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?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Silock

Jesus Christ. Do you know ANYTHING about pubmed? Clearly not. These aren't government studies. They're just listed by the government on that site. It has at least abstracts from most peer reviewed journals.

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.

[BucEyedPea]

Food additives on the rise as FDA scrutiny wanes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...fd1_story.html

[jegarst]

Originally Posted by Silock

PR move. Just companies jumping on the bandwagon like they did when Atkins was big and when gluten-free became a fad.

Completely agree with this analysis.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Govt site? But of course. "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."

Can't be that the makers have their cronies on nich could there?

You poor goofball. One of these days you should really learn how these things work...

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

You poor goofball. One of these days you should really learn how these things work...

Your use of ad hom is a logical fallacy. You can appeal to authority all you want too. It is afterall another logical fallacy.

I don't trust the govt to keep us well or happy. Period. More so than ever. They are incompetent and screw up more than they help.
That is my right— you health nazi.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Your use of ad hom is a logical fallacy. You can appeal to authority all you want too. It is afterall another logical fallacy.

I don't trust the govt to keep us well or happy. Period. More so than ever. They are incompetent and screw up more than they help.
That is my right— you health nazi.

There's a difference between appealing to authority and appealing to evidence.

The NCBI is not the government, and your inability to distinguish between the two is perfectly apparent.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

There's a difference between appealing to authority and appealing to evidence.

That's not what you did.

The NCBI is not the government, and your inability to distinguish between the two is perfectly apparent.[/QUOTE]

I already saw it. I responded to it when I said the govt relies on it. That's enough for me. And it has the word "national" in it. Since I don't generally trust govt, as they are more incompetent than competent. I've already read the politics surrounding the approval of aspartame and it's ugly. Typical of govt institutions. Why can't you even read.

I've already said there's other competent and qualified nutritionists and health professionals that have contradictory evidence. FDA gets the most complaints about aspartame too. Contradictory evidence = stay away for me. Why can't you even read.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's not what you did.

The NCBI is not the government, and your inability to distinguish between the two is perfectly apparent.

I already saw it. I responded to it when I said the govt relies on it. That's enough for me. And it has the word "national" in it. Since I don't generally trust govt, as they are more incompetent than competent. I've already read the politics surrounding the approval of aspartame and it's ugly. Typical of govt institutions. Why can't you even read.

I've already said there's other competent and qualified nutritionists and health professionals that have contradictory evidence. FDA gets the most complaints about aspartame too. Contradictory evidence = stay away for me. Why can't you even read.

Ohh, it had the word "National" in it, so that just sealed the deal? Why am I not surprised.....

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

Ohh, it had the word "National" in it, so that just sealed the deal? Why am I not surprised.....

Their address is listed as:
National Center for Biotechnology Information,
U.S. National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA

Also their connected to the National Institute of Health

I don't know if you're aware of it but there are many front groups masquerading as independent or private to crush dissent and promote propaganda on food additives and GMO's to dominate panels and discussions.

So no I won't trust it. Too bad for you.

And for you....
(just remove "All I want is you....to all I want is food."

[Silock]

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

[BucEyedPea]

Your own trusted source, says this on a web page, Fish:

Scientists are divided in their views on the issue of artificial sweetener safety. In scientific as well as in lay publications, supporting studies are often widely referenced while the opposing results are de-emphasized or dismissed.

Like I said, when there's contradictory facts, it's a flag to me...so I err on the side of safety. But it does admit it is "approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose." That right there doesn't help a person lose the sweet tooth, which they are better off taming imo.

Now notice this web addy for that page:

http://www.ncbi..nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ ( Don't know why that stupid smiley is coming up must be the letters equate to the code or something in there?)

They're all on the same campus too.

This is what I use and I agree with them here:

...stevia sweeteners are safe for use by individuals with diabetes. Recent studies, including human studies on intake, metabolism and toxicity, support the safety of stevia sweetener. Based on the published research, independent scientific experts in both the U.S. and globally have concluded that stevia sweeteners are safe for people of all ages ... Stevia has a very low acute toxicity, and no allergic reactions to it seem to exist.

[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.

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)

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by jegarst

Completely agree with this analysis.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

nice!

I bet today has been a busy day for you.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Their address is listed as:
National Center for Biotechnology Information,
U.S. National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA

Also their connected to the National Institute of Health

I don't know if you're aware of it but there are many front groups masquerading as independent or private to crush dissent and promote propaganda on food additives and GMO's to dominate panels and discussions.

So no I won't trust it. Too bad for you.

And for you....
(just remove "All I want is you....to all I want is food."

I'm just pointing out that your reasoning method includes things like "National" being in the name, and mistrust of other unrelated entities. Instead of evaluating the merits of the evidence available. And this is in addition to your penchant for believing any anecdotal story you hear first hand from your crazy neighbor/chiropractor/shaman.

[Fish]

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)

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...