I wouldn't either because it still tastes like **** due to being made from ****
simple really
Aspartame Is Not Evil!
- Thread starter Mr Jones
- Start date
I wouldn't either because it still tastes like **** due to being made from ****
simple really
Totally agree there will always be research backed by different companies with their motives. This was done as independently as possible with no direct pro/con companies.
Yes the pool is small, <100 people but it's a double blind, making it a lot more substantial than most pro/con backed research with narrow focus and conclusion, along with the countless number of non-peer reviewed, blogs about how bad Aspartame is with anecdotal facts.
And just to clarify, I do not work for or with Aspartame.
I am just interested in it due to my area of work and personal interest with myth and facts of raw materials.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Yay, in before Freefaller starts spouting nonsense 
Not having read it but surely the word to focus on here is "acute" meaning that the long term consumption of it may indeed be harmful
Bad science is a good book for all these dodgy surveys studies and statistics
.Yes, it is indeed only an acute issues with aspartame.
My example of M J. Fox may be a little misleading, but I was coming from dismissing a possible myth being talked about as gospel truth.
Thus my finishing post of eating things in moderation. (Which Mr Fox did not)
Long term consumption at high level of anything can lead to problems. Whether it is a supported link or not, we will need more independent test like this, over decades to conclude effectively the long term effect.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Do people not read at all.
This was a study with people who took aspartame and people who thought they were aspartame sensitive. They were trying to look for differences between those who thought they had no issues and those who thought they did, by and large.
It wasn't a study to decide if it was safe or not. Everyone in the study USED aspartame, they could all have physical issues compared to those who completely avoided it, the study wasn't remotely testing for it.
It was effectively testing a bunch of people who take aspartame where half the people are hypochondriacs who think they are allergic to everything.
There is zero proof in regards to aspartame and it's safety, the study presumed safety based off previous studies.
They were given a bar with or without aspartame a twice (I think), a week apart, then measured their response over an entire 4 hours afterwards. Both groups of people were likely eating aspartame as part of their routine diet as an on going situation outside of the study.
So the group of aspartame sensitive people, who they advertised for in media around the country, are most likely the type you get on forums who got a headache and decided they had a brain tumour because of something article they found on line. Basically it's another study that didn't really study anything particularly meaningful.
Peer reviewed doesn't mean much. As long as you follow sensible procedures then peer reviewed will basically established the tests themselves were valid... not that they recorded anything meaningful.
People are worried about long term health effects of things like aspartame, not realistically the short term effects. If they caused migraines or death for instance in the short term then they'd have found that out years ago. They carried out a study to find out something we already knew and picked some very odd subjects to test.
This was a study with people who took aspartame and people who thought they were aspartame sensitive. They were trying to look for differences between those who thought they had no issues and those who thought they did, by and large.
It wasn't a study to decide if it was safe or not. Everyone in the study USED aspartame, they could all have physical issues compared to those who completely avoided it, the study wasn't remotely testing for it.
It was effectively testing a bunch of people who take aspartame where half the people are hypochondriacs who think they are allergic to everything.
There is zero proof in regards to aspartame and it's safety, the study presumed safety based off previous studies.
They were given a bar with or without aspartame a twice (I think), a week apart, then measured their response over an entire 4 hours afterwards. Both groups of people were likely eating aspartame as part of their routine diet as an on going situation outside of the study.
So the group of aspartame sensitive people, who they advertised for in media around the country, are most likely the type you get on forums who got a headache and decided they had a brain tumour because of something article they found on line. Basically it's another study that didn't really study anything particularly meaningful.
Peer reviewed doesn't mean much. As long as you follow sensible procedures then peer reviewed will basically established the tests themselves were valid... not that they recorded anything meaningful.
People are worried about long term health effects of things like aspartame, not realistically the short term effects. If they caused migraines or death for instance in the short term then they'd have found that out years ago. They carried out a study to find out something we already knew and picked some very odd subjects to test.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,979
- Location
- Way up High.
I thought the issue was when tested on rats it caused an increased risk to various types of cancer. At varying dosages. Over the rats lifetimne.
This new study results (as posted) seem to sugest metabolic and psycho'cal test were done only.
I'm pretty sure these were not the issues that worried people.
This new study results (as posted) seem to sugest metabolic and psycho'cal test were done only.
I'm pretty sure these were not the issues that worried people.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I think the trouble some people have with it and other artifical sweetners is that they are made by chemical companies with bad reputations. Lots of money in artifical sweetners, i wouldnt trust a friend reviewed paper about it.
No one should be worried about that, ever single study has found it safe.
The study you are on about did cause cancer, but then they injected obscene amounts, so hardly relevant. You inject anything in silly quantities it's going to have an effect. No one is consuming kilos of the stuff a day.
There was a normal dose rat study that "showed" increased cancer. All though when owner reviewed it was ripped to shreds.
There's been several large studies that have looked at all current papers, and no link has been found.
You really are crazy if you think it's unsafe.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
There is this documentary about aspartame. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_zyzcrIlAs
Bunk, there have been several studies of aspartame and affects on insulin. All off them have come back negative.
Everything people say is bad is anecdotal. Study do not agree.
Even intolerance to it has been disproved time and time again in studies. I get a headache when I consume it, funny you dont when in a double blind trial.
Much like msg.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
ahh medical "science"
1950's: 'smoke, its good for you' and 'put this raduim in your water, the radiation will kill the germs and make it safe to drink'
and since then pretty much everything has at some stage been "proved" to give you cancer/lung problems/heart disease to being "proved" that they reduce all of the above.
hell there's even studies suggesting radiation in small doses prevents cancer. [based off animals in the area around chernobyl]
if you read too much into these things you'll probably live a normal life until you worry yourself to death. as much as science can prove things, when it comes to the topic of preventative health there's not much they could tell you that your grandparents couldn't have told you about eating good hearty meals, exercising and not having too much of anything.
1950's: 'smoke, its good for you' and 'put this raduim in your water, the radiation will kill the germs and make it safe to drink'
and since then pretty much everything has at some stage been "proved" to give you cancer/lung problems/heart disease to being "proved" that they reduce all of the above.
hell there's even studies suggesting radiation in small doses prevents cancer. [based off animals in the area around chernobyl]
if you read too much into these things you'll probably live a normal life until you worry yourself to death. as much as science can prove things, when it comes to the topic of preventative health there's not much they could tell you that your grandparents couldn't have told you about eating good hearty meals, exercising and not having too much of anything.
With the greatest of respect his article does not actually say what you suggest - the key terms here are "acute adverse" along with what has already been said. I can think of plenty of things that don't generally lead to "acute adverse" problems but I'd rather not have them. Not that I think the chemical is that bad - I am a firm believer that most things are ok in moderation.