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?

[jegarst]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

He's got a theory about Matt Cassel that holds promise, though.

Mr. John E. Garst, Ph.D., I have a question for you regarding your earlier Matt Cassel post. Can you provide any projections on Matt Cassel's quarterback rating and other key statistics if he ingested aspartame? And do you know if aspartame is a banned substance in the NFL? For some reason I'm thinking that's the drug that Brian Cushing and Darrell Russell suspended for, but I don't recall. And Russell eventually died.

I have no projections.
I do know that aspartame is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by all the relevant governmental regulatory agencies in the world and all US states. That would make any effort to ban this by the NFL, lawsuit worthy. For more on him, see (no www): beatsc.com/?page_id=3

"Darrell Russell (Accused of drugging his friend Oceania Vaillancourt with GHB [the date-rape drug], and videotaping her while she was .... Brian Cushing (Long-suspected Steroid freak who finally got busted after his Rookie year in the NFL." from Google

John E. Garst

[Bugeater]

John, what are your thoughts on the article in post #72?

[rambleonthruthefog]

a great shel silverstein song for your pleasure

I was waitin' in Rosie's Restaurant
When the waiter came up and said, "What do you want?"
I looked at the menu -- it looked so nice
Till he said, "Let me give you some advice"
He said, "Spaghetti and potatoes got too much starch,
Pork chops and sausage are bad for your heart.
There's hormones in chicken and beef and veal.
Bowl of ravioli is a dead man's meal.
Bread got preservatives, there's nitrites in ham,
Artificial coloring in jellies and jam.
Stay away from donuts. Run away from pie.
Pepperoni pizza is a sure way to die.
Sugar rots your teeth and make you put on weight.
But artificial sweetener's got cyclamates.
Eggs got cholesterol. There's fat in cheese.
Coffee ruins your kidneys, and so does tea.
Fish got mercury. Red meat is poison.
Salt's gonna send your blood pressure risin'.
Hot dogs and bologna got deadly red dyes.
Vegetables and fruits are sprayed with pesticides."

So I said, "What can I eat that's gonna make me last?"
He said, "A small drink of water in a sterilized glass."
And then he stopped and he thought for a minute,
And said, "Never mind the water -- there's carcinogenics in it."
So I got up from the table and walked out in the street
Realizing there was nothing I could eat.
I ain't eaten for a month, and I'm feeling fine...
'Cause he did not mention
Beer, whiskey, women and sweet red wine.

[jegarst]

I respond to as many of these false posts as is feasible. FYI, I am a retired professor from a major university; I have never made one penny writing these posts either, unlike all the critics who write books, etc. etc. I am committed not just to the truth about aspartame, but to share the serious problems arising consequent to folate deficiency, folate enzyme issues, and related vitamin and homocysteine issues. For a full criticism see today's post here (no www), healthsp.com/dangers-aspartame/. Grab it or copy it quick these posts are often removed or disallowed.

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

[TimeForWasp]

sounds legit to me. I never heard of aspartame until this thread was posted.

[jegarst]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

John, what are your thoughts on the article in post #72?

Let me begin with some history. I got into this whole issue, when this antiaspartame group traveled to my state and tried to get aspartame banned. I and my family had used aspartame for years, so as a toxicologist my first thought was to review its safety. I quickly realized aspartame was quite safe.

Their attempt to ban aspartame was to use a legal loophole that could allow our state environmental organization to take action against it. Their intent was to try to get it banned here, so they could take this issue to California. Well they tried and they couldn't even get it done in my state. They blamed the soft-drink lobby, but the adverse science just isn’t there. They have failed in each state they have tried this; Hawaii is the latest state, but they tried New Zealand later. Now they want to arouse public sentiment ahead of a September review by the European Union (EFSA). But nothing is new. I keep letting the people know the real truth. Remember relevant governments around the world have tested and retested this substance and none can find harm with it.

Aspartame is perhaps the safest substance known. All I am trying to do is explain to the public why these arguments are garbage. First, 92 side effects are just impossible for toxic substances; they rarely have more than a few; so something else is going on here--and a vitamin issue fits nicely.

Second, as to the Bowen and to the Rense website things. I'm sure he means well, but I'm also sure this is just a rant from another physician untrained in toxicology; like others it is without substance. Google 'James Bowen,aspartame', then look near the top (second post for me) at the quackbuster site. Open it and see the following "When reading anti-Aspartame propaganda, consider the source! Names like Betty Martini, James D. Bowen, Russell Blaylock, HJ Roberts, John Olney, and Ralph Walton are the ones to notice. If they are named favorably, beware!' Feel free to read more in that link; it is very illuminating.

The Rense website is in honor of the webmaster’s father, whom critics attributed his death to aspartame. This occurred before the 1998 folate fortification date, likely in the 1980’s-1990’s when folate deficiency was rampant. It would have been very easy to mistake cause and effect given this widespread folate deficiency, especially if he used alot of aspartame. People mistakenly blame aspartame for migraines, but migraines can be linked directly to issues with personal folate enzymes.

Third, I will say something about several points in the #72 post though. First is the cited Dr. Maria Alemany/Trocho Study (Google PubMed, go there, then type 9714421 in the search line). This work is the most complicated of all the aspartame critic studies. It suffers the same control error as the Soffritti study I mentioned, but here that it makes no difference--they were trying to push dose to near toxic concentrations to facilitate radiolabelled methanol binding isolation; then they could track the radiolabel down. I carefully studied this work. Unlike noted methanol expert Tephly's criticism (see 10503962), who just cited past work and arguments (see also the formate-folate issues in Tephly's 1991 review, 1997785), I carefully read this work. For a long time it just was just strange and not easily explained for me; their claim of tissue binding of methanol is serious. And they excluded the bound amino acid as being a normal amino acid, suggesting it was hitting a really abnormal target—that could make it a real issue. But with careful reading I eventually understood exactly what they had done and from that, then I actually discovered the likely amino acid target that they didn't or (I have to wonder) wouldn't identify. I hope to publish this, so I don’t wish to get specific here. But this it is important, because knowing that target amino acid actually proves the safety of aspartame under toxic-dosing conditions in rats.

Lastly, I need to comment on the Coumadin-aspartame thing; specifically this: 'The People’s Pharmacy did write, “Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet) is an artificial sweetener that may increase bleeding time, (Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Feb and May, 1998).' My thesis is that all side effects of aspartame are folate linked, so of course low folate (or related issues) should (if my theory is correct) increase bleeding time. And it does; PubMed 20206792 reports as their conclusion, “folic acid supplementation was associated with significantly increased formation [and] clearance of (S)-7-hydroxywarfarin.” Presumably then in people with folate deficiency, low folate or with folate enzyme issues, etc. that adversely impact folate function should decrease formation and clearance of this excreted metabolite and thus increase bleeding time of Coumadin exactly as reported.

Nothing unexpected here with Coumadin after all, but just another consistent piece to the same story! Again all adverse side effects ever claimed from aspartame are really due to personal issues revolving around their vitamins folate and B12 and related issues, not this sweetener.

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

[JD10367]

Here's the simple answer: if you think it's dangerous, don't eat it. I think it's dangerous. I don't eat it. Many people don't think it's dangerous. They eat it. If I'm wrong, I end up giving the Splenda, Sweet-n-Low, and other manufacturers a bit more money. Or I end up a little fatter from real sugar. If they're wrong, they all die horrible contorted fiery deaths, and I will be left to go into their homes and take all their stuff (while sipping a non-aspartame diet soda).

Is it dangerous? I don't know. Yes, it supposedly breaks down into components that can be found in formaldehyde and nerve gas. But apparently the procedure to make Splenda involves a step that includes chlorine. We're dealing with forces we still don't fully understand. (Hence all the issues of pharmaceuticals that are supposed to be wonder drugs, and six months later you see commercials that say, "Did you die taking Yufuktup^TM? If so, call the offices of Wee, Fukim, and Howe.")

If I understand the story correctly, saccharine was widely used in the earlier half of the 20th century. Then around mid-century, someone determined it was The Debbil. It was labeled a cancer-causing agent to the point that it had to have a pink "THIS WILL F***ING KILL YOU!!" warning on each Sweet-n-Low packet. It literally caused people to go develop other "safer" sweeteners like Nutrasweet. Then, not too long ago, a funny thing happened; they apparently figured out that, yes, saccharin does indeed cause cancer in lab rats... because it interacts with a certain protein found in rat pee. Saccharin to my knowledge has never caused one instance of human cancer. So they took the pink warning off the packets. Thus, Sweet-n-Low (previously labeled as dangerous) is now probably better for you than it's "safe" replacement, Nutrasweet (currently discussed as dangerous).

Sugar makes you fat. If you don't mind being fat, drink regular soda. Or, even better, just drink water.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Here's the simple answer: if you think it's dangerous, don't eat it. I think it's dangerous. I don't eat it. Many people don't think it's dangerous. They eat it. If I'm wrong, I end up giving the Splenda, Sweet-n-Low, and other manufacturers a bit more money. Or I end up a little fatter from real sugar. If they're wrong, they all die horrible contorted fiery deaths, and I will be left to go into their homes and take all their stuff (while sipping a non-aspartame diet soda).

Is it dangerous? I don't know. Yes, it supposedly breaks down into components that can be found in formaldehyde and nerve gas. But apparently the procedure to make Splenda involves a step that includes chlorine. We're dealing with forces we still don't fully understand. (Hence all the issues of pharmaceuticals that are supposed to be wonder drugs, and six months later you see commercials that say, "Did you die taking Yufuktup^TM? If so, call the offices of Wee, Fukim, and Howe.")

If I understand the story correctly, saccharine was widely used in the earlier half of the 20th century. Then around mid-century, someone determined it was The Debbil. It was labeled a cancer-causing agent to the point that it had to have a pink "THIS WILL F***ING KILL YOU!!" warning on each Sweet-n-Low packet. It literally caused people to go develop other "safer" sweeteners like Nutrasweet. Then, not too long ago, a funny thing happened; they apparently figured out that, yes, saccharin does indeed cause cancer in lab rats... because it interacts with a certain protein found in rat pee. Saccharin to my knowledge has never caused one instance of human cancer. So they took the pink warning off the packets. Thus, Sweet-n-Low (previously labeled as dangerous) is now probably better for you than it's "safe" replacement, Nutrasweet (currently discussed as dangerous).

Sugar makes you fat. If you don't mind being fat, drink regular soda. Or, even better, just drink water.

You are really dumb.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

You are really dumb.

Your well-thought out response and opinion is duly noted, and serves to indicate your own level of intelligence.

[Saulbadguy]

jegarst - thoughts?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102618133

Bowing to consumer demand to ditch aspartame, PepsiCo will debut Diet Pepsi free of the sweetener in the U.S. later this year, the company confirmed Friday.

"Diet cola drinkers in the U.S. told us they wanted aspartame-free Diet Pepsi and we're delivering," said Seth Kaufman, senior vice president of Pepsi and Flavors Portfolio, PepsiCo North America Beverages, in a release. "We recognize that consumer demand is evolving and we're confident that cola-lovers will enjoy the crisp, refreshing taste of this new product."

Instead of aspartame, Diet Pepsi, Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi and Wild Cherry Diet Pepsi will be sweetened with a blend of artificial sweeteners sucralose and acesulfame potassium in the U.S. The new drinks will hit shelves in August.

Diet Pepsi held 4.3 percent of the total carbonated soft drink market in 2014, though its volume shrank 5.2 percent from the year before as customers have pared their consumption of diet heavyweights like Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi and Diet Mountain Dew, trade publication Beverage Digest reported.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

jegarst - thoughts?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102618133

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

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum

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?

[Hammock Parties]

I don't miss diet soda at all. I've been getting my aspartame fix from crystal light.

[BucEyedPea]

Anything with so many contradictory facts, imo, is best avoided to be eaten.

Splenda is not any better. Eat as close as possible to nature for allowable food substances instead of fake food. No, I am not talking about eating peyote buttons or some such. Not everything natural should be ingested either. I talking about lab created substances for food. And you'll be safest.

I use stevia. But try not to eat too many things with sugar period as it's not great for you. It's also inflammatory tot the body. Substitutes do not wean you off the sweet-tooth. Eating right does.

[Silock]

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?

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.