Artificial Sweetners

[MynameisnotDeja]

Deja,

Check outt hat link above I posted. It is a very in depth argument explaining much about artificial sweetners. My understanding is that much of the negative hype is because early tests of a either sacharine or aspartame (I cant remember) on lab rats in very high dosages showed it can cause cancer....To be fair, I have also seen studies that link aspartame to headaches in certain individuals.

However, and I am by no means an expert, I have not seen any well documented legitimate scientific study concluding any artificial sweetner is in any harful to your health. Especially in consideration to the well documented negative effects of excess sugar.

I believe it was sachrinne (sp?) that was linked to cancer in lab rats.

 

[dwfan]

Some more reading on Splenda.....

Mind you, I take everything from every source with a grain of salt. But in the end, I don't think that there has been enough research done on Sucralose as of yet to make a conclusion one way or the other.

http://www.downtoearth.org/articles/sucralose_danger.htm

http://www.laleva.cc/food/splenda.html

http://www.ndmnutrition.com/splenda

http://creativehealth.netfirms.com/splenda_questions.shtml

http://vitaminlady.com/articles/sucralose.asp (Copy of Dr. Mercola's report)

 

[markusgoneawry]

^^^The above articles have no referenced scientific studies backing their claims. Hardly a neutral position.

 

[star*]

Star, this is misinformation. Studies listed in a link in the "Artificial Sweetners" thread argue convincingly that artificial sweetners do not cause harm in regular dietary amounts.

No this is not misinformation. Artificial sweeteners are harmful. The thread you are talking about that 'argues convincingly' is all from your own arguments . If you choose to believe that they are fine then that's your choice. However i personally believe that anything artificial has a negative impact on the body. Period.

Also, just on artificial sweetener's. It is claimed that they do have an impact on blood sugar levels. They say that just the 'taste' of sugar or sweetness triggers off something in the brain and produces a psychological response, similar to that of a sugar hit.

EDIT: (this is something i read ages ago, i dont have the source at hand)

 

[markusgoneawry]

Star,

I didn't write what is on the page I linked to. In any case, every statement I have made either here or that is made there is backed up by (mostly) neutral scientific studies accepted today by modern science. That is what makes a "convincing argument" by any logical standard. That is to say FACTS that BACK UP your point of view.

I am sorry if you take something that has been "claimed" or that something you "read ages ago" as fact......frankly you have been misinformed.

I dont care what your beliefs are, you have a right to believe as you wish, and tell people about it too. What is upsetting is when people pass off their beliefs as FACTS.

Furthermore I am not an artificial sweetner sales guy or anything, show me some facts that I am wrong, I am willing to change my mind.

Until you can offer scientific fact that artificial sweetners are harmful, it is indeed scientific misinformation that you are spreading.

 

[markusgoneawry]

Also, just on artificial sweetener's. It is claimed that they do infact have an impact on blood sugar levels. They say that just the 'taste' of sugar or sweetness triggers off something in the brain and produces a psychological response, similar to that of a sugar hit.

(this is something i read ages ago, i dont have the source at hand)

Apparently, the American Diabetes Association disagrees with you:

http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/sweeteners.jsp

I quote:

Don't throw away your low-calorie sweeteners just because sugar is safer than you thought. Low-calorie sweeteners are "free foods." They make food taste sweet, and have no calories and do not raise blood glucose levels. They do not count as a carbohydrate, a fat, or any other exchange. They can be added to your meal plan instead of substituted.

Its also the American Diabetes Association's stance that

The low-calorie sweeteners in the United States all underwent extensive testing before they were approved. Results showed that low-calorie sweeteners are safe for everyone, including children and pregnant women. However, people with a rare condition called phenylketonuria (PKU) should limit their intake of aspartame, one type of low-calorie sweetener.

Now you are telling me that the American Diabetes Association, the nation's leading nonprofit health organization providing diabetes research, information and advocacy with a mission statement that reads:

"The mission of the Association is to prevent and cure diabetes and to improve the lives of all people affected by diabetes."

is in fact incorrect in their statements and misinforming the millions who rely on them?

Give me a break.

 

[ozbreaker]

I would love to see a proper independant study done on it.

According to one of the links i saw the FDA admitted 90 or so side effects from aspartame. I seriously have no idea who to believe but i have cutback on consuming this substance as i feel it's not needed and even if it is 'safe' its jsut another pollutant in my body

It's very frustrating as i don't trust the pharmaceutical companies at all.. however those sites are not reputable either.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

Exactly. Who do we believe?

 

[dwfan]

^Right. And who's to say that what the FDA says is safe today will still be deemed safe 10 years from now? Remember margarine? For how many years was that touted as a healthy alternative till all of a sudden it bacame worse for you than butter?

Best thing to do in my opinion is to follow your own conscious, and to err on the side of caution.

 

[star*]

I dont have much time to discuss this right now, but here is a good website on the dangers associated with aspartame consumption.

Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods. Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death as recently disclosed in a February 1994 Department of Health and Human Services report.(1) A few of the 90 different documented symptoms listed in the report as being caused by aspartame include:
Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.
According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame2)
Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson's disease, alzheimer's, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/aspartame.html

This is to add from that comment i made in the other thread, this isn't the source i originally read and yes i realise it's not saying *exactly* what i said in the other thread. Untill i can find that study then it will remain non-factual evidence, that's cool, still an interesting thought though.

Most artificial sweeteners are increasingly considered to be unhealthy for the body. Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure. Aspartame, which is frequently found in diet sodas, accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious. In addition, Aspartame suppresses serotonin production, the chemical in the brain that contributes to your feeling satisfied after a meal. The end result from ingesting Aspartame, just as it was from people eating fructose, is that people are less satisfied with their food and tend to eat more. Diet sodas may actually be increasing your total intake of calories.

Finally, artificial sweeteners in general, just like real sugar, give you an intense experience of tasting something sweet, which psychologically stimulates cravings to consume even more sweet tasting things.

http://www.ahcenter.com/manhattan-ny-hypnosis/articles/recover-Feb-Mar-2005/features/feature2.html

And from a cancer site,

The three major artificial sweeteners—cyclamate, saccharin, and aspartame—have been associated with health risks. In the 1970s, cyclamates and saccharin were linked to cancer, although the data were not strong enough to cause outright banning of these substances. Aspartame, made of the amino acids aspartic acid and a modified form of phenylalanine, has been associated with mood changes, insomnia, and seizures.

http://www.cancersource.com/LearnAboutCancer/core/print.cfm?DiseaseID=1&SubjectID=5&TypeID=2

 

[star*]

I am sorry if you take something that has been "claimed" or that something you "read ages ago" as fact......frankly you have been misinformed.

I dont care what your beliefs are, you have a right to believe as you wish, and tell people about it too. What is upsetting is when people pass off their beliefs as FACTS.

Ok, im sorry, where did i say that it was an actual scientific FACT?? The whole purpose in stating something is 'CLAIMED' is to point out that they have not yet actually backed it up with substantional evidence yet. Geez. Dont put words in my mouth. I was simply offering out the suggestion because i thought it was interesting. 8)

Until you can offer scientific fact that artificial sweetners are harmful, it is indeed scientific misinformation that you are spreading.

I posted FACTS in the other thread.

 

[the_anatomist]

I personally do not fear aspartame in any way. It is much better for the body than consuming grams of sugar. It is absurd to think about the amount of pure sugar people can put into their bodies on a regular basis. 25-50 grams of sugar in a 12 oz can of regular soft drink compared to mg's of aspartame per drink.

People's arguments to mean against aspartame are based off of hollistic neuroticism. People don't want to put chemicals into their bodies or artificial colors because "who know what they can do to you." Sure if you are allergic to phenalynine don't drink it, but give me a break.

People use aspartame to attempt to stay healthy. It has been a wonder substance for diabetics. Sugars raw and processed as a whole has no benefits in my book other than to make something taste good. As far as health benefits I can't think of one. (I'm talking about the intake of raw and processed sugar, not complex carbohydrates.)

 

[Strawberry_lovemuffin]

star and marcus: I split your off-topic conversation out of the Health Trivia thread and merged it here, where it belongs. Unfortunately a little quirk of the merging process means new posts are slotted in the order they were posted in relation to the existing posts, so your discussion may be spread out a little. Still it belongs here

 

[markusgoneawry]

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/aspartame.html


http://www.ahcenter.com/manhattan-ny-hypnosis/articles/recover-Feb-Mar-2005/features/feature2.html

Not to be a repetitive...but do you see your sources?

From the front page of NEXUS MAGAZINE:

"NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups. "

At the bottom of the page for the AHCENTER page (this was your author)

"Jeffrey Rose is a certified hypnotist and director of The Advanced Hypnosis Center, with offices in New York and Miami, where he helps individuals overcome addictions and harmful habits. This article is an excerpt from his forthcoming book on weight loss which will be out later this year. He can be reached at (212) 585-4430 or at [email protected] . More information about the Advanced Hypnosis Center and its services can be found at www.ahcenter.com ."

You cancer site link, while less extreme, does make a good point that people should be aware of what they put in their body, however they make no study reference backing their claim, which by in large is rather a general claim.

So lets see, a hypnotist, a magazine which also covers UFOs, and a reference from a cancer page (with no studies referenced). OR...university research or other research that is generally accepted by medical and scientific fields.

 

[markusgoneawry]

Star...

I will do you a favor...

Lancet. 1977 Sep 17;2(8038):578-81. Related Articles, Links


Artificial sweeteners and human bladder cancer.

Howe GR, Burch JD, Miller AB, Morrison B, Gordon P, Weldon L, Chambers LW, Fodor G, Winsor GM.

A positive association between the use of artificial sweetners, particularly saccharin, and risk of bladder cancer in males has been observed in a case-control study of 480 men and 152 women in three Provinces in Canada. The risk ratio for ever versus never used is 1-6 for males (P=0-009, one-tailed test), and a significant dose-response relationship was obtained for both duration and frequency of use. The population attributable risk for males is estimated at 7%, though for diabetics, who have a similar risk ratio for artificial sweetner use as non-diabetics, the attributable risk is 33%.

PMID: 71398 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The only thing is that the study was done in 1977, and is the only study i have seen of its sort.

 

[markusgoneawry]

BTW..

All the information I have been getting is from PUBMED:

PubMed, available via the NCBI Entrez retrieval system, was developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Library of Medicine (NLM), located at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Entrez is the text-based search and retrieval system used at NCBI for services including PubMed, Nucleotide and Protein Sequences, Protein Structures, Complete Genomes, Taxonomy, OMIM, and many others. PubMed was designed to provide access to citations from biomedical literature. LinkOut provides access to full-text articles at journal Web sites and other related Web resources. PubMed also provides access and links to the other Entrez molecular biology resources.

Publishers participating in PubMed electronically submit their citations to NCBI prior to or at the time of publication. If the publisher has a web site that offers full-text of its journals, PubMed provides links to that site as well as biological resources, consumer health information, research tools, and more. There may be a charge to access the text or information.

In addition, PubMed provides a Batch Citation Matcher, which allows users to match their citations to PubMed citations using bibliographic information such as journal, volume, issue, page number, and year.

 

[star*]

I know pub med, i also use medline and medweb. Problem is, there's simply not enough research.. You seem to have a problem with the 'alternative' contributions on this subject. You've dismissed work from various alternative medicine sites on numerous occasions. I understand that they may not have all the scientific backing that you like as with pubmed and other medical journals, however i dont think you should write them off completely.

Untill we get more funding then it's never going to be a level playing field.

It's like with anything, the medical profession would like you to believe that everything is good untill they can disprove it. What about listening to your body. That's all the fact i need. I dont need some scientific evidence to know that my body is not adapted to digest these artificial sweeteners. Truth is there is no certainty in knowing that they aren't causing us harm. I'm happy for you to keep consuming them. I would rather you didnt but hey, that's your choice and you are entitled to your opinion. But im not going to sit around and wait till pub med posts an article showing recent findings of carcinogenic contributions associated with aspartame use. Like someone else said, 'remember margarine?' I would rather go with prevention.

 

[markusgoneawry]

I know pub med, i also use medline and medweb. Problem is, there's simply not enough research.. You seem to have a problem with the 'alternative' contributions on this subject. You've dismissed work from various alternative medicine sites on numerous occasions. I understand that they may not have all the scientific backing that you like as with pubmed and other medical journals, however i dont think you should write them off completely.

Untill we get more funding then it's never going to be a level playing field.

It's like with anything, the medical profession would like you to believe that everything is good untill they can disprove it. What about listening to your body. That's all the fact i need. I dont need some scientific evidence to know that my body is not adapted to digest these artificial sweeteners. Truth is there is no certainty in knowing that they aren't causing us harm. I'm happy for you to keep consuming them. I would rather you didnt but hey, that's your choice and you are entitled to your opinion. But im not going to sit around and wait till pub med posts an article showing recent findings of carcinogenic contributions associated with aspartame use. Like someone else said, 'remember margarine?' I would rather go with prevention.

Fair enough! I am not trying to tell you or anyone what is right or wrong for them to do to their own body.

Just like diet plans (which are equally as frustrating to discuss) everyone has an opinion and everyone wants to share. For somoeone who doesn't have a clue about any of it pops online onto bluelight to find some good information regarding the topic. They should (and deserve) to know that statement A is this persons opinion beased on their experiences, statement B is generally accepted in this (or that) holistic medicine community, and satement C is what is generally accepted as "fact" supported by scientifically sound studies and empirical evidence.

I may have been a little harsh in saying you are spreading misinformation. What I should have said was the information you are spreading is considered "alternative" and not substantially supported by any neutral and mainstream scientific studies.

my sincerest apologies.

 

[EternalAutumn]

Thanks for all the responses! I'm still not sure what to believe so I guess I'll just try and eat less artificial sweetners for now.

My boyfriend just read this thread and was like wait, margerine's bad for you? I just thought that was sort of funny, but I guess I didn't really know either.

 

[markusgoneawry]

^^^Do your own research. There is plenty out there.