Aspartame

[In58men]

Is this scientifically proven to be bad for you? I drink flavored water and my peers flip shit over aspartame. I have done my research and I can not find anything factual. There are sites stating its bad and sites stating that it's not.


Do you guys have any other sources or factual evidence stating its not healthy?

[Silock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Because there's lists of places that contradict their studies. They are not the sole authority on the matter. Now I am presuming since it was used that it uses studies that claim it's safe. Because I am not about to read every study. Let's face it though, our govt's FDA approved it and it nearly did not get approved until people were taken out and replaced. Fishy. ( pun intended)

There are studies on pubmed that contradict other studies they've listed. That's the nature of any kind of study, whether it's pharmaceutical, biological, sociological, or any other -ical.

You are simply speaking from a place of ignorance, but this can be remedied easily. All you have to do is search for studies you want to see on pubmed and you'll see that they exist. The bigger problem for your argument is that there is a preponderance of evidence and studies contrary to your position. You can accuse pubmed of selection bias, but you're doing the same thing by not even attempting to do research on the site and choosing your own biased sites instead.

Yes there are studies that show aspartame to be bad. But there are far more showing that it's not. You could do the same thing with aspirin, even though that's "natural." You can even find studies showing that stretching is bad for you. None of those studies mean anything definite, which is why reliability and repeatability is such a big deal.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Silock

What's not to trust? They are simply providing a list of studies done by private companies. They aren't conducting the studies.

Well, using this reasoning Common Core is a good program even though it was written by 14 people mostly from the testing industry and Bill Gates played a role in it's creation and thinks it rocks. The govt is using it so it follows who they relied on is not at all circumspect.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, using this reasoning Common Core is a good program even though it was written by 14 people mostly from the testing industry and Bill Gates played a role in it's creation and thinks it rocks. The govt is using it so it follows who they relied on is not at all circumspect.

What's it like in your ivory tower? Is the view tolerable, at least?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

It still means the govt supports it. So, I don't care.
Peer review is not a perfect system. There are still legit nutritionists that contradict their studies.
Aspartame has the most complaints to the FDA last I checked.

As a general rule, I tend to avoid govt recommendations or advice.

It's exactly the same with dihydrogen monoxide.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, using this reasoning Common Core is a good program even though it was written by 14 people mostly from the testing industry and Bill Gates played a role in it's creation and thinks it rocks. The govt is using it so it follows who they relied on is not at all circumspect.

That's not using reasoning at all. Saying that studies have shown it to be safe is not the same thing as saying everything the government uses is good/safe.

For crying out loud....

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Silock

There are studies on pubmed that contradict other studies they've listed. That's the nature of any kind of study, whether it's pharmaceutical, biological, sociological, or any other -ical.

So.

The page I read concluded it was safe though. That's what I am going by as far as this site is concerned. I doubt it’d change my opinion. See why below.

You are simply speaking from a place of ignorance,

How would you even know what I have studied or researched in the past?

Do you always make accusations assuming facts held in reality?
Meanwhile, you're implying your position is more scientific. Don't assume.
I studied before, in fact years ago starting with a certain doctor saying to avoid. I have read other studies even contradictory studies some put up by others when this was last discussed.

I have things to get done over re-reading re-researching and re-posting about it. That takes quite a bit of time to "re-research". This is a message board not school. In fact, I burned the food I am cooking after to answer you. Don’t tell me what I have to do. Don’t assume what I have done. Don't tell me how to spend my time.

I told you how I operate— too many experts disagreeing—best to stay away. That’s my operating basis on such things. You're the one claiming it as fact, when I am doing otherwise. So I suggest you stop telling me how I should take care of myself or what my opinion should be or evaluating me from a position of ignorance you yourself have, regarding what I have researched in the past.

If you haven’t done the same, then you are simply projecting here.

Have you read other studies from different sources besides the acceptable mainstream ones. And besides the one on this site? Have you read the politics as to how it got approved when Searle was going to be investigated for how they conducted their studies?

All you have to do is search for studies you want to see on pubmed and you'll see that they exist.

You’re not telling me something I don’t already know. Already seen the contrary views on the matter, as I said above.

Again, how about you study the other side? Without resorting to calling certain doctors as “quacks” even.

The bigger problem for your argument is that there is a preponderance of evidence and studies contrary to your position.

We disagree as do other experts. Just the fact that this gets the most complaints from the FDA is enough for me to avoid if I were to use one standard.

BTW I used to use it often. I didn't want to give it up...so felt it was safe. I didn't change my mind at the drop of a hat.

You can accuse pubmed of selection bias, but you're doing the same thing by not even attempting to do research on the site and choosing your own biased sites instead.

You make lots of assumptions for someone claiming to be more scientific. I didn’t say they were “biased” anywhere. That’s a strawman argument. I said if the govt uses them it’s suspect for me. I also, posted afterwards where I agreed with them.

Yes there are studies that show aspartame to be bad. But there are far more showing that it's not. You could do the same thing with aspirin, even though that's "natural." You can even find studies showing that stretching is bad for you. None of those studies mean anything definite, which is why reliability and repeatability is such a big deal.

Again you can’t even read what my position actually is. I said it’s best to avoid with contradictory facts. Quantity doesn’t matter for truth. If the whole world thinks the earth is flat then it's true using that reasoning. There are people who have weaker immune systems, different reactions to different substances and even allergies. Furthermore, as I posted before about clinical studies regarding food, is that other foods eaten when not in that environment can offset what other substances do.

One last time, where there is controversy I avoid the substance. I also go by my doctor who supports this view as she is into natural healing. Now I have my position and you have yours.

How about you now respond to others who don’t consider it safe?

EDITED: to fix spelling and some grammar

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Silock

What's it like in your ivory tower? Is the view tolerable, at least?

'Cept that would be you and your govt approved experts who must never be disagreed with. Afterall, you're the one claiming it's safe as FACT. My position is that I avoid if too many contradictory facts.

The fact that you're using an ad hom, tells me you're ceding the argument as you can't refute that.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

More to the point. Instead of actually perusing the scientific studies that have been independently done, you simply dismiss them. Because "Scary Government".......

Just for giggles, try and look at some of the actual studies first, compare the studies supporting and criticizing, and then make a decision after. See what happens...

You do know what ASSuming makes of you? An ass.

I've already done that. I also never said I made a decision just that where there are too many contradictory facts I think it's best to avoid. My doctor says it is a neuro-toxin though. Says the same about sucralose.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

That's not using reasoning at all. Saying that studies have shown it to be safe is not the same thing as saying everything the government uses is good/safe.

For crying out loud....

I never said "everything" the government uses. I worded that the way I did because you knew you, Fish, would strawman it into an absolute.

Aha! Caught you.

Now I have stated my position. It's not going to change. Isn't it time you focus on a few others who said they don't think it's good in their own words. Or is does it make you feel tougher, like a man to only focus on a woman's position?

[Silock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

How would you even know what I have studied or researched in the past?

Because you make statements like this:

The page I read concluded it was safe though. That's what I am going by as far as this site is concerned.

A site with literally hundreds of thousands of studies and you're basing your opinion on ONE PAGE. FFS.

Do you always make accusations assume facts held in reality?

This makes no sense. Rephrase.

Meanwhile, you're implying your position is more scientific. Don't assume.
I studied before, in fact years ago starting with a certain doctor saying to avoid. I have read other studies even contradictory studies some put up by others when this was last discussed.

I'm not saying my position is more scientific. I'm saying it's more informed and more in line with the research. I'm well aware that there are contradictory studies and take them into consideration at all times.

Don't tell me how to spend my time.

I'm not telling you how to spend your time. I'm saying you're ignorant. You can change that if you want. I'm simply combating your ignorance with facts.

So I suggest you stop telling me how I should take care of myself or what my opinion should be or evaluating me from a position of ignorance you yourself have, regarding what I have researched in the past.

I'll stop when you stop telling people to do things and spreading misinformation.

Have you read other studies from different sources besides the acceptable mainstream ones. And besides the one on this site? Have you read the politics as to how it got approved when Searle was going to be investigated for how they conducted their studies?

Yup.

Again, how about you study the other side? Without resorting to calling certain doctors as “quacks” even.

Never did.

Just the fact that this gets the most complaints from the FDA is enough for me to avoid if I were to use one standard.

Again, when it comes to scientific scrutiny, this is irrelevant.

I didn’t say they were “biased” anywhere.

I never said you did. I said you were accusing them of SELECTION BIAS, which is totally different and exactly what you're doing.

Quantity doesn’t matter for truth. If the whole world thinks the earth is flat then it's true using that reasoning.

The difference is this is an opinion and the other is actually testable and studied.

How about you now respond to others who don’t consider it safe?

I do. A lot. You just don't read it because you rarely venture out of the DC forum.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

'Cept that would be you and your govt approved experts who must never be disagreed with.

What part of "the government doesn't approve or disregard these studies" are you having trouble with? THESE ARE NOT GOVERNMENT STUDIES.

Afterall, you're the one claiming it's safe as FACT.

No, I said the preponderance of scientific studies says it's safe. That is my position until it is thoroughly disproven by science. It hasn't been.

The fact that you're using an ad hom, tells me you're ceding the argument as you can't refute that.

Pointing out that you are ill-informed isn't an ad hominem. It's simply a fact of your own admission. Ignorance is fixable. All you have to do is more reading. You can't fix stupid. I never said you were stupid.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Silock

Because you make statements like this:
A site with literally hundreds of thousands of studies and you're basing your opinion on ONE PAGE. FFS.

No I didn't say I based my position just on that, but material I read earlier. I am saying that site concludes it's safe. Otherwise it would not be used by the govt which approved it. In fact I changed my position from unsafe to avoid due to contradictory facts in an earlier thread.

You can't even read.

This makes no sense. Rephrase.

I did before you posted. Read the edit.

I'm not saying my position is more scientific. I'm saying it's more informed and more in line with the research. I'm well aware that there are contradictory studies and take them into consideration at all times.

In your opinion you're more informed. And I said you were inferring you were more scientific—not just your opinion.

I'm not telling you how to spend your time.

Oh yes you did.

I'm saying you're ignorant. You can change that if you want. I'm simply combating your ignorance with facts.

In other words, you're using ad hom again?

No the only facts are that experts disagree, studies contradict. The same site you're defending even admits that. You're the one claiming a fact. I am not. Please read with some comprehension.

I'll stop when you stop telling people to do things and spreading misinformation.

Oh, so that's it. You have to be right and no one can speak over your opinion adding theirs. So in others words, you're a health nazi too. You guys are all alike it seems.
The thread asked for views and advice. It is your opinion it is misinformation. It is the opinion of that site that aspartame is safe. It may be based on certain facts but it's still an opinion. You don't know the difference between the two.

I only said it was best avoid due to contradictory information by different health professionals and experts both highly qualified. That was my position on this matter. I didn't say anyone had to do it like your telling me to stop.

Never did.

I didn't say you did, I just said to do so without doing that. Some do that, like Fish.

Again, when it comes to scientific scrutiny, this is irrelevant.

Bullshit. If I want to use it, for my decisions then I will use just that. May I ask what part of "is enough for me to avoid" if I used just one standard?

BucEyedPea Just the fact that this gets the most complaints from the FDA is enough for me to avoid if I were to use one standard.

I never said you did. I said you were accusing them of SELECTION BIAS, which is totally different and exactly what you're doing.

I don't see it. I just said what their own conclusion was.

The difference is this is an opinion and the other is actually testable and studied.

No it is not an opinion. It is a fact that there is disagreement and contradictory facts, studies and information on it. Your side is not unassailable and absolute. That is only what I am contending. Keep using strawmen arguments though.

I do. A lot. You just don't read it because you rarely venture out of the DC forum.

I was referring to in this thread. I've barely had a moment to read what others you responded to as it's taken so much time to answer a single response of yours.

If you want to think aspartame is safe, then use it. If I want to avoid it due to expert disagreements, who I trust as a source, then I will do that and I will speak my mind about doing that and why.

[BucEyedPea]

I'm done with the argument as it's not going anywhere. Agree to disagree because I have other things to attend to now.

I also do not call for a ban on it. Consumer should make their own decision, buyer beware and all that.

[lewdog]

BucEyedPea still taking her nutrition advice from 1990's Ladies Home Journal.

[SeeingRed]

Originally Posted by Shaid

Here's my opinion on it. Aspertame was not approved by the FDA and I beleive the head of the FDA even said something along the lines of you may as well feed people poison. Then Reagan ran for office and had one major supporter - the manufacturer of aspartame. The day after he was in office he installed a new FDA head who immediately reopened the aspartame discussion. There was a 5 person panel to approve it. Once it was obvious it was going to be denied, he installed a 6th person. It was a tie vote and the head of the FDA was the tiebreaker. I'm sorry, but when you need to resort to political games to get your product approved, I'm gonna bet you aren't all that safe.

is this all true?