2, Mice aren't humans, and routinely, things that happen in mice do not happen in humans. It is not at all indicative of anything and can really only be used as a hint better than nothing for looking into similar effects in humans.
You don't need to change your diet, and you certainly don't need to replace it with sugar.
*But drinking a glass of water from time to time won't kill you either.
Comment paid for Big Aspartame.
Deep Sugar take
I see the Nutrasweet Lobbyists Association is here too!
How much is Big Sugar paying you?
Not enough :(
Big aspertame made that account 6 months ago, posted 1300 unrelated comments, just for this one moment...
The long con!
Considering the patent was held by Monsanto, and all the decades of concerns have been raised by independent researchers but shut down by lobbying...
Well, I mean, who can you trust to not hide that they're making poison if not Monsanto?
Not to mention that the gene pool of these lab mice is super small. Source: my brother is a PhD biochemist and lectured me often on this shit when I said, "hey, look at this study!"
Such a small groups are fine for initial investigation, they have enough of a size to be acceptable statistically for most of the performed studies. I don't think they'd get approval from ethical committee overseeing animal experiments without initial study like this to conduct something on very high groups.
I am a relatively recent transplant from the red place, I can tell I ain't in Kansas anymore, actual good information being up voted so cool.
Aspartame is, because of all the claims against it, the single most studied food substance known, and it seems to somehow keep coming okay. There are a lot of studies with really bad methods that were a smear job attempt but science doing what it does they were labeled for what they are and disregarded. Is it possible to be allergic and a reaction to be anxiety sure, but that is not on the food.
Guarantee the study also states that you have to consume an ungodly amount of it too...
News reports grab on to stuff like this all the time. Like what they did with safrole.
The article actually states how much. 15% of the daily recommended amount.
There's a daily recommended amount for mice? Or was that 15% of the recommended amount for humans, which would be massive for mice?
It's the equivalent of the human daily dose. So adjusted for body weight. Loosely translated, it would be 15% of the daily recommended dose for mice.
15% of humans recommended amount. It's in the article.
Actually no, the keyword is equivalent, so adjusted for body weight.
Ah I think you're right.
So 15% for a 60 kilogram human, on the lower end, would be the daily recommended amount for a 9 kilogram creature. A mouse weighs around 0.025 kilograms. So, that amount for the mice is for something 360 times larger.
Obviously it's more complicated than that with differing metabolisms and the like, but as a rough estimate, wow. That's a lot.
I'm baffled by your willingness to elaborate at length about this, but not read the article where this is explained. Misinforming everyone in the process.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
I stand corrected! That's a ridiculously small amount!
Just in case you missed it, we discussed below that that's the 15% daily recommended amount for a human. That they gave to the mice. A creature several hundred times smaller.
So you were right in the first place.
No, it's the equivalent dose.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
Can you cite your sources? This excerpt from the published article suggests you're wrong:
The FDA recommended maximum DIV for aspartame for humans is 50 mg/kg (33). Based on allometric conversion utilizing pharmacokinetic and body surface area parameters (43), the mouse equivalent of the human DIV is 615 mg/kg/d. Therefore, the male mice received a daily aspartame dose equivalent to 14.0%, 7.0%, and 3.5% of the FDA recommended human DIV, and the females received a dose equivalent to 15.5%, 7.7%, and 3.9% of the human DIV.
Oh, good! I thought it was the rapidly declining state of the world.
The control was plain water. That seems like the sort of methodological flaw that would preclude a study from publication in a journal like PNAS.
It's so bizarre that you wouldn't have other sweeteners in other experimental groups and, especially, an experimental group that was actual sugar.
Can you elaborate why do you think that water is improper control?
They're providing a sweetener at all times. That alone would have some affect, so I'd think you'd want another sweetenere like sucrose, glucose, some other artificial sweetener, in addition to a water treatment. Alternatively, a dose response could be informative. They did have different doses of aspartame, but in both groups of mice (male and female), the dose response was opposite what you'd expect; the lower dose had a larger effect.
Sugar shills and don't touch my diet coke ppl in this thread doing
Spidermanpointing.jpg
Stevia crew represent.
Stevia is great, but I really love monk fruit. No licorice root like aftertaste. I have more of a problem with the carcinogenic preservative they always pair with aspartame personally.
The only good Natural Low calorie sweetner
J prefers that munkmunk sauce
Mice lie, monkeys exaggurate.
This is a study on a small number of mice using a measure of anxiety which does not directly map to humans. Using mice for a study like this is fine for a pilot study but this has not clinical significance and can be safely ignored by the scientific press as well as the public. When we see a long term study which is double blinded in humans with reasonable doses, good controls, and hopefully some sort of mechanism of action then we can pay attention. Until then, aspartame has been linked to everything under the sun and yet nothing has been shown to be meaningful yet. It is one of the most well studied substances in the human diet and it seems to be at the very least mostly fine. Worry about lead in your water before you worry about this.
When we see a long term study which is double blinded in humans
For several generations like the this one this would be 60 years minimum. Basically can't be done.
I see what you are saying but I disagree. The changes that we would consider important for aspartame should happen over a reasonable period of time. If it takes 100 years to have an impact then we probably don't care because most people won't live that long. What we care about is whether it has an impact over meaningful lengths of time in a human life, say over a decade or two.
If I have tobacco every day for a year will I have cancer? Unlikely. But if I give a large number of people who are well randomised tobacco or tobacco substitute I will see changes in their outcomes in a short time, even as little as a year.
So for aspartame, we already know it is not a massive signal. If it were then people who find the taste acrid would be better off than those who do not. But is there a possible issue there? Sure, it is possible, but it will very likely be a mild issue over a long time at a high dose, not at small doses over a short time, so this study design is not fit for purpose and it should be ignored.
reasonable period of time.
That misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.
we probably don’t care because most people won’t live that long.
Again, misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.
meaningful lengths of time in a human life, say over a decade or two.
Again.
even as little as a year.
Again.
not a massive signal.
Again.
will very likely be a mild issue over a long time at a high dose, not at small doses over a short time,
That's the whole point of the study, to do a low dose over a super long time over generations. Not a high/med dose over a short time.
not at small doses over a short time,
Again, misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.
so this study design is not fit for purpose and it should be ignored.
And a final: Again, misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.
I think I'm going to say cheers since sorry to say you missed the entire point, objective, and goal of the study and you want to study something else entirely. Cheers.
I think I'll pass on the opinion of someone who can't spell "exaggerate."
Cool, fair enough, I do have a little trouble with spelling and that is fine. Of course it could be software, learning difficulties, or just a bad day, but feel free to discard all the words I spelled correctly. Also, if you are in the US including the full stop in your quotation is typical but in the rest of the world you would keep the punctuation outside the quotes unless it is what you are quoting, otherwise the sentence doesn't have its own full stop.
as someone with dyslexia, i agree, honestly if it can be understood and its in a forum then why should it matter, its not like you’ve written a medical journal or legal binding letter
Wow, lots of astroturfed opinions defending aspartame.
Glad to see the "everything positive is astroturfing" clowns made their way over from reddit, too.
The important thing is you found a way to feel superior to both without needing to voice your opinion.
I mean, if the choice is between sugar and aspartame... seems like an easy choice to make - the science should speak for itself
I've been dabbling with stevia but last time I put to packets in my tea and it was apparently too much and I did not feel well after
Choice should be sugar, just a lot less of it
That's my take, but It took overloading on sugar to get me there. My grandma made southern sweet tea as she called it. It was like sugar water lol. We went out to eat 10 years ago and I was thirsty, had 3 large glasses of sweet tea before the food came, spent most of the time in the bathroom and could no longer stand sugary drinks. Unsweet tea, or half as much simple syrup if I can choose.
I tried stevia, also, and it's too sweet.
Any evidence to back up the assertion that they are shills, or is it just an empty ad hominem because you can't address an actual point?
To be clear, fuck that aspartame garbage.
Any reason you think I should care about your opinion on anything, at all?
But to address your question, maybe it has something to do with walls of replies that read like a PR script. Use your head for more than memes.
So, no, you have no evidence to back up the assertion, it's just how you feel.
Use your head for more than memes.
If blaming me for your inability to back up your claims is your definition "using your head" I'm happy to continue going through life without doing so.
You do you, bro/chick.
Yes, I definitely plan to do that. Thanks for the permission. Lol
In my research to find a substitute for mom's sugar intake, Stevia came down to being the safest and most reliable, albeit not the best flavor substitute, necessarily.
And avoid Erythritol above all else.
Erythritol is tolerated by people at pretty varying rates. Some people have no issues, others have stomach problems. It doesn’t really bother me much.
I personally like allulose the best tho, but it’s not easy to get in the EU yet.
Digestive issues aside I'm mostly concerned with the evidenced increased risk of stroke and heart-attack.
In recent decades, some concerning research has been published about possible adverse health effects of erythritol.
An American study from 2001 found that people who used erythritol as a sweetener had a three-year increased risk of major adverse cardiac events – defined as non-fatal heart attack or stroke. While this was an incidental finding – meaning that the erythritol did not necessarily cause or contribute to their cardiac issues – it highlighted the need for more research to determine if using a sugar substitute predisposes a person to higher heart attack or stroke rates.
A 2021 study examined people who consumed erythritol or a similar sugar alcohol, xylitol. The results found that ingesting erythritol as a sugar substitute caused a spike in blood levels and increased the stickiness of the volunteers’ platelets. Platelets help the blood to clot if we cut ourselves, but if they are sticky, the risk of blood clots in the body increases, raising our risk of heart attack, stroke or other vascular issues.
While the findings still do not definitely prove that erythritol directly increases the risk for cardiovascular issues, the results indicate it may be best to avoid it until we have more evidence to suggest that it is or is not safe.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
What's truly surprising is the effects could be seen in the animals' offspring, for up to two generations.
We know that when it's consumed, aspartame splits into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol, which can all affect the central nervous system. There have already been question marks over potentially adverse reactions to the sweetener in some people.
We know that when it’s consumed, aspartame splits into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol, which can all affect the central nervous system.
This is precisely why this all sounds like BS and such studies have frequently been called out for their poor methodologies. Aspartic acid and phenylalanine are crucial amino acids that we consume in a bunch of foods at much higher concentrations. And the methanol produced in its breakdown is extremely minimal.
Hence why the vast amount of pseudoscience claims about aspartame have been debunked one after the other.
Taurine is an amino acid we generate ourselves
Its also a blood thinner and critical component of all energy drinks. And is why energy drinks can kill you.
Just because its an amino acid doesn't mean its harmless.
Of course. But those sorts of impacts have not been shown for these amino acids in their otherwise much higher consumption concentrations. Unless you have phenylketonuria, but you'd know if you did already.
Hence why the vast amount of pseudoscience claims about aspartame have been debunked one after the other.
This is literally them doing science, lol. It's a study.
There are plenty of studies done by those wishing to push pseudoscience claims. We wouldn't have people like Andrew Wakefield otherwise.
And nutrition is one such field that has an outsized amount of pseudoscience pushers.
There are also a shit ton of studies done by food processing & manufacturing companies that are bogus. Knowing how your own body reacts to foods isn't pseudo science. You'd agree that nutrition is part of that, yes?
You sound like team cigarette! "It's made from all natural materials and plants and people have been smoking for centuries".
Oh no, I'm an actual scientist who knows molecular biology and the decades of research showcasing pseudoscience health claims to indeed be pseudoscience.
History check: it's the scientific community that showed cigarettes were bad for you years before the public ever listened to the facts.
Oh no, I’m an actual scientist who knows molecular biology and the decades of research showcasing pseudoscience health claims to indeed be pseudoscience.
So great, then you know that a small percentage of people can react to things that you can't explain. We're on the same page.
History check: it’s the scientific community that showed cigarettes were bad for you years before the public ever listened to the facts.
Interesting, I bet the cigarette companies didn't do their own studies to show everything is fine. And if they could have, go online and convince the scientific community is pseudoscience.
I admit I haven't read the article, or the study, but they can be doing science and also doing it wrong. From reading this thread, it sounds like they used a DRASTIC dosage of aspartame for one, and for two, as the guy above was saying they're attributing the issues with aspartame to mechanisms that don't make sense.
15% of the daily recommended maximum dose. I'm going to go ahead and block you.
That's fine bud. Have a good life. Sorry for politely asking for clarification lol
People need to get in touch with their groceries. I'm lucky that I have really strong reactions to food because it's obvious what affects me or not. I become a full on grouchy interrogator when I have aspertame, same with MSG but that's more of an accumulation thing.
So you also believe in MSG health claims, despite that being a salt of glutamate, an amino acid found in all meats, mushrooms, and plenty other foods already.
I'm going to answer this question once and only once.
There are some people allergic to peanuts, sometimes a whiff could kill them or sometimes it takes a ton of it. MSG is concentrated, taken from many different products, and known to cause reactions in some people. Symptoms don't happen to everyone and maybe I'm allergic to what the original source is? It could be the histamine causing effects? I don't know, I just know it effects me and would put me in the percentage that gets symptoms. Peanuts are natural too, do you question people's allergies to that?
And yet all the studies done on MSG have found no such effect. In fact, when conducting comparative tests where people were given a placebo but made to think it had MSG, they claimed they were having negative health effects.
This has been studied for decades and no evidence of a negative physiological impact has been shown. Especially since MSG was used in Asian cuisines in America for years prior with no such effects up until the hysteria the one writer caused.
Some people are allergic to nuts. Some to shellfish. And sure, a small portion probably to MSG. That's fine, absolutely be conscious of what you eat and how it makes you feel.
There's a GULF of difference between that statement and saying "msg is bad because it causes a reaction in some people" though. Are peanuts dangerous? Are shellfish dangerous? Because with the metrics you're providing, you have to label them as just as dangerous to the general public as it sounds like you want for aspartame, msg, etc.
This is my last comment to you, and I'm going to say this only once as well. Not causing symptoms right away isn't an indication that it's safe. It could still cause long term effects in a cumulative way.
Dr Claude Lambré, member of EFSA’s Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food, and Chair of the working group tasked with the re-evaluation, said: “Based on the available evidence, we are confident that the newly derived group ADI for glutamic acid and glutamates is protective of consumers’ health, as it is below the doses that have been associated with certain effects in humans, such as headache, raised blood pressure and increased insulin levels.”
You don't have to reply, I will anyway so that everyone else gets a more clear picture.
I'm not advocating for putting anything into your body without thought. That'd be dumb. I'm merely pointing out there's a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between being aware, and being overly reactive, or advocating for really safe (in moderation) additives be banned or similar.
The article you sent states "Currently, there is no numerical safe intake level ( ADI ) specified for glutamic acid and glutamates used as food additives in the EU." This is not stating that a safe level does not exist, but that the government has not determined what it was (prior to that article). They then go on to state that they have set a safe level at 30mg/kg body weight. For context, using the average body weight of males, 90.62 (rounding to 90), this comes out to 2700 mg. Salt's RDA is 2300 mg. Sugar is 4800mg (48g). So, we can conclude that msg, as it is, is between sugar and salt in terms of detrimental effect, at least as far as current science tells us.
By all means, limit your intake. That's your right. Don't compare it to a food allergy, though. Or try to tell other people they're wrong for coming to a different conclusion.
MSG is more of a racism thing. It was just a trick crackers came up with to keep their business from going to Asian restaurants.
Ah, another one of the "we found something in mice and that totally means it happens in humans" pseudoscience studies. Though we can probably blame the press for making such claims that the studies do not, unless this is one of those studies made by the known pseudoscience "scientists" like Seneff.
The title used by the reporter:
A Popular Sweetener Was Linked to Increased Anxiety in Generations of Mice
The title of the original publication:
Transgenerational transmission of aspartame-induced anxiety and changes in glutamate-GABA signaling and gene expression
I did not read the latter so I cannot vouch for it, but the former is most definitely click bait, through and through, from title to content. I mean, here we are talking about it and sharing the link so... they accomplished their purpose, and why should they care what happens afterwards?
So they're saying that it's epigenetically transmitted? That's interesting. What mechanism are they suggesting?
I just clicked twice to find the article title, and don't have time today to actually read through it... but it could be any number of things, including too early in the investigation to know, but we'll have to read it to find out! :-D
Edit: okay so I did look (free full text here), and they don't seem to know so precisely, except it transmits to grandchildren via the father, so like it could not be microbiome, it must be something in the sperm (even if something else also happens in the eggs too).
Interesting way to confirm epigenetic transfer, by only studying males lineage.
Well, shit.
And it still is too.
I wonder if the inherited anxious behaviour is through epigenetics or learned from the parents?
My theory, and again it's just a theory, anxiousness from things you eat is your body stressing out that you can't process it or something. Of course, it needs more studies, but you could inherit slight allergies and the learned behavior.
My understanding is your body processes aspartame just fine. It's just much sweeter than cane sugar so you have to use less than a calorie to achieve the same effect as a hundred calories of cane sugar.
That might be true? I just know how it affects me, Human studies are just people like you and me giving their feedback as to whether or not something gives them symptoms or not. I definitely get that angst with aspertame. So, even if it's a small percentage that are effected by it, I would be included in that small percentage.
Need a doi. This sounds like cherry picking.
As bad as all the sugar substitutes taste I honestly don't get how they ever caught on, starting at saccharine and on down the line. Stevia, aspartame, just taste... wrong. Minimally refined cane sugar or honey are the only way to go.
Stop putting artificial things in your body.
Except dildos, those are still ok.
The sweetener is aspartame
it's always aspartame
Hero.
King.
1, it's aspartame
2, Mice aren't humans, and routinely, things that happen in mice do not happen in humans. It is not at all indicative of anything and can really only be used as a hint better than nothing for looking into similar effects in humans.
You don't need to change your diet, and you certainly don't need to replace it with sugar.
*But drinking a glass of water from time to time won't kill you either.
Comment paid for Big Aspartame.
Deep Sugar take
I see the Nutrasweet Lobbyists Association is here too!
How much is Big Sugar paying you?
Not enough :(
Big aspertame made that account 6 months ago, posted 1300 unrelated comments, just for this one moment...
The long con!
Considering the patent was held by Monsanto, and all the decades of concerns have been raised by independent researchers but shut down by lobbying...
Well, I mean, who can you trust to not hide that they're making poison if not Monsanto?
Not to mention that the gene pool of these lab mice is super small. Source: my brother is a PhD biochemist and lectured me often on this shit when I said, "hey, look at this study!"
Such a small groups are fine for initial investigation, they have enough of a size to be acceptable statistically for most of the performed studies. I don't think they'd get approval from ethical committee overseeing animal experiments without initial study like this to conduct something on very high groups.
I am a relatively recent transplant from the red place, I can tell I ain't in Kansas anymore, actual good information being up voted so cool.
Aspartame is, because of all the claims against it, the single most studied food substance known, and it seems to somehow keep coming okay. There are a lot of studies with really bad methods that were a smear job attempt but science doing what it does they were labeled for what they are and disregarded. Is it possible to be allergic and a reaction to be anxiety sure, but that is not on the food.
Guarantee the study also states that you have to consume an ungodly amount of it too...
News reports grab on to stuff like this all the time. Like what they did with safrole.
The article actually states how much. 15% of the daily recommended amount.
There's a daily recommended amount for mice? Or was that 15% of the recommended amount for humans, which would be massive for mice?
It's the equivalent of the human daily dose. So adjusted for body weight. Loosely translated, it would be 15% of the daily recommended dose for mice.
15% of humans recommended amount. It's in the article.
Actually no, the keyword is equivalent, so adjusted for body weight.
Ah I think you're right.
So 15% for a 60 kilogram human, on the lower end, would be the daily recommended amount for a 9 kilogram creature. A mouse weighs around 0.025 kilograms. So, that amount for the mice is for something 360 times larger.
Obviously it's more complicated than that with differing metabolisms and the like, but as a rough estimate, wow. That's a lot.
I'm baffled by your willingness to elaborate at length about this, but not read the article where this is explained. Misinforming everyone in the process.
I stand corrected! That's a ridiculously small amount!
Just in case you missed it, we discussed below that that's the 15% daily recommended amount for a human. That they gave to the mice. A creature several hundred times smaller.
So you were right in the first place.
No, it's the equivalent dose.
Can you cite your sources? This excerpt from the published article suggests you're wrong:
Oh, good! I thought it was the rapidly declining state of the world.
The control was plain water. That seems like the sort of methodological flaw that would preclude a study from publication in a journal like PNAS.
It's so bizarre that you wouldn't have other sweeteners in other experimental groups and, especially, an experimental group that was actual sugar.
Can you elaborate why do you think that water is improper control?
They're providing a sweetener at all times. That alone would have some affect, so I'd think you'd want another sweetenere like sucrose, glucose, some other artificial sweetener, in addition to a water treatment. Alternatively, a dose response could be informative. They did have different doses of aspartame, but in both groups of mice (male and female), the dose response was opposite what you'd expect; the lower dose had a larger effect.
Sugar shills and don't touch my diet coke ppl in this thread doing Spidermanpointing.jpg
Stevia crew represent.
Stevia is great, but I really love monk fruit. No licorice root like aftertaste. I have more of a problem with the carcinogenic preservative they always pair with aspartame personally.
The only good Natural Low calorie sweetner
J prefers that munkmunk sauce
Mice lie, monkeys exaggurate.
This is a study on a small number of mice using a measure of anxiety which does not directly map to humans. Using mice for a study like this is fine for a pilot study but this has not clinical significance and can be safely ignored by the scientific press as well as the public. When we see a long term study which is double blinded in humans with reasonable doses, good controls, and hopefully some sort of mechanism of action then we can pay attention. Until then, aspartame has been linked to everything under the sun and yet nothing has been shown to be meaningful yet. It is one of the most well studied substances in the human diet and it seems to be at the very least mostly fine. Worry about lead in your water before you worry about this.
For several generations like the this one this would be 60 years minimum. Basically can't be done.
I see what you are saying but I disagree. The changes that we would consider important for aspartame should happen over a reasonable period of time. If it takes 100 years to have an impact then we probably don't care because most people won't live that long. What we care about is whether it has an impact over meaningful lengths of time in a human life, say over a decade or two.
If I have tobacco every day for a year will I have cancer? Unlikely. But if I give a large number of people who are well randomised tobacco or tobacco substitute I will see changes in their outcomes in a short time, even as little as a year.
So for aspartame, we already know it is not a massive signal. If it were then people who find the taste acrid would be better off than those who do not. But is there a possible issue there? Sure, it is possible, but it will very likely be a mild issue over a long time at a high dose, not at small doses over a short time, so this study design is not fit for purpose and it should be ignored.
That misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.
Again, misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.
Again.
Again.
Again.
That's the whole point of the study, to do a low dose over a super long time over generations. Not a high/med dose over a short time.
Again, misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.
And a final: Again, misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.
I think I'm going to say cheers since sorry to say you missed the entire point, objective, and goal of the study and you want to study something else entirely. Cheers.
I think I'll pass on the opinion of someone who can't spell "exaggerate."
Cool, fair enough, I do have a little trouble with spelling and that is fine. Of course it could be software, learning difficulties, or just a bad day, but feel free to discard all the words I spelled correctly. Also, if you are in the US including the full stop in your quotation is typical but in the rest of the world you would keep the punctuation outside the quotes unless it is what you are quoting, otherwise the sentence doesn't have its own full stop.
as someone with dyslexia, i agree, honestly if it can be understood and its in a forum then why should it matter, its not like you’ve written a medical journal or legal binding letter
Cool, take the low hanging ad hom, instead of actually interacting with the statement. Also it's "exaggerate".
Wow, lots of astroturfed opinions defending aspartame.
Glad to see the "everything positive is astroturfing" clowns made their way over from reddit, too.
The important thing is you found a way to feel superior to both without needing to voice your opinion.
I mean, if the choice is between sugar and aspartame... seems like an easy choice to make - the science should speak for itself
I've been dabbling with stevia but last time I put to packets in my tea and it was apparently too much and I did not feel well after
Choice should be sugar, just a lot less of it
That's my take, but It took overloading on sugar to get me there. My grandma made southern sweet tea as she called it. It was like sugar water lol. We went out to eat 10 years ago and I was thirsty, had 3 large glasses of sweet tea before the food came, spent most of the time in the bathroom and could no longer stand sugary drinks. Unsweet tea, or half as much simple syrup if I can choose.
I tried stevia, also, and it's too sweet.
Any evidence to back up the assertion that they are shills, or is it just an empty ad hominem because you can't address an actual point?
To be clear, fuck that aspartame garbage.
Any reason you think I should care about your opinion on anything, at all?
But to address your question, maybe it has something to do with walls of replies that read like a PR script. Use your head for more than memes.
So, no, you have no evidence to back up the assertion, it's just how you feel.
If blaming me for your inability to back up your claims is your definition "using your head" I'm happy to continue going through life without doing so.
You do you, bro/chick.
Yes, I definitely plan to do that. Thanks for the permission. Lol
In my research to find a substitute for mom's sugar intake, Stevia came down to being the safest and most reliable, albeit not the best flavor substitute, necessarily.
And avoid Erythritol above all else.
Erythritol is tolerated by people at pretty varying rates. Some people have no issues, others have stomach problems. It doesn’t really bother me much.
I personally like allulose the best tho, but it’s not easy to get in the EU yet.
Digestive issues aside I'm mostly concerned with the evidenced increased risk of stroke and heart-attack.
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-q-and-a-is-erythritol-a-safe-and-healthy-sugar-substitute/
This is precisely why this all sounds like BS and such studies have frequently been called out for their poor methodologies. Aspartic acid and phenylalanine are crucial amino acids that we consume in a bunch of foods at much higher concentrations. And the methanol produced in its breakdown is extremely minimal.
Hence why the vast amount of pseudoscience claims about aspartame have been debunked one after the other.
Taurine is an amino acid we generate ourselves
Its also a blood thinner and critical component of all energy drinks. And is why energy drinks can kill you.
Just because its an amino acid doesn't mean its harmless.
Of course. But those sorts of impacts have not been shown for these amino acids in their otherwise much higher consumption concentrations. Unless you have phenylketonuria, but you'd know if you did already.
This is literally them doing science, lol. It's a study.
There are plenty of studies done by those wishing to push pseudoscience claims. We wouldn't have people like Andrew Wakefield otherwise.
And nutrition is one such field that has an outsized amount of pseudoscience pushers.
There are also a shit ton of studies done by food processing & manufacturing companies that are bogus. Knowing how your own body reacts to foods isn't pseudo science. You'd agree that nutrition is part of that, yes?
You sound like team cigarette! "It's made from all natural materials and plants and people have been smoking for centuries".
Oh no, I'm an actual scientist who knows molecular biology and the decades of research showcasing pseudoscience health claims to indeed be pseudoscience.
History check: it's the scientific community that showed cigarettes were bad for you years before the public ever listened to the facts.
So great, then you know that a small percentage of people can react to things that you can't explain. We're on the same page.
Interesting, I bet the cigarette companies didn't do their own studies to show everything is fine. And if they could have, go online and convince the scientific community is pseudoscience.
I admit I haven't read the article, or the study, but they can be doing science and also doing it wrong. From reading this thread, it sounds like they used a DRASTIC dosage of aspartame for one, and for two, as the guy above was saying they're attributing the issues with aspartame to mechanisms that don't make sense.
15% of the daily recommended maximum dose. I'm going to go ahead and block you.
That's fine bud. Have a good life. Sorry for politely asking for clarification lol
People need to get in touch with their groceries. I'm lucky that I have really strong reactions to food because it's obvious what affects me or not. I become a full on grouchy interrogator when I have aspertame, same with MSG but that's more of an accumulation thing.
So you also believe in MSG health claims, despite that being a salt of glutamate, an amino acid found in all meats, mushrooms, and plenty other foods already.
I'm going to answer this question once and only once.
There are some people allergic to peanuts, sometimes a whiff could kill them or sometimes it takes a ton of it. MSG is concentrated, taken from many different products, and known to cause reactions in some people. Symptoms don't happen to everyone and maybe I'm allergic to what the original source is? It could be the histamine causing effects? I don't know, I just know it effects me and would put me in the percentage that gets symptoms. Peanuts are natural too, do you question people's allergies to that?
And yet all the studies done on MSG have found no such effect. In fact, when conducting comparative tests where people were given a placebo but made to think it had MSG, they claimed they were having negative health effects.
This has been studied for decades and no evidence of a negative physiological impact has been shown. Especially since MSG was used in Asian cuisines in America for years prior with no such effects up until the hysteria the one writer caused.
Some people are allergic to nuts. Some to shellfish. And sure, a small portion probably to MSG. That's fine, absolutely be conscious of what you eat and how it makes you feel.
There's a GULF of difference between that statement and saying "msg is bad because it causes a reaction in some people" though. Are peanuts dangerous? Are shellfish dangerous? Because with the metrics you're providing, you have to label them as just as dangerous to the general public as it sounds like you want for aspartame, msg, etc.
This is my last comment to you, and I'm going to say this only once as well. Not causing symptoms right away isn't an indication that it's safe. It could still cause long term effects in a cumulative way.
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/170712
You don't have to reply, I will anyway so that everyone else gets a more clear picture.
I'm not advocating for putting anything into your body without thought. That'd be dumb. I'm merely pointing out there's a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between being aware, and being overly reactive, or advocating for really safe (in moderation) additives be banned or similar.
The article you sent states "Currently, there is no numerical safe intake level ( ADI ) specified for glutamic acid and glutamates used as food additives in the EU." This is not stating that a safe level does not exist, but that the government has not determined what it was (prior to that article). They then go on to state that they have set a safe level at 30mg/kg body weight. For context, using the average body weight of males, 90.62 (rounding to 90), this comes out to 2700 mg. Salt's RDA is 2300 mg. Sugar is 4800mg (48g). So, we can conclude that msg, as it is, is between sugar and salt in terms of detrimental effect, at least as far as current science tells us.
By all means, limit your intake. That's your right. Don't compare it to a food allergy, though. Or try to tell other people they're wrong for coming to a different conclusion.
MSG is more of a racism thing. It was just a trick crackers came up with to keep their business from going to Asian restaurants.
Ah, another one of the "we found something in mice and that totally means it happens in humans" pseudoscience studies. Though we can probably blame the press for making such claims that the studies do not, unless this is one of those studies made by the known pseudoscience "scientists" like Seneff.
The title used by the reporter:
The title of the original publication:
I did not read the latter so I cannot vouch for it, but the former is most definitely click bait, through and through, from title to content. I mean, here we are talking about it and sharing the link so... they accomplished their purpose, and why should they care what happens afterwards?
So they're saying that it's epigenetically transmitted? That's interesting. What mechanism are they suggesting?
I just clicked twice to find the article title, and don't have time today to actually read through it... but it could be any number of things, including too early in the investigation to know, but we'll have to read it to find out! :-D
Edit: okay so I did look (free full text here), and they don't seem to know so precisely, except it transmits to grandchildren via the father, so like it could not be microbiome, it must be something in the sperm (even if something else also happens in the eggs too).
Interesting way to confirm epigenetic transfer, by only studying males lineage.
Well, shit.
And it still is too.
I wonder if the inherited anxious behaviour is through epigenetics or learned from the parents?
My theory, and again it's just a theory, anxiousness from things you eat is your body stressing out that you can't process it or something. Of course, it needs more studies, but you could inherit slight allergies and the learned behavior.
My understanding is your body processes aspartame just fine. It's just much sweeter than cane sugar so you have to use less than a calorie to achieve the same effect as a hundred calories of cane sugar.
That might be true? I just know how it affects me, Human studies are just people like you and me giving their feedback as to whether or not something gives them symptoms or not. I definitely get that angst with aspertame. So, even if it's a small percentage that are effected by it, I would be included in that small percentage.
Need a doi. This sounds like cherry picking.
As bad as all the sugar substitutes taste I honestly don't get how they ever caught on, starting at saccharine and on down the line. Stevia, aspartame, just taste... wrong. Minimally refined cane sugar or honey are the only way to go.
Stop putting artificial things in your body.
Except dildos, those are still ok.