ATS Street View 08: The Aspartame Menace!

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I was surprised to see two new Pepsi products when shopping this evening" Pepsi Throwback" and "Mountain Dew Throwback".

They have sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. Sugar might not be that good for you but it is better than high fructose corn syrup or any of the other artificial stuff. I still didn't buy either.

That Mountain Dew Throwback is surprisingly yummy. I don't usually drink soda, but I tried it and it's awesome.

HFCS is quite evil, and I was glad to see "sugar" on the list and no HFCS.

You do realise that HFCS consists of glucose and fructose, right? Both of those are sugars.

There IS a difference between the way sugars - and even sucrose (cane and beet sugar) differ between sources.

Link: articles.sfgate.com...

Given that glucose is linked to type 2 diabetes, I think it's fair to say that our systems do NOT approach sugars identically, and given that fructose (without its supporting system of fruit matter) has been linked to obesity, liver "scarring," and other ailments that sucrose (one sugar available in nearly pure form naturally) does not, we may conclude that it matters greatly WHICH sugar we are speaking of. And if a label says "sugar," it means either cane or beet sugar. Sucrose.

edit on 2/17/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo

Of course. Glucose comes in many different forms. As a monomer unit, it has the alpha an beta anomer and has a polymer, it can be joined to another unit by any on of its hydroxyl groups. Cellulose is made out of glucose monomers.

Sucrose is actually a combination of glucose and fructose as well, which when metabolised breaks down into, well, glucose and fructose. Would you like to know what else glucose is implicated in? Production of ATP - i.e. cellular energy. We use glucose as a natural form on energy, so saying that it is bad for you is somewhat daft. Fructose is converted to fructose in our livers as well. It doesn't particularly matter if it's the alpha or beta anomer that we ingest, either. Although we use alpha-D-glucose, beta-D-glucose may be converted to the alpha version via a process called mutarotation. It's quite a simple process and happens all the time. Oh and guess what? Sucrose can also cause obesity and diabetes. I don't know why you find that so surprising.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
Of course. Glucose comes in many different forms. As a monomer unit, it has the alpha an beta anomer and has a polymer, it can be joined to another unit by any on of its hydroxyl groups. Cellulose is made out of glucose monomers.

Sucrose is actually a combination of glucose and fructose as well, which when metabolised breaks down into, well, glucose and fructose. Would you like to know what else glucose is implicated in? Production of ATP - i.e. cellular energy. We use glucose as a natural form on energy, so saying that it is bad for you is somewhat daft. Fructose is converted to fructose in our livers as well. It doesn't particularly matter if it's the alpha or beta anomer that we ingest, either. Although we use alpha-D-glucose, beta-D-glucose may be converted to the alpha version via a process called mutarotation. It's quite a simple process and happens all the time. Oh and guess what? Sucrose can also cause obesity and diabetes. I don't know why you find that so surprising.

I like that. Someone with some knowledge. I don't believe I showed any surprise. However, despite how and with what it is best to consume sugar, there are plenty of reports that link HFCS, specifically, with a number of health issues. Even compared to sugar (sucrose), the results show it is unhealthy.

Posted by Roystun
"Splenda, or sucralose, is made by beginning with a molecule of true and natural sugar. Three hydroxyl groups, or atoms that are composed of hydrogen and oxygen, are removed. These are then substituted with three atoms of chlorine.

Yep, it's the same chlorine found in the bottle of bleach that you use to sanitize the toilet. Surprised? from
hubpages.com..."

Thank you for that -- I went to the FAQ and here's how they justify the chlorine atoms:
Chlorine is a natural part of salt, which is found in many foods, like lettuce, tomatoes, mushrooms, melons, and peanut butter, and chlorine is added to most public water supplies. Chlorine is also a part of more complex molecules found in such things as lentils, peas, and potatoes. It is a part of daily life. In the case of sucralose, its addition converts sucrose to sucralose, which is essentially inert. The result is an exceptionally stable sweetener that tastes like sugar, but without sugar's calories. Sucralose isn’t broken down for energy, and is not recognized by the body as a carbohydrate.

Im not supplying this for arguments sake - I dont know enough to argue - Im just wondering what intelligent responses to this would be. Obviously chlorine in the body doesnt sound right , but at the same time it sounds like its already in our body?

The study that was mentioned in the vid was presented as a poster at a conference on strokes. It showed an elevated incidence of cardiovascular events amongst those who drank diet soda regularly over the 9 years of the study. Yet just a few days ago everyone on an aspartame thread on ATS was trying to implicated Aspartame as a carcinogen!

Firstly, the study was a poster, not a publication or talk at the conference.

Secondly, since when does the media start traipsing around medical conventions and reporting on posters. Something smells fishy. Who paid for this little number?

Thirdly, the study is flawed. The only conclusion you can draw from this is that people who choose to drink diet soda are more likely to have cardiovascular events. It does not imply that it is less safe to drink diet soda than ordinary soda or other drinks. Think about it for a moment, why would a person *choose* to drink diet soda instead of ordinary soda? Some of those reasons may in and of themselves be sufficient cause for an increase in the risk of cardiovascular events on average over the population. The study did correct for obesity and smoking and a few other known risks. However it did not correct for the many reasons people choose to drink diet soda in the first place.

Fourthly, even if there is an actual increased risk of having cardiovascular events from drinking diet soda, that doesn't imply it's aspartame causing it.

Finally, piles of people in that vid and on this forum say that aspartame causes cancer, yet that study did not show that.

To do the study properly it should be double blind. Aspartame should be given randomly to 50% of people in the study and an alternative to the rest. Neither the researchers nor the people taking the stuff should know who's getting what. Only if there's a difference at the end when the results are revealed can you conclude anything. And the drinks would have to be identical in every way.

With flawed studies like this you can prove **anything at all**. I don't know about this particular study, but companies with a financial interest do flawed studies **all the time**.

Let's see some discussion of large studies of aspartame that were done with strict controls, without shonky statistics, which passed peer review and which were not methodologically flawed or paid for by corporations with a vested financial interest in the result and which weren't propagated as internet hoaxes.

Don't believe everything you are fed by the corporations and main stream media. Deny ignorance!

Added in edit:

Another thing that bothers me here. The study corrected for obesity. So there are two possibilities:

1) The people drinking ordinary soda were more obese and had **even more** cardiovascular events before correction for obesity.

2) The people drinking ordinary soda were as thin as the people drinking diet soda. If that's the case, the people taking the diet soda were taking the same number of calories as the people drinking the ordinary soda. That means people drinking the diet soda were replacing the calories from some other source. Maybe unhealthy food!?

Either way this study is totally and utterly useless for determining the health effects of aspartame.

reply to post by lilygotsilly


In fact, chlorine is required for brain function - or rather, the brain is composed, in part, of chlorine.

HOWEVER... The foreign and unnatural molecule they created is not a supply of chlorine for our minds. Although they tell you how the molecule is NOT processed (not seen as a carbohydrate), no clue is given about what Our bodies might think of this weird configuration. We can make some guesses, though. I get serious stomach cramps - and so do many others. So it would seem many of us have bodies that object highly.

And if that is so, we might presume the body even of those that don't suffer is unhappy about it. They also don't mention if it is excreted or stored. One might presume it's secreted, but...just don't know.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
Of course. Glucose comes in many different forms. As a monomer unit, it has the alpha an beta anomer and has a polymer, it can be joined to another unit by any on of its hydroxyl groups. Cellulose is made out of glucose monomers.

Sucrose is actually a combination of glucose and fructose as well, which when metabolised breaks down into, well, glucose and fructose. Would you like to know what else glucose is implicated in? Production of ATP - i.e. cellular energy. We use glucose as a natural form on energy, so saying that it is bad for you is somewhat daft. Fructose is converted to fructose in our livers as well. It doesn't particularly matter if it's the alpha or beta anomer that we ingest, either. Although we use alpha-D-glucose, beta-D-glucose may be converted to the alpha version via a process called mutarotation. It's quite a simple process and happens all the time. Oh and guess what? Sucrose can also cause obesity and diabetes. I don't know why you find that so surprising.

I like that. Someone with some knowledge. I don't believe I showed any surprise. However, despite how and with what it is best to consume sugar, there are plenty of reports that link HFCS, specifically, with a number of health issues. Even compared to sugar (sucrose), the results show it is unhealthy.

My apologies. Most people who argue against HFCS fail to realise what it actually is and it's role in terms of metabolism. Like any sugar, you eat too much of it, bad things happen. I think the main problem with HFCS is the quantities that people consume it in. I know people who go through 2 + litres of cola a day and then wonder why their doctor's tell them they need to lose weight or they are running the risk of heart disease. As I said, sucrose is broken down in the liver into the same monomer units as are found in HFCS. The only difference is that it takes longer to get to that form, since they have to be enzymatically broken down. From what I understand, this would be what contributes to HFCS's greater associated health risks. It is simply because the glucose is fast absorbed into the blood stream in mass amounts. If your body doesn't need it, it stores is as glycogen. Fat stores build up as a result and then voila, you have obesity and the associated health risks to your heart.

Originally posted by XtraTL
The study that was mentioned in the vid was presented as a poster at a conference on strokes. It showed ...

Here are some reports on studies for you related to Aspartame:

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

www.rense.com...

dorway.com...

www.grist.org...

www.mercola.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.cancer.gov...

www.mpwhi.com...

www.rense.com...

Oh, geez. I could continue all night.

Found one more I think you should see: www.holisticmed.com...

Oh, and this one is great! www.opednews.com...

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

My apologies. Most people who argue against HFCS fail to realise what it actually is and it's role in terms of metabolism. Like any sugar, you eat too much of it, bad things happen. I think the main problem with HFCS is the quantities that people consume it in. I know people who go through 2 + litres of cola a day and then wonder why their doctor's tell them they need to lose weight or they are running the risk of heart disease. As I said, sucrose is broken down in the liver into the same monomer units as are found in HFCS. The only difference is that it takes longer to get to that form, since they have to be enzymatically broken down. From what I understand, this would be what contributes to HFCS's greater associated health risks. It is simply because the glucose is fast absorbed into the blood stream in mass amounts. If your body doesn't need it, it stores is as glycogen. Fat stores build up as a result and then voila, you have obesity and the associated health risks to your heart.

Here's some info about HFCS:

www.lef.org...

today.msnbc.msn.com...

Love this one from Princeton: www.princeton.edu...

www.womentowomen.com...

articles.mercola.com...

And like Aspartame, there is much much more.

Splenda is splendid. There's a million other things killing us even faster. Please send all unwanted splenda my way.

reply to post by TedHodgson


yeah I agree it should be banned...After all it does no good to our health.
I came to know about its ill effect from ATS only...And when I did my little research on this it was shocking..
must be banned...

Originally posted by Amaterasu
And they laughed at me.

What more can I say?

EDIT to add: I found a soda sweetened with stevia the other day. I was stunned.

Anyway, why AREN'T They using stevia? Mix it with some agave and it tastes just like sugar (and I have had some discerning pallets agree). Why isn't stevia - which doesn't seem that difficult to grow - being looked at and promoted more? It helps stabilize the blood sugar, even.

They want to poison us?

edit on 2/16/2011 by Amaterasu because: Now that the initial shock has worn off...

edit on 2/16/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo

In Europe this sweetener wasn't allowed to be used until 2010 because it was thought te be dangerous... go figure.

Originally posted by raknjak

Originally posted by Amaterasu
And they laughed at me.

What more can I say?

EDIT to add: I found a soda sweetened with stevia the other day. I was stunned.

Anyway, why AREN'T They using stevia? Mix it with some agave and it tastes just like sugar (and I have had some discerning pallets agree). Why isn't stevia - which doesn't seem that difficult to grow - being looked at and promoted more? It helps stabilize the blood sugar, even.

They want to poison us?

In Europe this sweetener wasn't allowed to be used until 2010 because it was thought te be dangerous... go figure.

Stevia? LOL! The worst thing they have found about it is that women who consume very large quantities have reduced fertility. But that's in very high quantities. Putting a couple of drops in the morning coffee would have no affect.

I'm a bit late to the thread, but I wanted to mention that you can't buy chewing gum anymore that doesn't have aspartame in it. Next time you're at the store or gas station, look at the gum. You won't be able to find any with sugar. The only brand of chewing gum I've found that still has sugar in it is the old fashioned kind you get at Cracker Barrel or in the odd store. I love chewing gum, but I refuse to chew aspartame sweetened gum.

I cannot have anything with splenda or aspartame. I drank diet drinks with splenda and aspartame in them for 3 months, and started to have feelings like I couldn't breathe. I thought I had something wrong with my heart and went to the dr. They found nothing at all to cause the breathing issues. Someone told me to stop drinking the diet soda and I kid you not, the next day I felt 80% better and by the 2nd day of being off these drinks I could expand my lungs and draw in a deep breath. I was very surprised these seemingly innocent drinks were pure poison.

Because I always see ZEALOUS lists of the EXTREME illnesses that are allegedly stemming from the use of aspartame I decided to keep my eye out for anyone with sense to finally say something about it or elude to any further-documented research on the artificial sweetener. And lo-and-behold, someone has. If I were in a position to do my own research in a lab I would have, believe me. Because as I've stated before all of the demonization of aspartame I've seen sounds more to me like people with illnesses looking for something to blame, and half-reading research concerning the nature of various items. Like how for a month or two a lot of people were returning their bottles of Vitamin E, because they read a sentence in an article that said Vitamin E WILL kill you, neverminding that they've already been taking it for YEARS with no viable health-concerns that can be linked to it.

So here's the scoop on Aspartame:

According to the August 2005 issue of Discover Magazine (mind-you, Discover makes no money from either the continued use or halted use of aspartame, thus they have no vested interest or motive to falsify information), research has confirmed that when Aspartame is digested, the methyl-ester bond does indeed break down into methanol (or wood alcohol), which then further degrades into formaldehyde. Both of these substances can be toxic in high doses.

HOWEVER...if you read the WHOLE article it tells you that you'd have to drink 600...let me spell that out for you. S-I-X H-U-N-D-R-E-D cans of diet soda to get as much of either substance as is contained in a single ORANGE.