Artifical Sweeteners: An Overview

[pogue]

Originally posted by alan aragon
even though this quote is from a rather alarmist anti-aspartame site (dorway.com), it's unsettling nevertheless. there's many examples of this sort of struggle between science and the politics of industry:

Theres no doubt that the FDA isn't the most legitimate government organization, but I'm not convinced there is an actual conspiracy to push aspartame on the public, even though its dangerous. To me, acesulfame seems like the scariest of them all.

Here's a good read from CSPI on all the artifical sweetners. They don't like aspartame, but admit that it's not unsafe in normal doses.

http://www.cspinet.org/nah/05_04/sweet_nothings.pdf

[fitnessman]

Pogue, I have been a nutritionist for over 15 years. I think I have a grasp on how much processing goes into cane sugar.


I am in position now where we study the studies. Now that is an area which will really make you shake your head.

[WORKEROUTER]

Artificial sweeteners are dangerous. Read this informing article found on mercola.com:

"Aspartame - History of fraud and deception"

at http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/fraud.htm

In effort to open discussion of the articles posted about the proven safety of aspartame, I provide this article:

"Aspartame Disease: An FDA-Approved Epidemic"

http://www.mercola.com/fcgi/pf/2004/...me_disease.htm

Heres a list of articles regarding aspartame:

"http://www.mercola.com/fcgi/pf/article/aspartame/"

Here are some eyeopening facts regarding Nutrasweet, from http://www.mercola.com/2004/feb/11/nutrasweet.htm, which were too good not to paste:

"All their competition was carefully eliminated and taken off the market. Note: Saccharin was not totally removed from the market due to Monsanto Chemical Company owning BOTH saccharin and NutraSweet, and also due to saccharin's true 'safety' record. (See newsletter archives on Monsanto and saccharin for more information.)

Marketing strategies were set into motion to gain access to and influence relationships with the food and pharmaceutical industries.

Liaisons were established between the NutraSweet Company and government officials, specifically the FDA and U.S. Department of Transportation.

Relationships were bridged between the NutraSweet Company and the AMA, the American Diabetic Association, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, among other public health organizations.

New research centers were funded and built by the NutraSweet Company at predominant universities throughout the United States.

Research scientists responsible for aspartame safety testing were payrolled by the NutraSweet Company.

Marketing relationships were established between the NutraSweet Company and the National Soft Drink Association and the various soft drink companies.

Allegiances were established within American mainstream media primarily through multi-million dollar advertising campaigns to television stations and prominent newspapers. (Hull, Janet, SWEET POISON: How The World's Most Popular Artificial Sweetener Is Killing Us, New Horizon Press, 1999.)"

I hope these articles will help to form more open-minded discussion of these artificial sweeteners.

[pogue]

Mercola is not a trustworthy source of information. They do not use scientific studies to address the viewpoints made. They are essentially a holistic medicine site and in fact is not recongized by the medical community as a trustworthy source of factual information. Many of the articles on that site are misleading and simply untrue.

Nonrecommended Major Sites
Each of these sites provides a huge amount of information, most or all of which promotes unsubstntiated theories and/or methods. They may be useful to researchers seeking descriptions of these theories and methods from their proponents. However, they should be avoided by persons seeking high-quality information on which to base a health-related decision.

Mercola.com [...]

http://www.quackwatch.org/12Web/webindex.html

I suggest that if you want to argue the point against asparatme that you do so with factual scientific evidence, and not bogus scare tactic sites. Please reread over my post about aspartame as I have addressed most of these claims.

More information about these false and misleading claims:
http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer...aspartame.html

[Brosef]

Originally posted by fitnessman
Pogue, I have been a nutritionist for over 15 years. I think I have a grasp on how much processing goes into cane sugar.

Is there really much processing? The juice may get mixed with all the soil, fibers and harvested plants and is carbonated and phosphated - that's it.

[pogue]

Originally posted by Evgeniy
Is there really much processing? The juice may get mixed with all the soil, fibers and harvested plants and is carbonated and phosphated - that's it.

Here's how HFCS is made:
http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html

Sucrose:
http://www.indiainfoline.com/sect/suin/ch05.html

White powdered sugar is processed as described above, and is then bleached white and refined to make it easy to scoop and use. It is essentially a process to extract the chemical component from the plant.

[WORKEROUTER]

I have done a little researching into the site that you have posted (and so firmly believe in). I formed some comments regarding it:

-It does not provide any solid reasoning as to why the mercola site is non-legit. It basically dismisses it as pure misleading information. This is totally inaccurate; I would suggest to you to visit and actually read the articles and understand the ideas that Dr. Mercola puts forth. Is he not right when he speaks of the insulin surging, processed foods leading to the chronic health problems in the United States? Is he not right when he speaks about the dangers of mercury toxicity in seafood? Is he providing "non-legit" information when he advises people to limit consumption of highly processed, sweetened foods, vegetables laden with pesticides, and meat contaminated with antibiodics and steroids?

-The site's overall attitude seems to be biased, towards that of Dr. Stephen Barrett, and the points made are pretty much regurgitations of narrow-minded, conventional medicine, views. He injects his pessimistic views in his articles, often without any unsubstantiated arguments. A perfect example of this would be the following article, where he attempts to dismiss natural medicine as being hog-wash, but resorts to transparent arguments (or ones that fall in the line of logical fallacy):
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...turopathy.html
The following points in particular, found in the "Whats Wrong With This Picture" section, were ridden with logical fallacy and innaccuracy:
""Balance," "vitality," and "harmony with the body" are vitalistic concepts. Like "optimal health" or "supporting" of the body, these concepts are vague and cannot be objectively measured or scientifically tested.

Whether infectious disease occurs depends on the degree of exposure to an infectious organism, the virulence of the organism, and the body's ability to resist. A person does not need to be "toxic" or "imbalanced" in order to catch a cold.

Some diseases are an inevitable result of genetic make-up.

Others have little to do with hereditary factors.

The general concept of treating disease by "strengthening the immune system" clashes with the fact that in some conditions, such as allergies or autoimmune diseases, the immune system is overreactive.

With respect to cancer, the notion that cancer reflects weakness of the immune system is false [6]. If it were true, people given immunosuppressant drugs to treat arthritis or prevent rejection of transplanted organs, or who are immunodeficient because of hereditary disease or AIDS, would be prone to develop the common cancers. Rather, they tend to develop unusual ones -- such as Kaposi's sarcoma in AIDS [7]. Naturopathy's claim that "natural methods" can treat cancer by strengthening the immune system is also unsubstantiated.

Naturopaths pretend that precise medical treatment is less important than "maintaining body balance.""

It is too bad that although he is so fast to bash the practices of natural medicine as being "unsubstantiated," he can provide no solutions himself.

-I would like to see an article refuting the various issues that surround human health in regards to conventional medicine today. How about the dangers of all the drugs that are given to people every day? How about the spiking incidences of such diseases as cancer and diabetes? Could Dr. Stephen Barrett please explain how conventional medicine is helping to alleviate these problems, rather than just bandaging them?

In regards to the aspartame articles posted from mercola.com, there is a plethora of studies listed backing the claims.

[pogue]

Originally posted by WORKEROUTER
I have done a little researching into the site that you have posted (and so firmly believe in). I formed some comments regarding it:

-It does not provide any solid reasoning as to why the mercola site is non-legit. It basically dismisses it as pure misleading information. This is totally inaccurate; I would suggest to you to visit and actually read the articles and understand the ideas that Dr. Mercola puts forth. Is he not right when he speaks of the insulin surging, processed foods leading to the chronic health problems in the United States? Is he not right when he speaks about the dangers of mercury toxicity in seafood? Is he providing "non-legit" information when he advises people to limit consumption of highly processed, sweetened foods, vegetables laden with pesticides, and meat contaminated with antibiodics and steroids?

I am quite familar with Dr Mercolas site and many of the articles on there. It is not valid information. It does not contain references to peer reviewed medical studies, or established claims. If you want to get into a discussion of Mercola, please start another thread - as this is essentially irrelevant to the discussion on artifical sweetners.

Originally posted by WORKEROUTER
In regards to the aspartame articles posted from mercola.com, there is a plethora of studies listed backing the claims.

I'm afraid that simply is not the case. You are welcome to search for studies about aspartame, you can do so on Pubmed

I have read all this information time and time again and what their main arguement boils down to is this:

1) The FDA takes money from Nutrasweet to allow aspartame to go on the market
2) Nutrasweet funds studies for aspartame, therefor they are bias and not acceptable

If you believe either of those, I cannot argue with you. What groups such as CSPI have said, is that it is essentially safe, however, they would like to see some indepedant studies from outside groups other than the manufacturer.

Either way, the fact still remains that if you eat protein, or drink a protein shake, you are already getting phenylalanine and aspartic acid in greater amounts than provided in a can of Diet soda.

[alan aragon]

Originally posted by pogue
I am quite familar with Dr Mercolas site and many of the articles on there. It is not valid information.

i must back up pogue on this point.. of course there are some valid points peppered here & there, but a sizable chunk of the info is based on sensationalism, alarmism, and assumption-based pseudoscience leveraged largely by inapplicable or irrelevant data. the mercola site makes its way squarely on my "quackpot" list. i appreciate everyone's efforts to be innovative, contrarian to conventional wisdom, and/or cutting-edge, but at least be somewhat scientific about it.

[WORKEROUTER]

So you agree Pogue that there are limited studies on aspartame?

The two points you mentioned shouldnt really be overlooked...as you said, the CSPI wants outside studies done...so maybe they should get these studies done before concluding that aspartame is "essentially safe" (btw, wtf is that suppose to mean?)

[pogue]

Originally posted by WORKEROUTER
So you agree Pogue that there are limited studies on aspartame?

There are less studies concluding its safe that were not funded by the manufacturer. That does not invalidate them by any means.

Originally posted by WORKEROUTER
The two points you mentioned shouldnt really be overlooked...as you said, the CSPI wants outside studies done...so maybe they should get these studies done before concluding that aspartame is "essentially safe" (btw, wtf is that suppose to mean?)

As pointed out previously by me, is that aspartame is safe when used in the ADI range. It is not toxic, it is not neurotoxic.

I recommend you go through and read through the studies, read through the links I provided. Read up on the unbiased information and draw your own conclusions. There are lots of studies involving aspartame available.

[Stravinsk]

Hello all ...

I don't normally post to this board, nor plan to, but since I cruised in and found a huge sticky defending artificial sweetners, I though I'd put my opinion in. I think two medical conditions give a bit of weight to it.

You'd have a hard time convincing me that two amino acids that are found in everyones diet are dangerous when combined, which is a major fault in the logic of their arguement. Yet, the myths still persist.

If this was all there was to it, then most if not all our food, should taste sweet.

I beleive isolates of some substances can be dangerous. You recognize that refined sugar (HFCS and sucrose) are detremental to health. I agree. MSG, also, we agree on...

But what is MSG and refined sugar? Isolates. MSG is nothing more than the salt of an amino acid - glutamate. If it is hard to beleive that Aspartame is dangerous on the grounds that it is simply a mixture of amino acid isolates, then why avoid MSG? It is simply one isolate found in many whole foods.

So, too, is refined sugar. It's not healthy, we agree. And like MSG, and (I beleive) Aspartame, it was probably not intended to be isolated from food for human ingestion. This could be said for alot of things, but at least we agree on two known to be dangerous.

This does in many ways parrallel pharmaceutical drugs opposed to natural herbs. While it is true that some herbs can pose health risks, the track record is far greater than so many manufactured, legal, drugs - that so often have negative, and even dangerous, side effects (do a PubMed search on that!). This is of course to be taken in consideration of whole herbs, not extracts, not GMO'd, and not grown in such a way as to increase a particular quality.

Kava, for instance, is perfectly safe in it's whole form - but many extracts leave out the natural glutathione, naturally found in the kava plant, that leaves it open to being toxic to the liver.

Around 75% of pharmaceuticals, btw, are synthesised from the plant world. The remaining percent come directly from the plant world.

I think it is safe to assume that the owners of Aspartame are sitting on a multi-billion dollar gold mine and that they would do just about anything to protect their $$ interests as well as cover their butts insofar as liability is concerned. Whether or not this is the case isn't proven of course, but I don't imagine that Monsanto would have any problem hiring as many Scientists, researchers, MD's and whomever else to protect this product. Whether that's the case remains to be seen though.

On a personal note...

How often do you think that it happens that a person is diagnosed with BOTH MS Lesions AND a BRAIN TUMOR? According to one neurologist I have spoken with - it's very rare.


Yet this exactly what my wife was diagnosed with at the tender age of 31

By now you don't need to ask me if she used Aspartame. She did, for a long time, in relatively large amounts. Now, we don't blame Aspartame exclusively, but we DO count it as a factor.

Some relavent articles have already been posted here by other users. So I'll leave just one.

Before you dismiss it as having already read it - read it in it's entirety. I say this because some of the "pro-Aspartame" defenders quote from it, but not all of it.

After reading all of it - I ask you this:

Do you think it is safe to injest any of these substances in their free form APART from food that they may be found in very small amounts, along with natural protective factors found in said food...

1) wood alcohol ?
2) formaldahyde?
3) diketopiperazine?

One of many:

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/markle.shtml

I'll wager that eating a beet doesn't bother you, but you'd stay away from the extract, sugar. This is my view of the mixture of two amino acids in the form of Aspartame. They aren't found isolated in nature.

[pogue]

Originally posted by Stravinsk
But what is MSG and refined sugar? Isolates. MSG is nothing more than the salt of an amino acid - glutamate. If it is hard to beleive that Aspartame is dangerous on the grounds that it is simply a mixture of amino acid isolates, then why avoid MSG? It is simply one isolate found in many whole foods.

So, too, is refined sugar. It's not healthy, we agree. And like MSG, and (I beleive) Aspartame, it was probably not intended to be isolated from food for human ingestion. This could be said for alot of things, but at least we agree on two known to be dangerous.

I assume you are referring to the purported dangers involving MSG?

Many people believe they are allergic or sensitive to MSG, and it has been blamed for causing a wide variety of physical symptoms such as migraines, nausea, digestive upsets, drowsiness, heart palpitations, asthma and a myriad of other complaints all the way up to anaphylactic shock. A considerable amount of research and testing into MSG allergies has been performed over the past few decades, and the vast majority of controlled studies show no link at all between glutamate in food and any allergic reaction. Critics of the testing believe that the tests were unfairly biased towards finding no result. In particular, they consider flawed a 1993 study in which aspartame was used in the placebo, because aspartame itself has been accused of causing many of the same symptoms as MSG sensitivity in susceptible people, and also because volunteers with asthma, allergies, migraines or other symptoms of potential susceptibility were automatically excluded from the test group. Some researchers have suggested that specific individuals might be hypersensitive to MSG while others are entirely unaffected by it, but no conclusive results have emerged along those lines.

Alternatively, some (especially those in alternative medicine) consider MSG to be a potent neurotoxin which is yielding mass neurological retardation in affected populations.

The United States Food and Drug Administration lists monosodium glutamate as "generally recognized as safe", along with salt, vinegar, baking powder, and sodium tripolyphosphate. In East Asia, it is sometimes included in nutritional supplements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate

Again, here we have another supposedly toxic amino acid derived susbtance without substiancial proof that it is toxic. The problem with either of these substances, and amino acid isolates in general, is that you do not want to take too much of them. Not that they are potentially dangerous on their own or taken in normal amounts, but when you start to take too much of a single amino acid, various reactions can happen.

Originally posted by Stravinsk
This does in many ways parrallel pharmaceutical drugs opposed to natural herbs. While it is true that some herbs can pose health risks, the track record is far greater than so many manufactured, legal, drugs - that so often have negative, and even dangerous, side effects (do a PubMed search on that!). This is of course to be taken in consideration of whole herbs, not extracts, not GMO'd, and not grown in such a way as to increase a particular quality.

I assume you are saying that herbs are generally safer than pharmacuticals? I would have to disagree here, but that's another discussion.

Originally posted by Stravinsk
Kava, for instance, is perfectly safe in it's whole form - but many extracts leave out the natural glutathione, naturally found in the kava plant, that leaves it open to being toxic to the liver.

I'm not familar with that.

Originally posted by Stravinsk
Around 75% of pharmaceuticals, btw, are synthesised from the plant world. The remaining percent come directly from the plant world.

I'm not sure of the statisticals, but it is true that quite a few drugs are derived from plant sources.

Originally posted by Stravinsk
I think it is safe to assume that the owners of Aspartame are sitting on a multi-billion dollar gold mine and that they would do just about anything to protect their $$ interests as well as cover their butts insofar as liability is concerned. Whether or not this is the case isn't proven of course, but I don't imagine that Monsanto would have any problem hiring as many Scientists, researchers, MD's and whomever else to protect this product. Whether that's the case remains to be seen though.

I am not familar with the income of the manufacturers of aspartame. I do know that there are numerous people that have the rights to manufacturer aspartame. I do not know who the patent holder officially is or how all that works out.

I'm sure there are many companies that have give a lot of money to the government to ensure that they look the other way for whatever reason or another. But as you said, that is something that we really have no idea about. We can only go by the presented scientific data.

Originally posted by Stravinsk
On a personal note...

How often do you think that it happens that a person is diagnosed with BOTH MS Lesions AND a BRAIN TUMOR? According to one neurologist I have spoken with - it's very rare.

I would not have any idea.

Originally posted by Stravinsk
Yet this exactly what my wife was diagnosed with at the tender age of 31

By now you don't need to ask me if she used Aspartame. She did, for a long time, in relatively large amounts. Now, we don't blame Aspartame exclusively, but we DO count it as a factor.

I'm sorry for your wifes condition. Aspartame was released publically the same year that I was born (1981) and I have been exposed to it in various forms my entire life. I do not suffer from any disabilitating medical conditions.

Originally posted by Stravinsk
Before you dismiss it as having already read it - read it in it's entirety. I say this because some of the "pro-Aspartame" defenders quote from it, but not all of it.

I have been hearing the stories on the dangers of aspartame since I was a small child. My mother was the first to tell me about them. She listened to all the anecdotal reports of individuals who had brain disease, cancer, and etc that were blamed on aspartame.

Originally posted by Stravinsk
Do you think it is safe to injest any of these substances in their free form APART from food that they may be found in very small amounts, along with natural protective factors found in said food...

1) wood alcohol ?
2) formaldahyde?
3) diketopiperazine?

Oh my, those all sound like dangerous chemicals.

The methyl group from aspartame is metabolized to methanol (an alcohol), then oxidized into formaldehyde, which is further oxidized into carbon dioxide. This fearful metabolic process is as common in our biology as talk shows in America. Ounce for ounce, tomato juice yields six times the methanol formation of a can of diet soda[5].

5. Butchko HH. Safety of aspartame. Lancet Apr 12;349(9058):1105, 1997.

Originally posted by Stravinsk
I'll wager that eating a beet doesn't bother you, but you'd stay away from the extract, sugar. This is my view of the mixture of two amino acids in the form of Aspartame. They aren't found isolated in nature.

I can't recall the last time I ate a beet. I do see what you are saying though. Aspartame is not found in nature. But neither is bleached sucrose or high fructose corn syrup.

I think it has a lot more to do with the amounts taken rather than the source.

[Stravinsk]

Just thought I would add this:


http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html


Here you will find references to plenty of *independant research*done by the likes of (list up to 1998):


-Washington
University

M.I.T.

Arizona State University

- Mt. Sinai
Medical Center

- University
of
Kentucky

-UCLA School
of Medicine

-National
Institute of
Neurological,
Communicative
Diseases and
Stroke

-Utah State
University

-Center for Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable Trust

-Johns Hopkins
University

-U.S. Air
Force

-National
Cancer Center
Research
Institute Â_ Japan


Among others..

[Brosef]

Originally posted by Stravinsk
Just thought I would add this:


http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

The author of the website says he blames cancer "on cow's milk and dairy, for which I HAVE proven beyond a doubt makes cancers grow and spread more rapidly." Billions upon billions of humans consume milk regularly with no problems at all, so I cannot see the truth in that.

He also states:
"Thanks to gunfire off of Viet Nam and additional problems caused by aspartame (www.dorway.com) I have a nasty (maddening) case of tinnitus(ringing in the ears). This often affects one's balance and on the 18th of October I fell and shattered my right wrist. Two weeks later I began urinating cranberry colored urine and tests showed I had 1cm stones in my kidneys. They blasted the stones on the 12th of November and 31st of December. That should have taken care of the problem... but two weeks later, on a Saturday, I began urinating blood as well as blood clots."

What are the problems caused by aspartame and what is the chance of the ringing in his ears (leading to he breaking of his wrist) to be caused primarily by the gunfire and other factors and chemicals present in Vietnam? The only established factors to cause prostate cancer are age, race, nationality, physical inactivity, family history, and diet (lots of red meats and lack of fruits and vegetables). Yet many still tend to claim that dairy and aspartame was the only cause.

He goes on stating: "My rich uncle (not a
blood relation) had prostate cancer a few years before me."

Prostate cancer is highly hereditary and is blamed on excess of fats and lack of vegetables in one's diet. Has anything been found to cause cancer in aspartame or dairy? I did not find any info on whether the author had stayed away from sunlight, smoke, over proccessed foods, etc. All of these can be considered to be risks for cancer.

"...But when unaccompanied by other amino acids we use [there are 20], they are neurotoxic.
That is why a warning for Phenylketonurics is found on EQUAL and other aspartame products. Phenylketenurics are 2% of the population with extreme sensitivity to this chemical unless it's present in food. It gets you too, causing brain disorders and birth defects! Finally, the phenyalanine breaks down into DKP, a brain tumor agent."

I thought aspartame was considered to be non neurotoxic?

[Stravinsk]

Originally posted by Evgeniy
The author of the website says he blames cancer "on cow's milk and dairy, for which I HAVE proven beyond a doubt makes cancers grow and spread more rapidly." Billions upon billions of humans consume milk regularly with no problems at all, so I cannot see the truth in that.

I don't if know if dairy products grow and spread cancer - but I personally don't see that they are good for human health. Billions upon billions don't consume milk products (mostly it is western nations) - in fact some cultures don't consume them at all. What is interesting is that western nations, those with the highest rates of osteoporosis, are also the biggest consumers of milk products.

Besides the fact that in nature humans are the ONLY species to consume milk past infancy (and the only species to consume the milk of another species), cow's milk frequently contains:

-Antibiotics - great way to kill beneficial flora over time
-Growth hormones to get more milk from the cow (the igf is the same hormone in humans and is passed on when one drinks cow milk)
- steroids

"Published research shows that rBGH injected into dairy cows substantially increases the concentration of IGF-1 in cow's milk. In an article in Science magazine in 1990, FDA scientists admitted that rBGH-tainted milk has higher levels of IGF-1. Other scientists have confirmed this conclusion. A recent report by another manufacturer of rBGH, Eli Lilly &Co., reveals a ten-fold increase in IGF-1 levels. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that IGF-1 in rBGH milk affects the human body differently than non-hormonal milk."

Have a look: http://www.consciouschoice.com/health/bghigf10806.html




...Even if these influences were not present, cow milk is mucus forming and acid forming, its the best thing to drink if you want to clog your pipes - as it contains large amounts of caisen - used as one of the strongest wood glues on the market.

You can read mountains of info on the deterimental effects of cow's milk by doing a search, although here are a few examples from my own circle of influence:

- My wife watched her allergies greatly diminish and her hay fever (suffered for over 15 years) disappear when she gave up dariy products

-A friend of mine, who suffered a great deal of mucus build up that was accumulating in his throat and blocking his nasal passageway, found relief only when he gave up drinking milk.


He also states:
"Thanks to gunfire off of Viet Nam and additional problems caused by aspartame (www.dorway.com) I have a nasty (maddening) case of tinnitus(ringing in the ears). This often affects one's balance and on the 18th of October I fell and shattered my right wrist. Two weeks later I began urinating cranberry colored urine and tests showed I had 1cm stones in my kidneys. They blasted the stones on the 12th of November and 31st of December. That should have taken care of the problem... but two weeks later, on a Saturday, I began urinating blood as well as blood clots."

What are the problems caused by aspartame and what is the chance of the ringing in his ears (leading to he breaking of his wrist) to be caused primarily by the gunfire and other factors and chemicals present in Vietnam? The only established factors to cause prostate cancer are age, race, nationality, physical inactivity, family history, and diet (lots of red meats and lack of fruits and vegetables). Yet many still tend to claim that dairy and aspartame was the only cause.

I agree that his ringing ears probably had a lot to do with his time in war. Cancer was around before aspartame, and I agree that it's exaggerated to lay it at the feet of that alone - of course there are other factors to take into account. Lots of meat means lots of uric acid (poisonous btw) for the body to get rid of, low fibre/ high meat,dairy diets means gradual build up of fecal matter in the intestines due to mucus - home to disharmonous microforms that thrive in warm, dark, moist environments that feed off your food and poison you with their waste products.

Of course, aspartame only adds to the toxic environment - although it is unique in a few ways in that allow it to penetrate the blood brain barrier and cause direct poisoning. I beleive this poisoning can go on for years with no ill effects, just as a smoker can smoke for years without developing cancer. But eventually, if use is high enough and long enough and along with other factors (diet, stress, etc) it can help to set off a chain of nasty events.

He goes on stating: "My rich uncle (not a
blood relation) had prostate cancer a few years before me."

Prostate cancer is highly hereditary and is blamed on excess of fats and lack of vegetables in one's diet. Has anything been found to cause cancer in aspartame or dairy? I did not find any info on whether the author had stayed away from sunlight, smoke, over proccessed foods, etc. All of these can be considered to be risks for cancer.

I agree. Aspartame isn't the only evil out there. Far from it.



"...But when unaccompanied by other amino acids we use [there are 20], they are neurotoxic.
That is why a warning for Phenylketonurics is found on EQUAL and other aspartame products. Phenylketenurics are 2% of the population with extreme sensitivity to this chemical unless it's present in food. It gets you too, causing brain disorders and birth defects! Finally, the phenyalanine breaks down into DKP, a brain tumor agent."

I thought aspartame was considered to be non neurotoxic?

I'm not sure I understand where your headed here - the author of the site contends that Aspartame is neurotoxic.

As I said in a previous post - I think that this one product is not the only factor in health complaints, but it is a factor - just as high meat/low fibre diets are a factor, just as highly refined food diets are a factor, just as high refined sugar diets are a factor, just as stress is a factor, along with poisoning via amalgams, food additives etc etc are a factor.

[pogue]

Originally posted by Stravinsk
Of course, aspartame only adds to the toxic environment - although it is unique in a few ways in that allow it to penetrate the blood brain barrier and cause direct poisoning.

Proof?

[bkman4]

Originally posted by alan aragon
both relatively harmless, especially in the amounts typically ingested.. i've never tried stevia personally, but i've heard certain amounts of it can have a slightly bitter edge. i personally avoid artificial sweeteners despite their safety profiles, but that's just me.

It does get a little bitter.

[Bignbuff]

This is a little off-topic, but I felt that I should still post it in here.

The past two months I've been taking a nasal spray called XClear, the main ingredient in it is Xylitol, a common sweetner found in many chewing gums. I'm not sure totally how it works, all I know is that I used to get loads of sinus infections and haven't got one since I've started using it. Many others supposedly have seen good results as well. If you have sinus problems, ask your doctor about this product.

For more info on Xclear, you can visit this link.

For more info, on the sweetner Xylitol, visit here.

[1-Testosterone]

I'm a firm believer in - DO NOT MESS WITH MOTHER NATURE.
Inspite of insulin spikes and cravings, go with sugar in moderate doses. Last but not least, never ever avoid workout/cardio.
On off days, keep your body moving. Do some gardening, cleaning jobs etc.. On workout days, simply go all out.
No study confirms ABSOLUTE safety with artificial sugars.
These should be alternatives for diabetics and not the normal average people.

[alan aragon]

Originally posted by 1-Testosterone
I'm a firm believer in - DO NOT MESS WITH MOTHER NATURE.
Inspite of insulin spikes and cravings, go with sugar in moderate doses. Last but not least, never ever avoid workout/cardio.
On off days, keep your body moving. Do some gardening, cleaning jobs etc.. On workout days, simply go all out.
No study confirms ABSOLUTE safety with artificial sugars.
These should be alternatives for diabetics and not the normal average people.

don't worry, i'm sure pogue is a closet sugar fiend who can down a fifth of maple syrup without getting a hangover

[DeadlyDan]

What might be even worse than colour is no colour at all, the clarifying agents used in drinks like sprite are very bad to consume.

[HitManSE]

edited: Nevermind, im blind

[Krackerotto]

Originally posted by pogue




That would mean that 150lb human would need to consume 612g of sucralose a day to have adverse effects.

Alright, so let me get this straight.....so in order for me to get any negative effects, I'd have to consume around 600 packets of splenda?

[taffer]

Originally posted by Krackerotto
Alright, so let me get this straight.....so in order for me to get any negative effects, I'd have to consume around 600 packets of splenda?

per day
and i think the "negative effects" would be better than consumng 600-800g of table sugar a day

i dont think anyone has a problem with sucralose anyway, its made from sugar, so its pretty damn safe

[Krackerotto]

WOW


4 packets per day used to worry me

[spiderwoman]

Aspartame gives me headaches, which make me crabby [just ask my husband] and sorbitol gives me the runs, and splenda just makes me depressed...

It was my dear husband that noticed these changes. I was not convinced until I agreed to get off of that stuff. Now, I've had some since and noticed that these changes occur in me when I take these sweeteners.

I have been a splenda/diet coke/equal gal for as long as I can remember. Now I just don't eat any of that stuff. Maple sugar, honey and sugars are just fine, for what limited use is really needed of them.

Everyone is different.

Cheers

[ovidiu]

does any1 know how much aspartame there is in Anabolic Whey and/or WPC from Scitec? it's not on the label....

[Josh37]

I know a little bit won't hurt, but does Aspartame have any affect on fat loss?

[Kaner]

Looks like this thread has been forgotten a bit, but I'll try anyway - Do sweeteners (any or all of them) cause food/sugar cravings?