than all of the other countries on the planet combined but yet our people are more unhealthy and have more birth defects?

We have more cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, and stroke than any other country in the world.

We have over 15 million children on the narcotic Ritalin and still more on related drugs. Wouldn't you say that something is wrong with the overall picture here?

We can give a shot to prevent feline leukemia and not human leukemia? What the heck?

Don't folks find it funny that on TV sets and on the radio we are assaulted with drug ads 24X7 yet no one can claim that a vitamin deficiency solved or a mineral deficiency addressed cures anything without the Fed's getting their panties in a bunch?

To say that one orange or 25 mg of vitamin C cures scurvy is actually against the law while in the past TV ads touted the miracles of Vioxx which is linked to the deaths of over 50,000 people and as many as 149,000 heart attacks! Can you scream hypocrisy any louder? Chaaa Ching! It all comes down to money changing hands from ours to theirs and boy does it!

We cannot patent oxygen or medical ozone or vitamins or minerals so we cannot control those things as RX products and charge folks out the living whazoo for them! Self-interested companies and practitioners will bomb any mention of such things to preserve those incomes and if they have to bribe the FDA, or fake research then so be it. It's all been done before.

There are about four medical-drug lobbyists for every Congressman. Why so many?

A lot of folks are figuring things out on their own these days. Hell it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize a scam that is so in your face wrong!

That is how I feel and my research backs it up.

My wife had cancer of the ovaries with 6 cm and 8 cm tumors that the Docs WATCHED as cysts for FIFTEEN YEARS grow. Then they wanted to gutt her. We said NO.

Within TWO MONTHS the tumors were gone and her blood tests keep coming back negative for cancer. We used ozone insuflication to destroy the tumors. Oxygen if you will. See the root of my distrust? Just one of many.Too many.

Am I passionate or what? I believe what I see with my own eyes.

I guess in the minds of the young it is the placebo effect.

"I'm sorry Don, no matter what happened, without expert scientific backing and research, what you and you wife experienced is not real."

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

Originally Posted by Don997

Grab A Whey Shake This Is Long!

How hard did you look for research?

I found 90 non-industry funded studies showing adverse reactions that date back to the 1980's. All you had to do was look.

Due to copyright I can only publish the link. http://www.dldewey.com/columns/asparst2.htm

Now couple that with the mountain of FDA complaints and what you see is a smoking gun here and not simply my bias.

I would suggest to any prudent person that to err on the side of caution and not use these things is best.

BTW-My wife has been a diabetic type one since the age of five and uses no artificial anything except insulin. She uses Bitter Melon to control gloucose levels and *Agave Cactus sweetner. She has had no complications except when she tried to use Splenda and Nutrasweet which sent her sugar crashing nearly every night about three hours after going to bed.

We live in a chemical society that advertises miracles to a population that believes the hype.

So here I go Son,
Why is it that the USA spends more money on healthcare and medicine than all of the other countries on the planet combined but yet our people are more unhealthy and have more birth defects?

We have more cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, and stroke than any other country in the world.

We have over 15 million children on the narcotic Ritalin and still more on related drugs. Wouldn't you say that something is wrong with the overall picture here?

We can give a shot to prevent feline leukemia and not human leukemia? What the heck?

Don't folks find it funny that on TV sets and on the radio we are assaulted with drug ads 24X7 yet no one can claim that a vitamin deficiency solved or a mineral deficiency addressed cures anything without the Fed's getting their panties in a bunch?

To say that one orange or 25 mg of vitamin C cures scurvy is actually against the law while in the past TV ads touted the miracles of Vioxx which is linked to the deaths of over 50,000 people and as many as 149,000 heart attacks! Can you scream hypocrisy any louder? Chaaa Ching! It all comes down to money changing hands from ours to theirs and boy does it!

We cannot patent oxygen or medical ozone or vitamins or minerals so we cannot control those things as RX products and charge folks out the living whazoo for them! Self-interested companies and practitioners will bomb any mention of such things to preserve those incomes and if they have to bribe the FDA, or fake research then so be it. It's all been done before.

There are about four medical-drug lobbyists for every Congressman. Why so many?

A lot of folks are figuring things out on their own these days. Hell it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize a scam that is so in your face wrong!

That is how I feel and my research backs it up.

My wife had cancer of the ovaries with 6 cm and 8 cm tumors that the Docs WATCHED as cysts for FIFTEEN YEARS grow. Then they wanted to gutt her. We said NO.

Within TWO MONTHS the tumors were gone and her blood tests keep coming back negative for cancer. We used ozone insuflication to destroy the tumors. Oxygen if you will. See the root of my distrust? Just one of many.Too many.

Am I passionate or what? I believe what I see with my own eyes.

I guess in the minds of the young it is the placebo effect.

"I'm sorry Don, no matter what happened, without expert scientific backing and research, what you and you wife experienced is not real."

While, I don't have much time today, to answer a few of your basic questions.

I pulled about 150-200(maybe more, it's been a while) studies off pub med and thoroughly went through them all and yes I know all the history/conspiracy stuff behind it too(monsanto..ect)

I did not cherry pick the studies, but gathered every one I could find at the time. With all the puzzle peaces, the picture became painfully obvious. In healthy people, there is no issues with aspartame.

When you look at the most recent, well designed and most credible aspartame studies,published in the most reputable scientific journals i.e New england journal of medicine and many other major journals, so many of the myths are put to rest. Just look at aspartames composition, when it gets broken down, it's nothing spectacular or anything we don't already get in nature-- The amino acids, Aspartic acid and phenylalanine and methanol.

You may want to put down the whey shake, as two of the three ingredients are in there!




Regarding the second part of your statement:

Most of those ailments you mentioned, heart disease, diabetes..ect are highly related to obesity.

Yes we have a huge obesity problem in this country, but I don't believe it's due to artifical sweetners, but to the big decline in physical activity and terrible eating habits.

When you look at the stats on the decline in activity level in this country(especially in adolescents/youths) and the increase in sugar/food consumption. I think these factors are much more important in cuasing these diseases than an artificial sweetener.

Take a look at some of the data on fructose,related to obesity, AGE's ect.. then look again at aspartame. I have a feeling aspartame might start looking more like the second coming of Christ.

I understand the moral of your augment with people always looking for a quick fix miracle and I agree with you, it's a huge problem. But that's a behavioral problem, not a problem of having access to an artificial sweeteners. I certainly believe artificial sweeteners have their place.

Persoanlly I don't use aspartame, as I don't want to get a tumor or have my brain rot, joking But seriolsy, I don't use it becuase I simply don't care for the taste, not out of concern for my health.

I much prefer sucralose(splenda)


EDIT: Did you just call me "Son"..LOL!!

[bmjohnson1984]

There has been much debate over artificial sweeteners or also known as Excitotoxins. The book Excitotoxins written by Dr. Russell L. Blaylock is a counter argument to why artificial sweeteners are so dangerous. He was also a former neuroseurgeon. In basic terms, Dr. Russell L. Blaylock explains, MSG (and other, similar agents) pierces the blood-brain barrier and over-stimulates the neurons of a brain to a deadly degree. Habitual intake among animal experiments has shown the development of tumors, memory loss, and a whole host of neurodegenerative diseases as the end result of excess excitotoxin intake, including Alzhiemer's, Parkenson's, Lou Gerhig's etc.

[str8flexed]

references?

[G.W. Hayduke]

Originally Posted by str8flexed

references?

I'm pretty sure he's referencing the book, which probably has studies you can check out.

[str8flexed]

if he has the book then perhaps he can provide some of the references out of it. I have done quite a bit of research on artificial sweetners and have never seen any of these studies in peer review journals?