i just got a powder with no aspartame, was over the moon cos it tasted exactly like a milkshake.
Look on the ingredients to see "sucralose"
nek minnut i research it and its got ****ing chlorine in it
Does anyone know of any protein powders that taste good AND have NO artificial sweeteners, i'd prefer one with stevia personally
08-03-2012, 12:41 AM #1
Whey protein that has NO artificial sweeteners?
08-03-2012, 01:14 AM #2
08-03-2012, 01:21 AM #3
- Join Date: Mar 2006
- Location: East Rochester, New York, United States
- Age: 29
- Stats: 5'5", 184 lbs
- Posts: 11,554
- BodyPoints: 8552
- Rep Power: 20120
Isonatural. We have it sweetened with stevia and also a plain which is a straight whey isolate. Can't get any cleaner than that!Type 1 Diabetic - Since age 15
Luke 1:37 "For NOTHING is impossible with God"
INSTAGRAM: StevenGFH Follow me!
*ALLMAX NUTRITION REP*
ALLMAX Nutrition, Inc.
SCIENCE - INNOVATION - QUALITY - RESULTS
Disclaimer: All forum or bulletin board posts are solely the opinion of myself and do not necessarily reflect the views of ALLMAX
08-03-2012, 01:30 AM #4
08-03-2012, 02:12 AM #5
08-03-2012, 02:28 AM #6
08-03-2012, 02:32 AM #7
Sucralose has chlorine molecules in it, its not as bad as aspartame, but its still bad.
Wow how did you get to your level without knowing this? thats pretty elementary **** dude. I'm sure i don't need to explain the science behind it.
If there is aspartame or sucralose in this iso stuff you can forget that rofl.. sale loss~
08-03-2012, 02:47 AM #8
Aspartame: Review of Safety
The authors dedicate this supplement to the memories of Lewis D. Stegink, Ph.D., and L. J. Filer, Jr., M.D., Ph.D., from the University of Iowa. Their early research on aspartame metabolism in humans formed the basis for much of the future research on aspartame that is discussed in this supplement. Their objectivity and long-standing dedication to science as well as their medical and scientific expertise are greatly missed.
Harriett H. Butchkoa, 1, W.Wayne Stargelb, C.Phil Comerc, Dale A. Mayhewd, Christian Benninger (EEGs and Cognitive Function in PKU Heterozygotes)e, George L. Blackburn (Appetite, Food Intake, and Weight Control)f, Leo M.J. de Sonneville (Neuropsychological Function and Phenylalanine)g, Raif S. Geha (Allergy)h, Zsolt Hertelendy (Liver Disease)i, Adalbert Koestner (Brain Tumors)j, Arthur S. Leon (Long-Term Safety in Humans)k, l, George U. Liepa (Renal Disease)m, Kenneth E. McMartin (Methanol)n, Charles L. Mendenhall (Liver Disease)o, Ian C. Munro (Preface)p, Edward J. Novotny (Seizures and EEGs)q, Andrew G. Renwick (Preface)r, Susan S. Schiffman (Headaches)s, Donald L. Schomer (Neurochemistry, Seizures and EEGs, Behavior, Cognitive Function, and Mood)t, Bennett A. Shaywitz (Behavior, Cognitive Function, Mood in Children, Seizures, and EEGs)u, Paul A. Spiers (Behavior, Cognition, and Mood)v, Thomas R. Tephly (Methanol)w, John A. Thomas (Metabolism and Endocrine)x, Friedrich K. Trefz (Phenylketonuria)y
a Medical and Scientific Affairs, The NutraSweet Company, Mt. Prospect, Illinois
b Research and Development, The NutraSweet Company, Mt. Prospect, Illinois
c Graystone Associates, Inc. Macon, Georgia
d Regulatory Affairs, The NutraSweet Company, Mt. Prospect, Illinois
e Department of Pediatrics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
f Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
g Departments of Pediatrics and Neurology, Vrije Universiteit, Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
h Division of Immunology, The Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
i Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
j Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Ohio State University School of Veterinary Medicine, Columbus, Ohio
k Division of Kinesiology, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
m Department of Human, Environmental, and Consumer Resources, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan
n Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Louisiana State University Medical Center, Shreveport, Louisiana
o Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Digestive Diseases Section, Cincinnati, Ohio
p Cantox Health Sciences, Inc. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
q Department of Pediatrics and Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
r Department of Pharmacology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
s Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
t Department of Neurology, Division of Neurophysiology and Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
u Departments of Pediatrics, Neurology, and Child Study, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
v Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Massachusetts
w Department of Pharmacology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
x Department of Pharmacology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
y Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Reutlingen, University of Tübingen, Reutlingen, Germany
Received 8 January 2002. Available online 28 June 2002.
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.
Might not want to pop off at the mouth to someone (me) who knows much more than you and can back it up with actual citations. Do i need to do the same for sucralose? I will if you're going to be stupid again.USAF
The World's greatest Air Force
08-03-2012, 02:49 AM #9
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
- Age: 26
- Stats: 5'10", 205 lbs
- Posts: 6,023
- Rep Power: 22736
08-03-2012, 03:01 AM #10
We can only guess and read between the lines what kind of politics it took to get aspartame approved. After more than 8,000 complaints on Nutrasweet side effects, a list of symptoms attributed to aspartame from complaints submitted to the FDA was made public. This list included among others: hallucinations, diarrhea, seizures, depression, migraine, fatigue and insomnia. Aspartame has also been linked to tumors, cancer and infertility.
Except for a brief declaration that carefully controlled clinical studies showed aspartame is not an allergen, the FDA merely issued an advisory that products containing aspartame must include a warning to phenylketonurics, people sensitive to the compound phenylalanine. It still continues to adhere to its stand that "aspartame as a carcinogen is not supported by data."
Aspartame was never tested on humans before its approval. Now, it is found in 6,000 products and consumed by more than 250 million people, with Americans consuming around half of the world supply. By default, we have now become the test subjects for aspartame's safety. Unwittingly we are providing evidence to aspartame's toxicity through the devastating effects it is slowly producing among its consumers. The list of complaints submitted to the FDA as well as from anecdotal reports does not seem to end anytime soon. If the government chooses to turn a blind eye on aspartame, let us at least choose not to be a willing conspirator and suffer the consequences of being a willing victim.
Sources for this article:
Can't post links cos im under 50 posts. But look around yourself.
.. Don't know where you pulled yours from. Seems legit, but it IS wrong.
As for sucralose, uhhh pass elementary chemistry plox?
it has chlorine > carcinogen > cancer.
The fact artificial sweeteners trick the body into craving food as the body is waiting for sugar when the signal from your taste buds hits your brain not withstanding.
I mean if you have out standing will power you could resist it, but its very uncomfortable.
08-03-2012, 03:02 AM #11
The fact that there is doctors you listed that STILL back up artificial sweeteners VS equal amounts that pan it just lead to one conclusion. There is no definitive proof that they are safe. Until they are, i will choose to steer clear from them.
You think you know more? what are you qualifications aside from parroting superior health experts?
EDIT. Your article is from 2002.
Wow. 10 years is alot of time you know?
08-03-2012, 03:18 AM #12
After 20 years aspartame was found to be safe. Do you really need a 30 year mark citation? Yup i'm definitely wrong, that huge fukin citation of sources are all wrong too. I have a study from 2007 showing no connection of aspartame and cancer. Can't get a good copy of it, but here's the synopsis:
Aspartame is a methyl ester of a dipeptide used as a synthetic nonnutritive sweetener in over 90 countries worldwide in over 6000 products. The purpose of this investigation was to review the scientific literature on the absorption and metabolism, the current consumption levels worldwide, the toxicology, and recent epidemiological studies on aspartame. Current use levels of aspartame, even by high users in special subgroups, remains well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority established acceptable daily intake levels of 50 and 40 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. Consumption of large doses of aspartame in a single bolus dose will have an effect on some biochemical parameters, including plasma amino acid levels and brain neurotransmitter levels. The rise in plasma levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid following administration of aspartame at doses less than or equal to 50 mg/kg bw do not exceed those observed postprandially. Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day. Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.
Fact is, aspartame is probably one of the MOST studied food additives ever approved by the FDA. Best of luck finding a viable study done showing ANY of the horrible side effects you claim.
Here's the citations:
2007, Vol. 37, No. 8 , Pages 629-727
HTML PDF (1271 KB) PDF Plus (1450 KB) Reprints PermissionsB. A. Magnuson, G. A. Burdock, J. Doull, R. M. Kroes, G. M. Marsh, M. W. Pariza, P. S. Spencer, W. J. Waddell, R. Walker and G. M. Williams
Burdock Group, Washington, DC, USA
Burdock Group, Vero Beach, Florida, USA
University of Kansas Medical School, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
University of Louisville Medical School, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
University of Surrey, Guilford, Great Britain
New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA
Department of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20740, USAUSAF
The World's greatest Air Force
08-03-2012, 03:21 AM #13
08-03-2012, 03:23 AM #14
I haven't even started in PubMed, but i'll toss you some current citations from there as well. But of course i don't know what i'm talking about, i can only cite those knowledgeable in that field. With your logic it's amazing anyone ever learns anything since you have to inherently know the material.
Dietary intake of artificial sweeteners by the Belgian population.
Huvaere K, Vandevijvere S, Hasni M, Vinkx C, Van Loco J.
SourceDepartment of Food, Medicines and Consumer Safety, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
This study investigated whether the Belgian population older than 15 years is at risk of exceeding ADI levels for acesulfame-K, saccharin, cyclamate, aspartame and sucralose through an assessment of usual dietary intake of artificial sweeteners and specific consumption of table-top sweeteners. A conservative Tier 2 approach, for which an extensive label survey was performed, showed that mean usual intake was significantly lower than the respective ADIs for all sweeteners. Even consumers with high intakes were not exposed to excessive levels, as relative intakes at the 95th percentile (p95) were 31% for acesulfame-K, 13% for aspartame, 30% for cyclamate, 17% for saccharin, and 16% for sucralose of the respective ADIs. Assessment of intake using a Tier 3 approach was preceded by optimisation and validation of an analytical method based on liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection. Concentrations of sweeteners in various food matrices and table-top sweeteners were determined and mean positive concentration values were included in the Tier 3 approach, leading to relative intakes at p95 of 17% for acesulfame-K, 5% for aspartame, 25% for cyclamate, 11% for saccharin, and 7% for sucralose of the corresponding ADIs. The contribution of table-top sweeteners to the total usual intake (<1% of ADI) was negligible. A comparison of observed intake for the total population with intake for diabetics (acesulfame-K: 3.55 versus 3.75; aspartame: 6.77 versus 6.53; cyclamate: 1.97 versus 2.06; saccharine: 1.14 versus 0.97; sucralose: 3.08 versus 3.03, expressed as mg kg(-1) bodyweight day(-1) at p95) showed that the latter group was not exposed to higher levels. It was concluded that the Belgian population is not at risk of exceeding the established ADIs for sweeteners.USAF
The World's greatest Air Force
08-03-2012, 03:24 AM #15
Here's a brief run down on aspartame, and all your case studies are FDA bitches, who WANT this product on the market because its $$$$$$$$ Are you really that stupid?
Aspartame is a vicious chemical that is made up of 50% phenylalanine, a neurotoxin that excites brain cells to death, 40% aspartic acid, another excitoneurotoxin, and the feces of genetically mutated E. Coli. Once aspartame gets ingested it gets broken down to methyl alcohol, a narcotic, that destroys the dopamine system and leads to addiction. That’s why you hear people saying “I just need my diet coke,” or “crystal lite is all I drink.” Now you won’t have to ever wonder why.
The methyl alcohol also gets converted to formaldehyde, which embalms all living tissue and DNA. Formaldehyde causes blindness and collects in all living tissue to form tumors.
THIS IS CHEMISTRY FACT.
Sucralose is comprised of chlorine. To tell me im wrong about sucralose is to actually fight the real definition of chlorine, i think i'll believe the guy who discovered chlorine over you You lift. You don't mess around with chems. If i want advice on exercise, i'll listen to you. cheers
The FDA ... lmao where i'm from bro that means jack ****. They've been called out on foul play before. They legalize finasteride for hair loss for ****s sake, and look at the side effects on that ****. Okay a bit of a different area of product, sure.
But if they can lie about that, why not whats in our sodas?
Or better yet, our protein shakes?
haha dude keep taking the **** if you want to. I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm here to find a protein powder that is devoid of artificial sweeteners, if you don't wanna help thats fine. **** off, and go poison yourself with some aspartame.
If you studied an iota of chemistry you'd know i am right hahaha
08-03-2012, 03:28 AM #16
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Location: San Jose, California, United States
- Stats: 7'5", 50 lbs
- Posts: 1,830
- Rep Power: 906
08-03-2012, 03:29 AM #17
Yes, because i lift means i do not go to school. Only non-lifters study biology and chemistry and physiology huh? Lol so naive. This is why i'm done arguing with a sack of rocks (you), it get's me no where. Apparently 20 years doesn't equal long term. Apparently cited work is not applicable, but cherry-picked chem notes are.
Best of luck with your psychosis goals in 2012.USAF
The World's greatest Air Force
08-03-2012, 03:34 AM #18
- Join Date: Dec 2011
- Location: New York, New York, United States
- Age: 28
- Posts: 2,634
- Rep Power: 3582
08-03-2012, 03:35 AM #19
AND YOU SAY ITS SAFE? let alone all these other idiots of conventional medicine who are getting payed mega bucks to just nod and say its okay.
Of course i suppose you can't be blamed.. we are all bought up to trust doctors.
haha twist my words more kid, i didn't say all lifters are complete moronic parrots such as yourself.
20 years equals long term, yes. 30 years equals longER term. Its not unfeasable to expect more progressive results in an additional 10 years, are you kidding?
Cited work of bribed doctors is not applicable no.
When there is unanimous agreement on artificial sweeteners being safe, then perhaps i will believe it. But there isn't. There are medical experts all over the word who agree with me, and some agree with you (probably due to the amount of money that's being made of it, as most educated people know, there is no money in cures, but there is money in sickness)
i wasn't here to convince anyone. I want a powder without sucralose, aspartame or any other artificial sweeteners. That is the topic of this thread, and you had to put your 2 cents in. Now **** off
08-03-2012, 03:37 AM #20
08-03-2012, 04:35 AM #21
08-03-2012, 04:38 AM #22
- Join Date: Jul 2006
- Location: Carrollton, Georgia, United States
- Stats: 6'0", 185 lbs
- Posts: 12,067
- BodyPoints: 3951
- Rep Power: 51183
08-03-2012, 04:47 AM #23
08-03-2012, 05:02 AM #24
- Join Date: Jun 2010
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
- Stats: 5'6", 176 lbs
- Posts: 7,077
- Rep Power: 29046
It is IMPOSSIBLE to find an ACTUAL STUDY showing that aspartame is dangerous in HEALTHY populations in BOTH short AND long term at doses that HUMANS could ever even HOPE to consume daily. They do not exist. Every damn study showing negative effects has been either through injection, egregiously high daily doses that would take considerable effort to consume, or were done in rats. Usually a mixture of the three. Rat studies don't automatically discount or prove anything, but in light of the body of research as a whole....aspartame is perfectly fine. Save for the RARE condition of people who are sensitive to it.
Edit: If you want to back up your crap claims, don't do it with an article. Pull up a damned study, PREFERABLY full text if you can. I can't tell you how many articles I've seen on "natural news sites" that VERY CLEARLY have a bias because the "doctor" is selling some crap natural "medicine." Most of these quacks writing the articles either have no clue what they're on about (such as not knowing how to read a study), or somehow have a doctorate and still have no clue what they're on about.“For, behold, I have refined thee, I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.”—1 Nephi 20:10
08-03-2012, 05:38 AM #25
- Join Date: Jun 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Stats: 5'7", 211 lbs
- Posts: 34,310
- BodyPoints: 35143
- Rep Power: 217027
Here is a product with no artificial sweeteners or flavorings, it's more than just protein however it is an MRP:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/un...-and-oats.htmlUniversal Nutrition Rep
A Day in the Life of naturalguy
All new: www.universalusa.com
08-03-2012, 11:21 AM #26
08-03-2012, 11:36 AM #27
08-03-2012, 11:38 AM #28Controlled Labs - Venture Bar Warder
Email: Powercage [at] ControlledLabs.com
Free Controlled Labs supps for your CL labels: goo.gl/kylDte
Disclaimer: The above post is my personal opinion and does not represent the official position of any company or entity. It does not constitute medical advice.
08-03-2012, 11:49 AM #29
08-03-2012, 11:57 AM #30
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Location: Gainesville, Florida, United States
- Age: 27
- Stats: 6'1", 180 lbs
- Posts: 1,495
- BodyPoints: 74
- Rep Power: 3193
I'm not going to argue against the safety of artificial sweeteners, however I think it's safe to say that the FDA isn't always looking out for our best health interests. Not that there's a conspiracy or w/e but just that money talks. How else can you explain how corporations like Monsanto get their GMO crops approved with 0 studies proving their safety? Their planting corn now that's genetically modified with a toxin that explodes the stomach of insects that attempt to eat it, and were supposed to nod in approval when they say that the toxin won't have any similar effects on humans, with no studies to back their claim? The point is corporations use $$ to bypass or influence the FDA (at least that's the only reasonable explanation for how something like the former could happen), who are failing at their job to act as the neutral party between corporations and the people and make sure all this stuff is safe.Peace and the Third World War: gnosticteachings.org/books-by-samael-aun-weor/the-social-christ/692-peace-and-the-third-world-war.html
By iLLMathematics in forum Misc.Replies: 6Last Post: 06-04-2013, 11:30 PM
By carl1864 in forum SupplementsReplies: 48Last Post: 02-14-2012, 03:51 PM
By iGottaLift in forum SupplementsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-24-2008, 11:49 AM
By thor93 in forum SupplementsReplies: 25Last Post: 02-16-2008, 11:10 AM