Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Fallsview on December 10, 2013, 11:03:35 PM
-
Been doing a lot of thinking as of late...taking inventory and going through articles regarding aspartame. Bodybuilders that "overload" with diet coke/pepsi vs. bodybuilders who refresh their bodies with natural spring/filtered water. We all know that bodybuilders fill up and slake there thirst and hunger with diet soda.
Is there a link? Seriously, this needs to be investigated.
STAY POSITIVE!!!!
-
Been doing a lot of thinking as of late...taking inventory and going through articles regarding aspartame. Bodybuilders that "overload" with diet coke/pepsi vs. bodybuilders who refresh their bodies with natural spring/filtered water. We all know that bodybuilders fill up and slake there thirst and hunger with diet soda.
Is there a link? Seriously, this needs to be investigated.
STAY POSITIVE!!!!
I am not sure how rampant drinking of diet drinks is among bodybuilders, but diet drinks when consumed in large quantities seem to be as unhealthy as anything that is consumed to excess.
-
Brilliant suggestion, Clouseau, let's focus on the diet coke.
-
Nah. It's just regular abuse, stupidity and the inability to reinvent themselves as 'normal' people that doesn't look 'huge' all the time. We've all seen these helpless people down the gym, Stuck in an endless loop, never growing up.
I really won't be surprised if Ronnie is next.
-
I've witnessed two bodybuilders drink almost a case (24 count) of diet coke in one day.
Results of the most thorough study of Aspartame ever done on the link to cancer in humans, show that as little as one diet soda daily may increase the risk for leukemia in men and women, and for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men
The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:
- 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
- 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
- 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk (in men only)
STAY POSITIVE!!!!
-
shit every thing kills us
-
I just put down my double big gulp of diet Pepsi to think about this
-
damn it i still got half gallon of pepsi max to finish
-
Been doing a lot of thinking as of late...taking inventory and going through articles regarding aspartame. Bodybuilders that "overload" with diet coke/pepsi vs. bodybuilders who refresh their bodies with natural spring/filtered water. We all know that bodybuilders fill up and slake there thirst and hunger with diet soda.
Is there a link? Seriously, this needs to be investigated.
STAY POSITIVE!!!!
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184 (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184)
Regarding the study, aspartame is by far the least dangerous substance what they are using. It is true that aspartame is very very dangerous, in the foil hat articles about it, but in the scientific point of view and by the studies, that isn't quite true ;D
-
Alot of bodybuilding supplements (whey proteins,pre workouts etc)have either aspartame or sucralose in them both of which are registered as a toxin by the body.
-
The Food and Drug Administration warned Americans for years about the dangers of aspartame
In truth, for 16 years, no FDA Commissioner would allow aspartame on the market and all comments were that aspartame had never been proven safe. At the time, Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle - the manufacturer of aspartame - had no concern that aspartame could not be proven safe. As mentioned in the United Press International investigation of aspartame and the congressional record, Rumsfeld said he would call in his markers and get it approved anyway.
You see, back in 1980, Rumsfeld was on the Ronald Reagan transition team and the day after Reagan become President of the United States - he appointed an FDA Commissioner who would approve aspartame (without question) - that man was Arthur Hull Hayes. Hayes over turned the Board of Inquiry, on July 15, l981, and allowed aspartame to be sold to the American people.
You should also know that Hayes went on to work for the PR Agency of the manufacturer (Searle) at what some say was $1,000.00 a day, and has refused to talk to the press ever since. So, again, safety had nothing to do with the approval of aspartame, just a political ploy by Rumsfeld, and he made a lot of money at the expense of human life.
Eating (or drinking) artificial sweeteners will make you sick and fat
A 14-year study of 66,118 women - backed by many other studies in the past - revealed that drinking diet beverages are worse than sugar-sweetened drinks. This most recent study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, has some serious health warnings, such as:
1. Diet sodas put you at greater risk for diabetes versus sugar-sweetened sodas.
2. Women that drink (1) 12-ounce diet soda had a 33 percent increased risk of type-2 diabetes, and if they drink (1) 20-ounce soda then the risk is increased by 66 percent.
3. Drinking diet sodas will slow down the metabolism - preventing us from burning calories.
4. Diet sodas actually make you more hungry and crave more sugary foods like, pasta and bread.
5. In addition, population studies reveal that diet soda drinkers increase their risk for obesity by 200 percent!
Don't be fooled by false propaganda and marketing ploys. Aspartame affects brain tissue; destroys nerve cell integrity; creates lesions or holes where cell death occurred plus much more. Get informed about the dangers of artificial sweeteners - before it's too late.
STAY POSITIVE!!!!!!
-
The Food and Drug Administration warned Americans for years about the dangers of aspartame
In truth, for 16 years, no FDA Commissioner would allow aspartame on the market and all comments were that aspartame had never been proven safe. At the time, Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle - the manufacturer of aspartame - had no concern that aspartame could not be proven safe. As mentioned in the United Press International investigation of aspartame and the congressional record, Rumsfeld said he would call in his markers and get it approved anyway.
You see, back in 1980, Rumsfeld was on the Ronald Reagan transition team and the day after Reagan become President of the United States - he appointed an FDA Commissioner who would approve aspartame (without question) - that man was Arthur Hull Hayes. Hayes over turned the Board of Inquiry, on July 15, l981, and allowed aspartame to be sold to the American people.
You should also know that Hayes went on to work for the PR Agency of the manufacturer (Searle) at what some say was $1,000.00 a day, and has refused to talk to the press ever since. So, again, safety had nothing to do with the approval of aspartame, just a political ploy by Rumsfeld, and he made a lot of money at the expense of human life.
Eating (or drinking) artificial sweeteners will make you sick and fat
A 14-year study of 66,118 women - backed by many other studies in the past - revealed that drinking diet beverages are worse than sugar-sweetened drinks. This most recent study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, has some serious health warnings, such as:
1. Diet sodas put you at greater risk for diabetes versus sugar-sweetened sodas.
2. Women that drink (1) 12-ounce diet soda had a 33 percent increased risk of type-2 diabetes, and if they drink (1) 20-ounce soda then the risk is increased by 66 percent.
3. Drinking diet sodas will slow down the metabolism - preventing us from burning calories.
4. Diet sodas actually make you more hungry and crave more sugary foods like, pasta and bread.
5. In addition, population studies reveal that diet soda drinkers increase their risk for obesity by 200 percent!
Don't be fooled by false propaganda and marketing ploys. Aspartame affects brain tissue; destroys nerve cell integrity; creates lesions or holes where cell death occurred plus much more. Get informed about the dangers of artificial sweeteners - before it's too late.
STAY POSITIVE!!!!!!
You have found one of the foil hat idiots main argument against all things in this universe. How? Well, if I say to you that common sugar had never been proven safe, I am just as right that these morons you quoted. If I say that salt or oranges had never been proven safe, I am also right, so will you understand my point? There is no way in this earth to prove everything safe, so they have to settle to study things which seem to be clear risk. It is quite hard to find scientific evidence for those claims in your quote, so how truthful they really are? Never think about that, have you?
-
You have found one of the foil hat idiots main argument against all things in this universe. How? Well, if I say to you that common sugar had never been proven safe, I am just as right that these morons you quoted. If I say that salt or oranges had never been proven safe, I am also right, so will you understand my point? There is no way in this earth to prove everything safe, so they have to settle to study things which seem to be clear risk. It is quite hard to find scientific evidence for those claims in your quote, so how truthful they really are? Never think about that, have you?
I never argued your point as I enjoy a delicious, crisp diet soda. I've been drinking Diet Pepsi since it was called Pepsi Free. My only problem is that these bodybuilders are "filling" up on this stuff. I was close to a bodybuilder who recently passed and watched him drink almost a case at a picnic. I understand drugs but this aspartame stuff does need closer examination. I'm not looking to argue...just food for thought. Everyone jumps on the drug train but these guys are also ingesting some serious quantities of food and beverage that may OR may not be healthy. Too many Kidney problems in bodybuilding...I think we found "ONE" of the causes!!!!!
This is written in response to the article entitled, "Diet Soda, Aspartame Shown To Destroy Kidney Function", which may be found at: http://naturalsociety.com/aspartame-alert-diet-soda-destroys-kidney-function
Aspartame ravages every organ in the body. A 1000 page medical text, "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" by world expert, H. J. Roberts., M.D. gives the mechanism by which it triggers or precipitates disease, http://www.sunsentpress.com Also, "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills" goes into aspartame and MSG, by neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., http://www.russellblaylockmd.com
The Ramazzini Studies have proven kidney cancer. http://rense.com/general68/tiz.htm and http://rense.com/general77/lowdoses.htm No way to get around it, aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen and should be removed from the market because it violates the Delaney Amendment which forbids adding anything in food that causes cancer. In original studies aspartame produced brain tumors and brain cancer, and more. FDA senior scientist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told the Senate in 1985 the FDA should not have been able to set an allowable daily dose because of the cancer. He said "If the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public?"
Even a recent Harvard Study confirms the work of Dr. Morando Soffritti with aspartame causing leukemia and lymphoma and more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037772_aspartame_leukemia_lymphoma.html
As to safe sweeteners you have "Just Like Sugar" which is on http://www.justlikesugarinc.com
-
shit every thing kills us
No, nothing kills unless done in moderation. Even taking pure poison in relative moderation terms won't kill you. It's the stupid dickheads that don't understand the word 'moderation' or are mentally incompetent to realise what they're doing to themselves that give things a bad name. Steroid use is completely safe if used sensibly. However, you give dumb people a powerful tool such as the ability to alter your body's very biology and hormones and carnage insue. Derek Anthony is a perfect example. He didn't have the mental capacity to live long. If not steroids, he would've found another way to kill himself. Nasser didn't have the mental capacity to become just another fat bald Arab with a big stomach and zero definition. He had to keep injecting and abusing. It's a shame to have lost a man with such obvious intellect to a mental illness.
Kovacs is another example.
Do everything in moderation and you'll live a long, happy and healthy life.
-
No, nothing kills unless done in moderation. Even taking pure poison in relative moderation terms won't kill you. It's the stupid dickheads that don't understand the word 'moderation' or are mentally incompetent to realise what they're doing to themselves that give things a bad name. Steroid use is completely safe if used sensibly. However, you give dumb people a powerful tool such as the ability to alter your body's very biology and hormones and carnage insue. Derek Anthony is a perfect example. He didn't have the mental capacity to live long. If not steroids, he would've found another way to kill himself. Nasser didn't have the mental capacity to become just another fat bald Arab with a big stomach and zero definition. He had to keep injecting and abusing. It's a shame to have lost a man with such obvious intellect to a mental illness.
Kovacs is another example.
Do everything in moderation and you'll live a long, happy and healthy life.
Agreed. I believe that many bodybuilders do have some problem with body dysmorphic disorder. BUT...you'd have to sit down and interview them to truly grasp what they feel. Competitions....further exacerbate the problem. And its instilled so far into their brains that when they are retired from competitions...they still remain "on" to a certain degree (majority-not all)
Another trend is women wanting abs. Instagram is loaded with these girls posting "inspiration" pics of female fitness contestants with rock hard abs. Why all of the sudden now? This is a trend that has happened in the last few years. Of course nothing wrong with being fit and toned, but some of these women want harder abs then men. What's causing this?
STAY POSITIVE!!!!
-
The problem is probably that damn heme-iron.
-
The problem is probably that damn heme-iron.
Yes Falcon will address this I am sure.
-
Alot of bodybuilding supplements (whey proteins,pre workouts etc)have either aspartame or sucralose in them both of which are registered as a toxin by the body.
Both are nasty nasty stuff. Better off with natural foods.
-
"Could Aspartame Be The Cause Of Bodybuilding Deaths?"
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvv0x0BAky1qii6tmo1_500.gif)
-
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184 (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184)
Regarding the study, aspartame is by far the least dangerous substance what they are using. It is true that aspartame is very very dangerous, in the foil hat articles about it, but in the scientific point of view and by the studies, that isn't quite true ;D
Who do.you think funds the "scientific studies" asswipe? There never seems to be any negative studies on substances brought about by big companies..not even prescription drugs, until they start killing.people like lipitor and viox
Take your head out of the sand sheep bitch
-
Read an article last week about someone with crippling stomach pains,then a friend noticed all the bottles of diet coke in the fridge and mentioned aspartame,so they told them to get rid.Within days the pain was gone.I`ve had a lot of stomach problems now for a couple of years so decided to do the same,throw out anything with aspartame in it,and i feel much better for doing it.The article said it converts into formic acid in the body,thats the same poison that ants inject into you,and this leads to numerous problems.
-
Read an article last week about someone with crippling stomach pains,then a friend noticed all the bottles of diet coke in the fridge and mentioned aspartame,so they told them to get rid.Within days the pain was gone.I`ve had a lot of stomach problems now for a couple of years so decided to do the same,throw out anything with aspartame in it,and i feel much better for doing it.The article said it converts into formic acid in the body,thats the same poison that ants inject into you,and this leads to numerous problems.
Yes and asparatame is literally the fecal matter of bio-engineered bacteria. But let the gmo and science heroes eat what they want 8) aint gunna be me with the health problems, and when they go.into the doctor he will say " yes it is caused by too much cholesterol" or "tests have revealed you are gluten sensitive or genetic predisposition" or some other vomit provoking excuse. Doc's are some of the most blind medical idiot dumbasses but they are bred this way in medical school
-
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/05/09/aspartame-poison-the-silent-killer/
-
I USED to drink diet soda, now I mostly drink green tea iced tea (home made).... DELICIOUS!!!
Try it guys, you'll FEEL better!
-
I USED to drink diet soda, now I mostly drink green tea iced tea (home made).... DELICIOUS!!!
Try it guys, you'll FEEL better!
I have heard this can cause kidney rocks take care friend.
-
I USED to drink diet soda, now I mostly drink green tea iced tea (home made).... DELICIOUS!!!
Try it guys, you'll FEEL better!
What's your recipe?
-
"Could Aspartame Be The Cause Of Bodybuilding Deaths?"
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvv0x0BAky1qii6tmo1_500.gif)
that movie was fairly brilliant. alt history, i'd love to see more movies like that.
-
aspartame only will not kill u don't worry.. but if u abuse steroids and party drugs it may kill u one day... so stop that bullshit with aspartame causes deaths...
-
The high caffeine content, and being dehydrated while taking steroids, which some seem to cause dehydration, could cause problems?
-
Something will kill you one day.
-
Been doing a lot of thinking as of late...taking inventory and going through articles regarding aspartame. Bodybuilders that "overload" with diet coke/pepsi vs. bodybuilders who refresh their bodies with natural spring/filtered water. We all know that bodybuilders fill up and slake there thirst and hunger with diet soda.
Is there a link? Seriously, this needs to be investigated.
STAY POSITIVE!!!!
No. Otherwise I would have kicked the bucket years ago. I drink around a 12 pack of Pepsi Max a day and have for years now, no breaks.
-
We aren't seeing the deaths in the women who in some cases are using much more "supps" then men. I do wonder if there is an IRON connection. A lot of women lose iron in their system where a lot of men store Iron in their liver. Too much iron in the system is a dirty secret of the medical field that for sure is killing people.
-
We aren't seeing the deaths in the women who in some cases are using much more "supps" then men. I do wonder if there is an IRON connection. A lot of women lose iron in their system where a lot of men store Iron in their liver. Too much iron in the system is a dirty secret of the medical field that for sure is killing people.
There's also an Iron Diabetes connection that the Hierarchy's doctors won't really deal with...
-
What's your recipe?
^^
It's easy, and DO try the lemon or lime added!!
4 green tea bags
4 cups water
optional
STEVIA or other artificial sweetener
Directions:
1
Heat 2 cups water until very hot, not quite boiling.
2
Pour over the tea bags in a heat-resistant container.
3
Steep for 3 to 5 minutes.
4
If you are using stevia or another sweetener, add it to this hot tea.
5
Add 2 cups of cold water, and squeeze some lemon or lime juice...
6
Refrigerate all the tea at least 1 hour, or more!
7
Serve over ice.
-
But I hate the taste of regular green tea so much. :(
I'm going to try this regardless.
-
^^
It's easy, and DO try the lemon or lime added!!
4 green tea bags
4 cups water
optional
STEVIA or other artificial sweetener
Directions:
1
Heat 2 cups water until very hot, not quite boiling.
2
Pour over the tea bags in a heat-resistant container.
3
Steep for 3 to 5 minutes.
4
If you are using stevia or another sweetener, add it to this hot tea.
5
Add 2 cups of cold water, and squeeze some lemon or lime juice...
6
Refrigerate all the tea at least 1 hour, or more!
7
Serve over ice.
After the "BreakingBad" finale, no one ever uses the Stevia packet.
-
well, rather aspertame than sugar.
yesterday, some medical research council of the eu released report how its safe etc, but some doctors have protested and claim their studies which show the links to cancr in mice were deliberately and maliciously ignored.
safest to drink water.
its fucked up theres sweeteners and bad sugars in almost everything these days, fuckinghell theres sugar in vegetables.
if rumsfeld has anything to do with this, then it cant be trusted,rumsfeld is the lowest scum of the earth
-
I've witnessed two bodybuilders drink almost a case (24 count) of diet coke in one day.
Results of the most thorough study of Aspartame ever done on the link to cancer in humans, show that as little as one diet soda daily may increase the risk for leukemia in men and women, and for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men
The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:
- 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
- 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
- 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk (in men only)
STAY POSITIVE!!!!
Where is the study link...
-
I have heard this can cause kidney rocks take care friend.
Nah, thats over blown. There's oxalate in many things. Just consume more citrate and it will never be a problem.
-
I absolutely hate getting into debates over "fake" sugars.
However I did extensive research on this in university. Extensive.
I believe any sweetener is like any other food.....some people are sensitive to it and others are not. It's no different than a gluten sensitivity or lactose sensitivity.
I love aspartame. I love sucrose. I love sweets!!
The only chemical I have a spot of trouble with is malitol....I can only eat it in limited amounts or else I'm gassy.
-
But I hate the taste of regular green tea so much. :(
I'm going to try this regardless.
Go for pills.
-
I absolutely hate getting into debates over "fake" sugars.
However I did extensive research on this in university. Extensive.
I believe any sweetener is like any other food.....some people are sensitive to it and others are not. It's no different than a gluten sensitivity or lactose sensitivity.
I love aspartame. I love sucrose. I love sweets!!
The only chemical I have a spot of trouble with is malitol....I can only eat it in limited amounts or else I'm gassy.
S you deny any harm caused by aspartame?
-
S you deny any harm caused by aspartame?
Please....go bold the sentences in my post where I say this or imply it.
-
i dont use salt. at all. i dont think i've touched a salt shaker in 15 years. sure, when i eat out, things are salted, but i only eat out 1-2 times a week.
sugar... i'll add a teaspoon to tea w/ vodka maybe once a month... delicious!
most of the time, it's water, unsweet tea. sugar from juice, fruit, etc. Now and then if I have to drive at 2am, I will get a free red bull and take 2 sips, that'll usually be enough for a week. I feel really gross when I have lots of sugar. I get a coke and I want to vomit.
-
Or you could just take your fav pie ....stuff it in your mouth....chew ut and sput it out.
0 calorie enjoyment of your fav foods.
Lol
-
Or you could just take your fav pie ....stuff it in your mouth....chew ut and sput it out.
0 calorie enjoyment of your fav foods.
Lol
This is a promising idea
I had a diabetic friend who used to order dessert and just take a big whiff of it, never ate a bite.
-
S you deny any harm caused by aspartame?
I do. .Aspartame is 100 Percent Safe with no links to any ill effects whatsoever.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
Subsequently, NCI examined human data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study of over half a million retirees. Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (2).
-
This is a promising idea
I had a diabetic friend who used to order dessert and just take a big whiff of it, never ate a bite.
I have a friend who does this same thing every time we go to an erotic dancing club.
-
I go with the Science and Evidence. Opinions are useless in the face of overwhelming Evidence. Another authority on Cancer:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/aspartame
In the largest study of this issue, researchers from the NCI looked at cancer rates in more than 500,000 older adults. The study found that, compared to people who did not drink aspartame-containing beverages, those who did drink them did not have an increased risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or brain tumors.
What expert agencies say
Expert agencies in the United States and elsewhere that have evaluated aspartame have found it safe for use.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the use of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners in the United States. In 2007, the FDA stated:
Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assesses the safety of sweeteners such as aspartame in the European Union. According to a 2009 report from its Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food:
Overall, the Panel concluded, on the basis of all the evidence currently available… that there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there is no reason to revise the previously established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg [body weight].
Though research into a possible link between aspartame and cancer continues, these agencies agree that studies done so far have not found such a link.
-
I do. .Aspartame is 100 Percent Safe with no links to any ill effects whatsoever.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
Subsequently, NCI examined human data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study of over half a million retirees. Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (2).
That's 1 study.
There are dozens which refute it.
-
And another:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12180494
Aspartame: review of safety.
Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Comer CP, Mayhew DA, Benninger C, Blackburn GL, de Sonneville LM, Geha RS, Hertelendy Z, Koestner A, Leon AS, Liepa GU, McMartin KE, Mendenhall CL, Munro IC, Novotny EJ, Renwick AG, Schiffman SS, Schomer DL, Shaywitz BA, Spiers PA, Tephly TR, Thomas JA, Trefz FK.
Source
Medical and Scientific Affairs, The NutraSweet Company, Mt Prospect, Illinois 60056, USA.
Abstract
Over 20 years have elapsed since aspartame was approved by regulatory agencies as a sweetener and flavor enhancer. The safety of aspartame and its metabolic constituents was established through extensive toxicology studies in laboratory animals, using much greater doses than people could possibly consume. Its safety was further confirmed through studies in several human subpopulations, including healthy infants, children, adolescents, and adults; obese individuals; diabetics; lactating women; and individuals heterozygous (PKUH) for the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU) who have a decreased ability to metabolize the essential amino acid, phenylalanine. Several scientific issues continued to be raised after approval, largely as a concern for theoretical toxicity from its metabolic components--the amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine, and methanol--even though dietary exposure to these components is much greater than from aspartame. Nonetheless, additional research, including evaluations of possible associations between aspartame and headaches, seizures, behavior, cognition, and mood as well as allergic-type reactions and use by potentially sensitive subpopulations, has continued after approval. These findings are reviewed here. The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive. When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.
PMID: 12180494 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
-
I go with the Science and Evidence. Opinions are useless in the face of overwhelming Evidence. Another authority on Cancer:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/aspartame
In the largest study of this issue, researchers from the NCI looked at cancer rates in more than 500,000 older adults. The study found that, compared to people who did not drink aspartame-containing beverages, those who did drink them did not have an increased risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or brain tumors.
What expert agencies say
Expert agencies in the United States and elsewhere that have evaluated aspartame have found it safe for use.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the use of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners in the United States. In 2007, the FDA stated:
Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assesses the safety of sweeteners such as aspartame in the European Union. According to a 2009 report from its Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food:
Overall, the Panel concluded, on the basis of all the evidence currently available… that there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there is no reason to revise the previously established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg [body weight].
Though research into a possible link between aspartame and cancer continues, these agencies agree that studies done so far have not found such a link.
Lol "overwhelming evidence."
You googled this and found 1 study.
There's many studies equally as reputable which contradict this study.
-
For reference.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA
From The National Cancer Institute:
Aspartame and Cancer: Questions and Answers
Key Points
* A study of about half a million people, published in 2006, compared people who drank aspartame-containing beverages with those who did not. Results of the study showed that increasing levels of consumption were not associated with any risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or brain cancers in men or women. (Question 2)
* Researchers examined the relationship between aspartame intake and 1,888 lymphomas or leukemias and 315 malignant brain cancers among the participants of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study from 1995 until 2000. Development of these cancers was not associated with estimated aspartame consumption, refuting a recent animal study with positive findings for lymphomas and leukemias and also contradicting claims regarding brain cancer risk. (Questions 3 and 8)
1. Why was an aspartame study initiated?
Researchers* from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiated this research because an earlier study showed that female rats fed the artificial sweetener aspartame developed more lymphomas and leukemias than rats that received no aspartame in their feed (Soffritti et al. 2005; Soffritti et al. 2006). The risk of cancer in that study grew with the increased amount of aspartame given to the rats. Some of the dosages may have been relevant to human intake (as low as 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, which would be equivalent to a 165- pound person consuming about eight cans of diet soda).
Other questions regarding the safety of aspartame were raised by a 1996 report (Olney et al. 1996) suggesting that an increase in the number of people with brain tumors between 1975 and 1992 might be associated with the introduction and use of this sweetener in the United States. However, this report was later criticized by the scientific community for committing "ecological fallacy" (Ross 1998). Ecological fallacy refers to making a wrong conclusion about cause and effect in one person based on collection of data from a group of people; i.e., relating two things that happen at the same time, such as aspartame use and an increase in the number of brain cancer cases seen in a population, without examining whether individuals who consume aspartame also develop brain cancer.
2. What did the researchers find in this current study?
Researchers examined the consumption of aspartame-containing beverages among the participants of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study and reported that, in a comparison of people who drank aspartame-containing beverages with those who did not, increasing levels of consumption were not associated with an increased risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or brain cancers in men or women.
An increase in cancer risk was not found for the main subtypes of lymphoid cancers (Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma), non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes (including small lymphocytic lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, immunoblastic lymphoma and lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukemia), or non-lymphoid leukemias.
3. How was the study done?
NCI researchers examined data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study to investigate questions about aspartame and risk for lymphoma, leukemia, and brain cancers. The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study is an observational study where people provide information on a questionnaire about their recent intake of various foods and then are followed up for subsequent development of cancer. Specifically, about half a million AARP members (285,079 men and 188,905 women) who were 50 to 71 years old and living in eight study areas across the U.S. were given a questionnaire in 1995 and 1996. The participants were followed until the end of 2000 by linkage of their records with cancer registries that track the occurrence of new cancers.
The questionnaire inquired about consumption frequency and diet drink-type preference for three potentially aspartame-containing beverages (soda, fruit drinks, and iced tea), as well as aspartame added to coffee and hot tea. The researchers then computed daily consumption of aspartame, taking into account aspartame content, portion size, and consumption frequency of each beverage. The estimated aspartame intake was next compared with the occurrence of 1,888 lymphomas or leukemias and 315 malignant brain cancers to see if there was any correlation between intake and cancer.
4. What is the significance of the current study?
As the largest study of diet and cancer to date in the U.S., the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study allowed researchers to examine even relatively rare cancers and their subtypes. The information on people's food consumption was collected at the beginning of the study and before anyone was diagnosed with cancer. This particular study design makes the findings more reliable because it reduces the chance that cancer patients remember their beverage consumption differently or report any changes after diagnosis.
Although this is how epidemiologic studies typically determine the relationship between diet and diseases, aspartame estimated this way may or may not reflect lifetime consumption. Also, most diet beverage consumers in the study drank moderate amounts of aspartame, ranging from none to 3400 mg daily -- and on average 200 mg daily -- which is a little over a can of diet soda. While this moderate consumption is reflective of the average consumption in the U.S., these findings limit any conclusions about cancer risk in people who consume very high amounts of aspartame.
5. Does the general population drink as much diet soda as the study participants?
The participants of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study were recruited from six states and two metropolitan areas around the U.S. that have highly reliable cancer registry data. Thus, the study participants are a good sample of older adults in the U.S. The study questionnaire included questions to identify consumers of diet beverages and aspartame users for coffee and hot tea, which is information rarely available in most large population studies. The average aspartame consumption among diet beverage consumers in the study was about 200 mg per day, which is similar to a survey of U.S. consumers done by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
6. Were there differences in the relationship between aspartame and cancer by racial group, ethnicity, age, or gender?
Researchers examined the relationship between aspartame and lymphoma, leukemia, and malignant brain cancers by different races and age groups and also in men and women separately, and found no difference from the overall finding. However, it should be noted that the study included older adults who were mostly whites.
7. Do animal studies of aspartame show the same results as human studies?
The NIH-AARP study findings match those of previous animal studies by the FDA and coincide with the conclusion of an earlier study on childhood brain cancers (Gurney et al. 1997).
Shortly before this most recent study of aspartame and cancer was published, the European Food Safety Authority reviewed the recent animal data and urged caution when interpreting results (The European Food Safety Authority 2006): "The increased incidence of lymphomas/leukemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, given the high background incidence of chronic inflammatory changes in the lungs and the lack of a positive dose-response relationship."
8. What are some facts about aspartame?
* Aspartame, distributed under several trade names (e.g., NutraSweet® and Equal®), was approved in 1981 by the FDA after numerous tests showed that it did not cause cancer or other adverse effects in laboratory animals (Council on Scientific Affairs 1985; Flamm 1997; Koestner 1997).
* In the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, aspartame consumption ranged from 0 to 3400 mg per day (about 19 cans of soda at the high end; however, the upper limit is not absolute because investigators asked multiple-choice questions on frequency and the highest option was "6-plus times a day"). There are 180 mg of aspartame in a 12 ounce can of diet soda.
* The highest aspartame category in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study was "600 mg and above per day," or about three or more cans of diet soda; researchers also examined higher categories (more than 1200 mg per day or 2000 mg per day, which is equivalent to approximately seven to 11 cans of soft drinks daily) with fewer people and found similar results of no elevated risk.
* FDA's Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of aspartame is 50 mg per kilogram of body weight or about 3,750 mg (21 cans of diet soda) for an adult weighing 75 kilograms (165 lb). ADI is the amount of substance (e.g., food additive) like aspartame that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk to a person on the basis of all the known facts at the time of the evaluation.
* The average aspartame consumption among diet beverage consumers in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study was 200 mg per day, or about 7 percent of the ADI, which is the same as a survey of U.S. consumers done by the FDA.
* An animal study that fed 0, 4, 20, 100, 500, 2500, and 5000 mg per kilogram of body weight of aspartame to rats saw lymphoma/leukemia increase in female rats, starting from about twice the risk with 20 mg per kilogram of body weight (a person weighing 75 kilograms or 165 lbs, consuming 1500 mg aspartame, or about 8 cans of diet soda) compared with a control group that was not fed aspartame.
###
For more information about cancer, please visit the NCI Web site at http://www.cancer.gov or call NCI's Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237).
More information about aspartame can be found in the FDA Statement on Aspartame, which is available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpaspart.html. Information about the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP Diet and Health Study can be found at http://dietandhealth.cancer.gov/.
* Lim U., Subar A.F., Mouw T., Hartge P., Morton L.M., Stolzenberg-Solomon R., Campbell D., Hollenbeck A.R., & Schatzkin A. Consumption of aspartame-containing beverages and incidence of hematopoietic and brain malignancies. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006. Vol. 15.
References
Council on Scientific Affairs (1985) Aspartame. Review of safety issues. JAMA 254, 400-402.
Flamm W.G. (1997) "Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame?" J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 56, 105-106.
Gurney J.G., Pogoda J.M., Holly E.A., Hecht S.S., & Preston-Martin S. (1997) Aspartame consumption in relation to childhood brain tumor risk: results from a case-control study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 89, 1072-1074.
Koestner A. (1997) "Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame?" J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 56, 107-109.
Olney J.W., Farber N.B., Spitznagel E., & Robins L.N. (1996) Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame? J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 55, 1115-1123.
Ross J.A. (1998) Brain tumors and artificial sweeteners? A lesson on not getting soured on epidemiology. Medical and Pediatric Oncology 30, 7-8.
Soffritti M., Belpoggi F., Esposti D.D., & Lambertini L. (2005) Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats. Eur J Oncology 10, 107-116.
Soffritti M., Belpoggi F., Esposti D.D., Lambertini L., Tibaldi E., & Rigano A. (2006) First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to sprague-dawley rats. Environ. Health Perspect. 114, 379-385.
The European Food Safety Authority (2006) Opinion of the Scientific Panel AFC related to a new long-term carcinogenicity study on aspartame. The EFSA Journal 356, 1-44.
-
Lol "overwhelming evidence."
You googled this and found 1 study.
There's many studies equally as reputable which contradict this study.
No there isn't you moron.
Go ahead, post your Doomsday Alex Jones nonsense.
I only deal with Scientific FACTS and Evidence.
Hope this helps.
-
No there isn't you moron.
Go ahead, post your Doomsday Alex Jones nonsense.
I only deal with Scientific FACTS and Evidence.
Hope this helps.
Hahahaha are you angry?
I'm sorry if I angered you, this was not my goal.
Yes, pubmed houses numerous articles which directly contradict all these copy pastes you've generously posted.
FACT.
I deal with science and facts ONLY, not your opinions on the matter.
-
Here is a real site with info: The American Cancer Society
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_3_2X_Common_Questions_About_Diet_and_Cancer.asp
Common Questions About Diet and Cancer
Developed by the American Cancer Society 2006 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee and approved by the American Cancer Society National Board of Directors on May 19, 2006.
This section is taken from the Complete Guide—Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention.
Because people are interested in the relationship that specific foods, nutrients, or lifestyle factors have to specific cancers, research on health behaviors and cancer risk is often reported on the news. No one study, however, provides the last word on any subject, and single news reports may put too much emphasis on what appear to be contradictory or conflicting results. In brief news stories, reporters cannot always put new research findings in their proper context. Therefore, it is rarely, if ever, advisable to change diet or activity levels based on a single study or news report. The following questions and answers address common concerns about diet and physical activity in relation to cancer.
Alcohol
Does alcohol increase cancer risk?
Yes. Alcohol raises the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx (throat), larynx (voice box), esophagus, liver, and breast, and probably of the colon and rectum. People who drink alcohol should limit their intake to no more than 2 drinks per day for men and 1 drink per day for women. A drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits. The combination of alcohol and tobacco increases the risk of some cancers far more than the effect of either drinking or smoking alone. Regular intake of even a few drinks per week is linked to a higher of breast cancer in women, especially in women who do not get enough folate. Women at high risk of breast cancer may want to consider not drinking any alcohol.
Antioxidants
What are antioxidants, and what do they have to do with cancer?
The body seems to use certain nutrients in vegetables and fruits to protect against damage to tissues that happens constantly as a result of normal metabolism (oxidation). Because such damage is linked with increased cancer risk, the so-called antioxidant nutrients are thought to protect against cancer. Antioxidants include vitamin C, vitamin E, carotenoids, and many other phytochemicals (chemicals from plants). Studies suggest that people who eat more vegetables and fruits, which are rich sources of antioxidants, may have a lower risk for some types of cancer. Clinical studies of antioxidant supplements are currently under way but have not yet proven to reduce cancer risk from vitamin or mineral supplements (also see entries for: beta-carotene, lycopene, vitamin E, supplements). To reduce cancer risk, the best advice at present is to get your antioxidants through food sources, rather than supplements.
Aspartame
Does aspartame cause cancer?
Aspartame is a low-calorie artificial sweetener that is about 200 times sweeter than sugar. Current evidence does not show any link between aspartame use and increased cancer risk. People with the genetic disorder known as phenylketonuria should avoid foods and drinks that contain aspartame.
Beta-carotene
Does beta-carotene reduce cancer risk?
Because beta-carotene, an antioxidant chemically related to vitamin A, is found in vegetables and fruits, and because eating vegetables and fruits is linked with a reduced risk of cancer, it seemed to make sense that taking high doses of beta-carotene supplements might reduce cancer risk. But the results of 3 major clinical trials show this is not the case. In 2 studies in which people were given high doses of beta-carotene supplements in an attempt to prevent lung cancer and other cancers, the supplements were found to increase the risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers, and a third found neither benefit nor harm from them. Therefore, eating vegetables and fruits that contain beta-carotene may be helpful, but high-dose beta-carotene supplements should be avoided.
Bioengineered foods
What are bioengineered foods, and are they safe?
Bioengineered foods are made by adding genes from other plants or organisms to make a plant more resistant to pests and slow spoilage. Some genes improve flavor, nutrient composition, or make the food easier to transport. In theory, these added genes might create substances that could cause harmful reactions among sensitized or allergic individuals. But there is no evidence at this time that the substances found in bioengineered foods now on the market are harmful or that they would either increase or decrease cancer risk because of the added genes.
Calcium
Is calcium related to cancer?
Several studies have suggested that foods high in calcium might help reduce the risk for colorectal cancer, and that using calcium supplements modestly reduces the formation of colorectal adenomas (polyps). But there is also evidence that a high calcium intake, mainly through supplements, is linked with increased risk for prostate cancer, especially for prostate cancers that are more aggressive. In light of this, both men and women should try to get the recommended levels of calcium, mainly from food sources. Recommended intake levels of calcium are 1,000 mg/day for people ages 19 to 50 years and 1,200 mg/day for people older than 50. Dairy products are excellent sources of calcium, as are some leafy vegetables and greens. People who get much of their calcium from dairy products should select low-fat or non-fat choices to reduce their intake of saturated fat.
Cholesterol
Does cholesterol in the diet increase cancer risk?
Cholesterol in the diet comes only from foods with animal sources -- meat, dairy products, eggs, and animal fats such as butter or lard. Although some of these foods (for example, processed and red meats) are linked with higher risk of certain cancers, at this time there is little evidence that this increased risk is specifically related to cholesterol. Lowering blood cholesterol reduces heart disease risk, but there is no evidence that lowering blood cholesterol affects cancer risk.
Coffee
Does drinking coffee cause cancer?
Caffeine may worsen symptoms of fibrocystic breast lumps (a type of benign breast disease) in some women, but there is no evidence that it increases the risk of breast cancer or other types of cancer. The link between coffee and cancer of the pancreas, which got a lot of attention in the past, has not been confirmed by recent studies. There does not appear to be any link between coffee drinking and cancer risk.
Fat
Will eating less fat lower cancer risk?
There is little evidence that the total amount of fat a person eats affects cancer risk. But diets high in fat tend to be high in calories and may contribute to obesity, which in turn is linked with an increased risk of several types of cancer. There is evidence that certain types of fats, such as saturated fats, may increase cancer risk. There is little evidence that other types of fat (omega-3 fatty acids, found mainly in fish), monounsaturated fatty acids (found in olive and canola oils), or other polyunsaturated fats reduce cancer risk.
Fiber
What is dietary fiber, and can it prevent cancer?
Dietary fiber includes a wide variety of plant carbohydrates that humans cannot digest. Specific categories of fiber are "soluble" (like oat bran) or "insoluble" (like wheat bran and cellulose). Soluble fiber helps to reduce blood cholesterol, which lowers the risk of coronary heart disease. Good sources of fiber are beans, vegetables, whole grains, and fruits. Links between fiber and cancer risk are weak, but eating these foods is still recommended. These foods contain other nutrients that may help reduce cancer risk and have other health benefits.
Fish
Does eating fish protect against cancer?
Fish is a rich source of omega-3 fatty acids. Studies in animals have found that these fatty acids suppress cancer formation or slow down cancer growth, but there is limited evidence of a possible benefit in humans.
While eating fish rich in omega-3 fatty acids is linked with a reduced risk of heart disease, some types of fish (large predatory fish such as swordfish, tilefish, shark, and king mackerel) may contain high levels of mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and other environmental pollutants. Women who are pregnant, breast-feeding, or planning to become pregnant, and young children should not eat these fish. People should vary the types of fish they eat to reduce the chance of exposure to toxins.
Research has not yet shown whether taking omega-3 or fish oil supplements produces the same possible benefits as eating fish. .
Fluorides
Do fluorides cause cancer?
Extensive research has looked at the effects of fluorides given as dental treatments or added to toothpaste, public water supplies, or foods on cancer risk. Fluorides have not been found to increase cancer risk.
Folate
What is folate, and can it prevent cancer?
Folate is a B vitamin found in many vegetables, beans, fruits, whole grains, and fortified breakfast cereals. Since 1998, all grain products in the United States have been fortified with folate. Too little folate may increase the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, and breast, especially in people who drink alcoholic beverages. Current evidence suggests that to reduce cancer risk, folate is best obtained by eating vegetables, fruits, and enriched grain products.
Food additives
Do food additives cause cancer?
Many substances are added to foods to preserve them and to enhance color, flavor, and texture. New additives must be cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before entering the food supply. Rigorous testing in animals to look for any effects on cancer is done as part of this process. Additives are usually present in very small quantities in food, and no convincing evidence has shown that any additive at these levels causes human cancers.
Garlic
Can garlic prevent cancer?
The health benefits of the allium compounds contained in garlic and other vegetables in the onion family have been publicized widely. Garlic is currently under study for its ability to reduce cancer risk. There is not enough evidence at this time to support a specific role for this vegetable in cancer prevention.
Genetics
If our genes determine cancer risk, how can diet help prevent cancer?
Damage to the genes that control cell growth can be either inherited or acquired during life. Certain types of mutations or genetic damage can increase the risk of cancer. Nutrients in the diet can protect DNA from being damaged. Physical activity, weight control, and diet might delay or prevent the development of cancer in people with an increased genetic risk for cancer. The interaction between diet and genetic factors is an important and complex topic, and a great deal of research is under way in this area.
Irradiated foods
Do irradiated foods cause cancer?
No. Radiation is used more often to kill harmful organisms on foods in order to extend their "shelf life." Radiation does not stay in the foods after treatment, and eating irradiated foods does not appear to increase cancer risk.
Lycopene
Will lycopene reduce cancer risk?
Lycopene is the red-orange carotene pigment found mainly in tomatoes and tomato-based foods and to a lesser extent in pink grapefruit and watermelon. Several studies have reported that intake of tomato products reduces the risk of some cancers, but whether lycopene is the nutrient responsible is uncertain. Even if lycopene in foods is linked with lower risk for cancer, it can't be concluded that high doses taken as supplements would be either more effective or safe.
Meat: cooking and preserving
Should I avoid processed meats?
Some studies have linked eating large amounts of processed meat to increased risk of colorectal and stomach cancers. This connection may or may not be due to nitrites, which are added to many luncheon meats, hams, and hot dogs to maintain color and to prevent bacterial growth. Eating processed meats and meats preserved by methods involving smoke or salt increases exposure to potential cancer-causing agents and should be reduced as much as possible.
How does cooking meat affect cancer risk?
Adequate cooking is required to kill harmful germs in meat. But some research suggests that frying, broiling, or grilling meats at very high temperatures forms chemicals that might increase cancer risk. Although these chemicals can damage DNA and cause cancer in animals, it is not clear how much they (as opposed to other substances in meat) may contribute to the increased colorectal cancer risk seen in people who eat large amounts of meat in some studies. Techniques such as braising, steaming, poaching, stewing, and microwaving meats produce fewer of these chemicals.
Obesity
Does being overweight increase cancer risk?
Yes. Being overweight or obese is linked with an increased risk of cancers of the breast (among women after menopause), colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, and possibly other sites as well. Although research on whether losing weight reduces cancer risk is limited, some research suggests that weight loss does reduce the risk of breast cancer. Because of other proven health benefits, people who are overweight are encouraged to lose weight. Avoiding excessive weight gain in adulthood is important not only to reduce cancer risk but also to reduce the risk of other chronic diseases.
Olive oil
Does olive oil affect cancer risk?
Intake of olive oil is linked with a reduced risk of heart disease, but is most likely neutral with respect to cancer risk. Although olive oil is a healthy alternative to butter and margarine, it is still a dense source of calories and should be used in moderation.
-
Hahahaha are you angry?
I'm sorry if I angered you, this was not my goal.
Yes, pubmed houses numerous articles which directly contradict all these copy pastes you've generously posted.
FACT.
I deal with science and facts ONLY, not your opinions on the matter.
Wrong. You=A moron who is spouting nonsense and stuff you make up.
Pubmed indicates you are lying.
-
Wrong. You=A moron who is spouting nonsense and stuff you make up.
Pubmed indicates you are lying.
HAHAHHAHAHAH
Effects of aspartame metabolites on astrocytes and neurons.
AuthorsRycerz K, et al. Show all Journal
Folia Neuropathol. 2013;51(1):10-7.
Affiliation
Department of Animal Anatomy and Histology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland. karol.rycerz@up.lublin.pl
Abstract
Aspartame, a widespread sweetener used in many food products, is considered as a highly hazardous compound. Aspartame was discovered in 1965 and raises a lot of controversy up to date. Astrocytes are glial cells, the presence and functions of which are closely connected with the central nervous system (CNS). The aim of this article is to demonstrate the direct and indirect role of astrocytes participating in the harmful effects of aspartame metabolites on neurons. The artificial sweetener is broken down into phenylalanine (50%), aspartic acid (40%) and methanol (10%) during metabolism in the body. The excess of phenylalanine blocks the transport of important amino acids to the brain contributing to reduced levels of dopamine and serotonin. Astrocytes directly affect the transport of this amino acid and also indirectly by modulation of carriers in the endothelium. Aspartic acid at high concentrations is a toxin that causes hyperexcitability of neurons and is also a precursor of other excitatory amino acid - glutamates. Their excess in quantity and lack of astrocytic uptake induces excitotoxicity and leads to the degeneration of astrocytes and neurons. The methanol metabolites cause CNS depression, vision disorders and other symptoms leading ultimately to metabolic acidosis and coma. Astrocytes do not play a significant role in methanol poisoning due to a permanent consumption of large amounts of aspartame. Despite intense speculations about the carcinogenicity of aspartame, the latest studies show that its metabolite - diketopiperazine - is cancirogenic in the CNS. It contributes to the formation of tumors in the CNS such as gliomas, medulloblastomas and meningiomas. Glial cells are the main source of tumors, which can be caused inter alia by the sweetener in the brain. On the one hand the action of astrocytes during aspartame poisoning may be advantageous for neuro-protection while on the other it may intensify the destruction of neurons. The role of the glia in the pathogenesis of many CNS diseases is crucial.
-
Adam ;)
Long-term consumption of aspartame and brain antioxidant defense status.
AuthorsAbhilash M, et al. Show all Journal
Drug Chem Toxicol. 2013 Apr;36(2):135-40. doi: 10.3109/01480545.2012.658403. Epub 2012 Mar 2.
Affiliation
School of Biosciences, Mahatma Gandhi University , Kottayam , India.
Abstract
The present study investigated the effect of long-term intake of aspartame, a widely used artificial sweetener, on antioxidant defense status in the rat brain. Male Wistar rats weighing 150-175 g were randomly divided into three groups as follows: The first group was given aspartame at a dose of 500 mg/kg body weight (b.w.); the second group was given aspartame at dose of 1,000 mg/kg b.w., respectively, in a total volume of 3 mL of water; and the control rats received 3 mL of distilled water. Oral intubations were done in the morning, daily for 180 days. The concentration of reduced glutathione (GSH) and the activity of glutathione reductase (GR) were significantly reduced in the brain of rats that had received the dose of 1,000 mg/kg b.w. of aspartame, whereas only a significant reduction in GSH concentration was observed in the 500-mg/kg b.w. aspartame-treated group. Histopathological examination revealed mild vascular congestion in the 1,000 mg/kg b.w. group of aspartame-treated rats. The results of this experiment indicate that long-term consumption of aspartame leads to an imbalance in the antioxidant/pro-oxidant status in the brain, mainly through the mechanism involving the glutathione-dependent system.
-
HAHAHHAHAHAH
Effects of aspartame metabolites on astrocytes and neurons.
AuthorsRycerz K, et al. Show all Journal
Folia Neuropathol. 2013;51(1):10-7.
Affiliation
Department of Animal Anatomy and Histology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland. karol.rycerz@up.lublin.pl
Abstract
Aspartame, a widespread sweetener used in many food products, is considered as a highly hazardous compound. Aspartame was discovered in 1965 and raises a lot of controversy up to date. Astrocytes are glial cells, the presence and functions of which are closely connected with the central nervous system (CNS). The aim of this article is to demonstrate the direct and indirect role of astrocytes participating in the harmful effects of aspartame metabolites on neurons. The artificial sweetener is broken down into phenylalanine (50%), aspartic acid (40%) and methanol (10%) during metabolism in the body. The excess of phenylalanine blocks the transport of important amino acids to the brain contributing to reduced levels of dopamine and serotonin. Astrocytes directly affect the transport of this amino acid and also indirectly by modulation of carriers in the endothelium. Aspartic acid at high concentrations is a toxin that causes hyperexcitability of neurons and is also a precursor of other excitatory amino acid - glutamates. Their excess in quantity and lack of astrocytic uptake induces excitotoxicity and leads to the degeneration of astrocytes and neurons. The methanol metabolites cause CNS depression, vision disorders and other symptoms leading ultimately to metabolic acidosis and coma. Astrocytes do not play a significant role in methanol poisoning due to a permanent consumption of large amounts of aspartame. Despite intense speculations about the carcinogenicity of aspartame, the latest studies show that its metabolite - diketopiperazine - is cancirogenic in the CNS. It contributes to the formation of tumors in the CNS such as gliomas, medulloblastomas and meningiomas. Glial cells are the main source of tumors, which can be caused inter alia by the sweetener in the brain. On the one hand the action of astrocytes during aspartame poisoning may be advantageous for neuro-protection while on the other it may intensify the destruction of neurons. The role of the glia in the pathogenesis of many CNS diseases is crucial.
Looks like you don`t understand a word of what you posted.
"the action of astrocytes during aspartame poisoning may be advantageous for neuro-protection." This effectively means that Aspartame has protective abilities against Cancer, specifically brain cancer.
-
Search
Possible neurologic effects of aspartame, a widely used food additive.
AuthorsMaher TJ, et al. Show all Journal
Environ Health Perspect. 1987 Nov;75:53-7.
Affiliation
Department of Pharmacology, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, Boston 02115.
Abstract
The artificial sweetener aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanyl-methyl ester), is consumed, primarily in beverages, by a very large number of Americans, causing significant elevations in plasma and, probably, brain phenylalanine levels. Anecdotal reports suggest that some people suffer neurologic or behavioral reactions in association with aspartame consumption. Since phenylalanine can be neurotoxic and can affect the synthesis of inhibitory monoamine neurotransmitters, the phenylalanine in aspartame could conceiveably mediate neurologic effects. If mice are given aspartame in doses that elevate plasma phenylalanine levels more than those of tyrosine (which probably occurs after any aspartame dose in humans), the frequency of seizures following the administration of an epileptogenic drug, pentylenetetrazole, is enhanced. This effect is simulated by equimolar phenylalanine and blocked by concurrent administration of valine, which blocks phenylalanine's entry into the brain. Aspartame also potentiates the induction of seizures by inhaled fluorothyl or by electroconvulsive shock. Perhaps regulations concerning the sale of food additives should be modified to require the reporting of adverse reactions and the continuing conduct of mandated safety research.
-
Adam ;)
Long-term consumption of aspartame and brain antioxidant defense status.
AuthorsAbhilash M, et al. Show all Journal
Drug Chem Toxicol. 2013 Apr;36(2):135-40. doi: 10.3109/01480545.2012.658403. Epub 2012 Mar 2.
Affiliation
School of Biosciences, Mahatma Gandhi University , Kottayam , India.
Abstract
The present study investigated the effect of long-term intake of aspartame, a widely used artificial sweetener, on antioxidant defense status in the rat brain. Male Wistar rats weighing 150-175 g were randomly divided into three groups as follows: The first group was given aspartame at a dose of 500 mg/kg body weight (b.w.); the second group was given aspartame at dose of 1,000 mg/kg b.w., respectively, in a total volume of 3 mL of water; and the control rats received 3 mL of distilled water. Oral intubations were done in the morning, daily for 180 days. The concentration of reduced glutathione (GSH) and the activity of glutathione reductase (GR) were significantly reduced in the brain of rats that had received the dose of 1,000 mg/kg b.w. of aspartame, whereas only a significant reduction in GSH concentration was observed in the 500-mg/kg b.w. aspartame-treated group. Histopathological examination revealed mild vascular congestion in the 1,000 mg/kg b.w. group of aspartame-treated rats. The results of this experiment indicate that long-term consumption of aspartame leads to an imbalance in the antioxidant/pro-oxidant status in the brain, mainly through the mechanism involving the glutathione-dependent system.
Totally irrelevant. This is a study done on rats in which they are given 100000 times the amount a human would ingest.
-
Looks like you don`t understand a word of what you posted.
"the action of astrocytes during aspartame poisoning may be advantageous for neuro-protection." This effectively means that Aspartame has protective abilities against Cancer, specifically brain cancer.
Adam, Reread. Use some critical thinking skills here bro:
"Despite intense speculations about the carcinogenicity of aspartame, the latest studies show that its metabolite - diketopiperazine - is cancirogenic in the CNS. It contributes to the formation of tumors in the CNS such as gliomas, medulloblastomas and meningiomas."
;D
-
After the "BreakingBad" finale, no one ever uses the Stevia packet.
^^
I didn't watch the show, so I'll continue to use it... ZERO CARBS!
-
Search
Possible neurologic effects of aspartame, a widely used food additive.
AuthorsMaher TJ, et al. Show all Journal
Environ Health Perspect. 1987 Nov;75:53-7.
Affiliation
Department of Pharmacology, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, Boston 02115.
Abstract
The artificial sweetener aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanyl-methyl ester), is consumed, primarily in beverages, by a very large number of Americans, causing significant elevations in plasma and, probably, brain phenylalanine levels. Anecdotal reports suggest that some people suffer neurologic or behavioral reactions in association with aspartame consumption. Since phenylalanine can be neurotoxic and can affect the synthesis of inhibitory monoamine neurotransmitters, the phenylalanine in aspartame could conceiveably mediate neurologic effects. If mice are given aspartame in doses that elevate plasma phenylalanine levels more than those of tyrosine (which probably occurs after any aspartame dose in humans), the frequency of seizures following the administration of an epileptogenic drug, pentylenetetrazole, is enhanced. This effect is simulated by equimolar phenylalanine and blocked by concurrent administration of valine, which blocks phenylalanine's entry into the brain. Aspartame also potentiates the induction of seizures by inhaled fluorothyl or by electroconvulsive shock. Perhaps regulations concerning the sale of food additives should be modified to require the reporting of adverse reactions and the continuing conduct of mandated safety research.
Uh,
People with the genetic disorder known as phenylketonuria should avoid foods and drinks that contain aspartame. Isn`t that obvious?
-
That's 1 study.
There are dozens which refute it.
Link me up.
TA is correct.
-
Uh,
People with the genetic disorder known as phenylketonuria should avoid foods and drinks that contain aspartame. Isn`t that obvious?
Are you angry bro?
-
Cancer
Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer. These reviews have looked at numerous carcinogenicity studies in animals, epidemiologic studies in humans, as well as in vitro genotoxicity studies. These studies have found no significant evidence that aspartame causes cancer in animals, damages the genome, or causes cancer in humans at doses currently used.[8][38][41] This position is supported by multiple regulatory agencies like the FDA[57] and EFSA as well as scientific bodies such as the National Cancer Institute.[47]
Concern about possible carcinogenic properties of aspartame was originally raised and popularized in the mainstream media by John Olney in the 1970s and again in 1996 by suggesting that aspartame may be related to brain tumors. Reviews have found that these concerns were flawed, due to reliance on the ecological fallacy[58] and the purported mechanism of causing tumors being unlikely to actually cause cancer. Independent agencies such as the FDA and National Cancer Institute have reanalyzed multiple studies based on these worries and found no association between aspartame and brain cancer.[41]
As discussed in the article on controversies around aspartame, the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences released several studies which claimed that aspartame can increase several malignancies in rodents, concluding that aspartame is a potential carcinogen at normal dietary doses.[59][60] The EFSA[61] and the FDA[57] discounted the study results and found no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame.
Neurological and psychiatric symptoms
Numerous allegations have been made on the Internet and in consumer magazines purporting neurotoxic effects of aspartame leading to neurological or psychiatric symptoms such as seizures, headaches, and mood changes.[8] Review of the biochemistry of aspartame has found no evidence that the doses consumed would plausibly lead to neurotoxic effects.[62] Comprehensive reviews have not found any evidence for aspartame as a cause for these symptoms.[8][38][41] One review did provide a theoretical biochemical background of neurotoxicity and suggested further testing.[63] However, a panel of EFSA experts noted that this review's conclusions were partially based on Internet sources and therefore were not scientifically robust. These experts also concurred with a critique that significant scientific errors were made in the critical review that led to unsubstantiated and misleading interpretations.[38] A review of the pediatric literature did not show any significant findings for safety concerns with regard to neuropsychiatric conditions such as panic attacks, mood changes, hallucinations or with ADHD or seizures.[64]
-
Are you angry bro?
I am angry only in the fact that you choose to remain ignorant. The scientific evidence and consensus is right here in front of you, but you choose to default to loony bin status.
The good thing about all of this though, its true that Aspartame is completely harmless, whether you like it or not.
But yes, I am overall frustrated at your stupidity and the fact that you perpetuate it.
-
Any study using rats is totally irrelevant and pointless.
-
Any study using rats is totally irrelevant and pointless.
Exactly. This artificial sweetener link to death is a joke.
I found this article in Men's Fitness a few days ago that I thought was totally unprofessional. There were no links to study's and I have never heard of any artificial sweetener tricking your body into releasing insulin because it is 1000x more sweeter than regular sugar? What?
http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/9-foods-an-athlete-would-never-eat?page=2
-
I am angry only in the fact that you choose to remain ignorant. The scientific evidence and consensus is right here in front of you, but you choose to default to loony bin status.
The good thing about all of this though, its true that Aspartame is completely harmless, whether you like it or not.
But yes, I am overall frustrated at your stupidity and the fact that you perpetuate it.
Calm down Adam, take a deep breath. When I get home I'll pull up some more for you. I have dozens of studies. Yes even done on humans. Have a great afternoon bud!
-
Calm down Adam, take a deep breath. When I get home I'll pull up some more for you. I have dozens of studies. Yes even done on humans. Have a great afternoon bud!
No, you don't.
-
No, you don't.
Yep.
-
the best is the morons who say use stevia instead,thats natural
hahah just because something is natural doesnt make it healthy, jesus christ, opium lants must be very haelthy then.
and besides that, the stevia you can buy in stores is just as chemical as everything else in the store.
as for sweeteners and the role in building.
at least they dont make you release insulin and they dont make bloodsugar fluctuate.
theres ppl who claim otherwise, lol, i wonder how they could miss that many htos eproducts are made for diabetics.
-
Been doing a lot of thinking as of late...taking inventory and going through articles regarding aspartame. Bodybuilders that "overload" with diet coke/pepsi vs. bodybuilders who refresh their bodies with natural spring/filtered water. We all know that bodybuilders fill up and slake there thirst and hunger with diet soda.
Is there a link? Seriously, this needs to be investigated.
STAY POSITIVE!!!!
Any proof of this activity?
-
chiro is a doctor
-
I have a friend who does this same thing every time we go to an erotic dancing club.
lolz
-
chiro is a doctor
Almost bro, still in school. And while pharmacology and biochemistry is not my speciality, I've still been exposed to both sides of this argument, and seen LEGIT scientific data supporting both sides.
My conclusion: I think it's foolish to make an absolute claim either way. This is because of so much contradictory information gathered from legitimate studies. My personal rule is to use them in extreme moderation, we're talking maybe 1 diet soda a week. I'd rather not take the risk, and honestly, It doesn't take much sacrifice to limit it.
-
chiro is a doctor
1) So? ::)
2) He's a chiropractor...not a doctor.
-
1) So? ::)
2) He's a chiropractor...not a doctor.
False.
Chiropractors are legally recognized as doctors, as well as primary care physicians.
Functional neurology is my scope of practice.
-
Almost bro, still in school. And while pharmacology and biochemistry is not my speciality, I've still been exposed to both sides of this argument, and seen LEGIT scientific data supporting both sides.
My conclusion: I think it's foolish to make an absolute claim either way. This is because of so much contradictory information gathered from legitimate studies. My personal rule is to use them in extreme moderation, we're talking maybe 1 diet soda a week. I'd rather not take the risk, and honestly, It doesn't take much sacrifice to limit it.
I've done way more research on this than you. Guaranteed.
I haven't seen this "legit" scientific data supporting both sides.
-
I've done way more research on this than you. Guaranteed.
I haven't seen this "legit" scientific data supporting both sides.
I've done more than you, guaranteed.
What you?
-
False.
Chiropractors are legally recognized as doctors, as well as primary care physicians.
Functional neurology is my scope of practice.
Not in Canada.
Perhaps in the US. I'll have to take your word for it.
-
Not in Canada.
Perhaps in the US. I'll have to take your word for it.
I don't really care about another countries laws, sorry Hun.
-
In Canada the students that can't make it to medical school go to the USA to become chiropractors. :-\
-
Not in Canada.
Perhaps in the US. I'll have to take your word for it.
We don't legitimize quackery.
-
In Canada the students that can't make it to medical school go to the USA to become chiropractors. :-\
LOL what a stupid country you are from if that's true
-
We don't legitimize quackery.
Not sure what that means ??? Because your citizens legitimize it with their dollars as well as your insurance companies legitimize it with their dollars. Oh, and your country also accredited the 2 Canadian chiropractic colleges. So your argument is very flawed.
Where did you receive your medical training at?
-
naw.
-
LOL what a stupid country you are from
Hahaha. :P
I'm honestly just teasing you for the most part.
But one must go to the USA to study chiropractics. It is frowned upon in Canada....or it was. Some type of "chiropractic association" is trying hard to change the negative stigma chiropractics has here in Canada.
-
Hahaha. :P
I'm honestly just teasing you for the most part.
But one must go to the USA to study chiropractics. It is frowned upon in Canada....or it was. Some type of "chiropractic association" is trying hard to change the negative stigma chiropractics has here in Canada.
Well, the AMA got their ass spanked years ago in a supreme court ruling. The AMA set out to "contain and eliminate the profession of chiropractic" at a time when so many Americans were leaving their GPs in favor of chiropractic care. Chiropractic was a huge threat to their financial security (I don't know why, 2 different scopes of practice.) The AMA launched a smear campaign and that's where much of the modern stigma comes from. The supreme court ruling forced the AMA to retract all false allegations and donate a hefty sum to further chiropractic research.
Chiropractic is not voodoo quackery. It is a conscientious form of health care, backed by research, that concerns itself primarily with the functional integrity of the human nervous system.
Now, back to aspartame!
-
True Adonis drinking the semen heavily in this thread ::)
Youre one of those guys that will stand next to a microwave and refute the idea you are getting radiated unless you "see studies"
-
True Adonis drinking the semen heavily in this thread ::)
Youre one of those guys that will stand next to a microwave and refute the idea you are getting radiated unless you "see studies"
Uh, standing next to a microwave is completely safe, moron.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/health/10real.html?_r=0
The Claim: People Shouldn’t Stand Too Close to a Microwave
Published: July 10, 2007
THE FACTS
Considering how long microwave ovens have been around, one would think that any concerns about their safety would have been resolved long ago. But many people continue to wonder whether standing next to a microwave while it’s on can expose them to radiation — and if so, how much.
Although microwave ovens can in fact leak radiation, the levels that might be released are fairly minute.
According to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, a unit of the Food and Drug Administration that regulates microwave oven safety, every microwave that reaches the market must meet a requirement limiting the amount of radiation it can leak in its lifetime to five milliwatts per square centimeter at roughly two inches away from the oven. According to the center, that is far below the levels of radiation that have been shown to harm humans.
(By comparison, the most common cellphones operate at a peak power of about 1.6 watts or less, and most studies have found no evidence linking the phones to health problems.)
Manufacturers of microwave ovens are also required to line the doors of the machines with metal mesh that prevents microwaves from escaping, and to use a type of door latch that stops the production of microwaves whenever the latch is released.
Those features greatly limit exposure to levels of radiation that are already low. And since the radiation levels drop sharply with increasing distance, the levels two feet away are about one-hundredth the amount at two inches.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Proximity to a microwave oven is not dangerous.
-
Uh, standing next to a microwave is completely safe, moron.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/health/10real.html?_r=0
The Claim: People Shouldn’t Stand Too Close to a Microwave
Published: July 10, 2007
THE FACTS
Considering how long microwave ovens have been around, one would think that any concerns about their safety would have been resolved long ago. But many people continue to wonder whether standing next to a microwave while it’s on can expose them to radiation — and if so, how much.
Although microwave ovens can in fact leak radiation, the levels that might be released are fairly minute.
According to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, a unit of the Food and Drug Administration that regulates microwave oven safety, every microwave that reaches the market must meet a requirement limiting the amount of radiation it can leak in its lifetime to five milliwatts per square centimeter at roughly two inches away from the oven. According to the center, that is far below the levels of radiation that have been shown to harm humans.
(By comparison, the most common cellphones operate at a peak power of about 1.6 watts or less, and most studies have found no evidence linking the phones to health problems.)
Manufacturers of microwave ovens are also required to line the doors of the machines with metal mesh that prevents microwaves from escaping, and to use a type of door latch that stops the production of microwaves whenever the latch is released.
Those features greatly limit exposure to levels of radiation that are already low. And since the radiation levels drop sharply with increasing distance, the levels two feet away are about one-hundredth the amount at two inches.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Proximity to a microwave oven is not dangerous.
False. NYTimes is not a peer reviewed publication.
Fail.
-
False. NYTimes is not a peer reviewed publication.
Fail.
You are a complete moron. Their data comes from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, a unit of the Food and Drug Administration which regulates microwave ovens.
No wonder you are into quackery. You would never make it as a real doctor. ;)
-
You are a complete moron. Their data comes from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, a unit of the Food and Drug Administration which regulates microwave ovens.
No wonder you are into quackery. You would never make it as a real doctor. ;)
You fail to provide adequate peer reviewed information. I take this as your sign of defeat.
-
You fail to provide adequate peer reviewed information. I take this as your sign of defeat.
You fail to provide peer reviewed articles showing aspartame is proven to be dangerous to the human body.
-
False. NYTimes is not a peer reviewed publication.
Fail.
Hope this helps, moron.
http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/resourcesforyouradiationemittingproducts/ucm252762.htm
Microwave Oven Safety Standard
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the responsibility for carrying out an electronic product radiation control program mandated by the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Through its Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA sets and enforces standards of performance for electronic products to assure that radiation emissions do not pose a hazard to public health.
A Federal standard limits the amount of microwaves that can leak from an oven throughout its lifetime to 5 milliwatts (mW) of microwave radiation per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface. This limit is far below the level known to harm people. Microwave energy also decreases dramatically as you move away from the source of radiation. A measurement made 20 inches from an oven would be approximately one one-hundredth of the value measured at 2 inches.
The standard also requires all ovens to have two independent interlock systems that stop the production of microwaves the moment the latch is released or the door opened. In addition, a monitoring system stops oven operation in case one or both of the interlock systems fail. The noise that many ovens continue to make after the door is open is usually the fan. The noise does not mean that microwaves are being produced. There is no residual radiation remaining after microwave production has stopped. In this regard a microwave oven is much like an electric light that stops glowing when it is turned off.
All ovens must have a label stating that they meet the safety standard. In addition, FDA requires that all ovens have a label explaining precautions for use. This requirement may be dropped if the manufacturer has proven that the oven will not exceed the allowable leakage limit even if used under the conditions cautioned against on the label.
To make sure the standard is met, FDA tests microwave ovens in its own laboratory. FDA also evaluates manufacturers' radiation testing and quality control programs at their factories.
Although FDA believes the standard assures that microwave ovens do not present any radiation hazard, the Agency continues to reassess its adequacy as new information becomes available.
-
You fail to provide peer reviewed articles showing aspartame is proven to be dangerous to the human body.
Typical female move, making this about you.
This is about Adonis and his false opinions.
PS: I'm not home yet, be patient
-
Hope this helps, moron.
http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/resourcesforyouradiationemittingproducts/ucm252762.htm
Microwave Oven Safety Standard
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the responsibility for carrying out an electronic product radiation control program mandated by the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Through its Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA sets and enforces standards of performance for electronic products to assure that radiation emissions do not pose a hazard to public health.
A Federal standard limits the amount of microwaves that can leak from an oven throughout its lifetime to 5 milliwatts (mW) of microwave radiation per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface. This limit is far below the level known to harm people. Microwave energy also decreases dramatically as you move away from the source of radiation. A measurement made 20 inches from an oven would be approximately one one-hundredth of the value measured at 2 inches.
The standard also requires all ovens to have two independent interlock systems that stop the production of microwaves the moment the latch is released or the door opened. In addition, a monitoring system stops oven operation in case one or both of the interlock systems fail. The noise that many ovens continue to make after the door is open is usually the fan. The noise does not mean that microwaves are being produced. There is no residual radiation remaining after microwave production has stopped. In this regard a microwave oven is much like an electric light that stops glowing when it is turned off.
All ovens must have a label stating that they meet the safety standard. In addition, FDA requires that all ovens have a label explaining precautions for use. This requirement may be dropped if the manufacturer has proven that the oven will not exceed the allowable leakage limit even if used under the conditions cautioned against on the label.
To make sure the standard is met, FDA tests microwave ovens in its own laboratory. FDA also evaluates manufacturers' radiation testing and quality control programs at their factories.
Although FDA believes the standard assures that microwave ovens do not present any radiation hazard, the Agency continues to reassess its adequacy as new information becomes available.
Settle down, it was just a joke. You clearly get riled up too easy bro ;D way too easy to troll.
Calm down, relax. Don't get angry.
-
Settle down, it was just a joke. You clearly get riled up too easy bro ;D way too easy to troll.
Calm down, relax. Don't get angry.
::)
You were obviously dead serious and we both know it. Killing you with Facts and Evidence is a breeze.
-
::)
You were obviously dead serious and we both know it. Killing you with Facts and Evidence is a breeze.
Not on the microwave stuff, I have zero knowledge about microwave radiation thresholds ;D
I just like getting you worked up bro, I know you're pounding the keyboard right now ;D
-
Typical female move, making this about you.
This is about Adonis and his false opinions.
PS: I'm not home yet, be patient
Ummmm.......what? ???
Can ANYONE and I do mean ANYONE explain how I made this about me?
-
Ummmm.......what? ???
Can ANYONE and I do mean ANYONE explain how I made this about me?
You're interfering with the trolling of Adonis. Step aside, I'll post the studies later
-
Cancer centers will put people with cancer on Alkaline diets. When people have end stage liver disease, they will tell them not to touch any sugar substitutes...
-
Cancer centers will put people with cancer on Alkaline diets.
They eat batteries?
-
They eat batteries?
lolz
-
False.
Chiropractors are legally recognized as doctors, as well as primary care physicians.
Functional neurology is my scope of practice.
They're a doctor much like a dentist or podiatrist....so, "kinda".
-
They're a doctor much like a dentist or podiatrist....so, "kinda".
Mmm, there is no "kinda." Completely separate scopes of practices. This is sometimes hard for a lay person to grasp, the concept of scope of practice.
GPs are different than DCs, different than DPTs different than DDS different than DOs, etc.
-
Mmm, there is no "kinda." Completely separate scopes of practices. This is sometimes hard for a lay person to grasp, the concept of scope of practice.
GPs are different than DCs, different than DPTs different than DDS different than DOs, etc.
You don't say?? This has been enlightening
(Btw you're not the only one here who is in healthcare... so no need to be patronizing)
-
You don't say?? This has been enlightening
(Btw you're not the only one here who is in healthcare... so no need to be patronizing)
Did not mean to offend you brother, just assumed you were a lay person by your lack of understanding the concept of SOP's. Otherwise why make your post?
Anyways, what is your take on aspartame?
-
Did not mean to offend you brother, just assumed you were a lay person by your lack of understanding the concept of SOP's. Otherwise why make your post?
Anyways, what is your take on aspartame?
The reason I posted that is because a "doctor" to me--and most people--is someone who can prescribe medications and/or perform surgeries. Scope of practice be damned.
A good chiropractor is worth his weight in gold. But I think it's disingenuous to be a chiropractor or podiatrist or physical therapist and refer to oneself as "Dr".
Fuck, even an attorney could call himself Dr technically.
This is the last I'll post on this topic because I know you see it differently. Just thought I'd explain--because you deserve it :-*
As far as aspartame, it's tough to say. A lot of contradicting research out there, it's hard to know what to trust.
If it really is so unhealthy and dangerous, where are the bodies? Hundreds of millions of people consume artificial sweetener everyday--seemingly without ill effect.
Its probably not "healthy" but I think the risk of moderate consumption is nil.
-
The reason I posted that is because a "doctor" to me--and most people--is someone who can prescribe medications and/or perform surgeries. Scope of practice be damned.
A good chiropractor is worth his weight in gold. But I think it's disingenuous to be a chiropractor or podiatrist or physical therapist and refer to oneself as "Dr".
Fuck, even an attorney could call himself Dr technically.
This is the last I'll post on this topic because I know you see it differently. Just thought I'd explain--because you deserve it :-*
As far as aspartame, it's tough to say. A lot of contradicting research out there, it's hard to know what to trust.
If it really is so unhealthy and dangerous, where are the bodies? Hundreds of millions of people consume artificial sweetener everyday--seemingly without ill effect.
Its probably not "healthy" but I think the risk of moderate consumption is nil.
Hmm interesting. I never had the faintest desire to prescribe medication or perform surgeries, hence the reason I chose this path. I could personally care less bout ego-boasting titles. I chose my path because I felt I could help the most amount of people in this way. Either way, US law still requires me to grind out my 8 years of schooling on top of a 4 part board examination process to put that "Dr." in front of my name, so Ill accept the title that the US government has appointed unto me.
Another funny thought I always have is when did a GP become the gold standard for health care? A chiropractor harms far less patients in their office compared to your family doctor, as evidenced by the fraction of malpractice insurance I'll pay compared to a "family doc.". Not bashing on allopathics, just a funny cultural observation I've noted. There is an assumed trust that always seemed odd to me when you analyze the data showing the risk of becoming a victim of malpractice by just stepping foot into your GPs office.
Also interesting the similiarities shared by professjons. One of the most common function of your GP is something that is shared with chiropractors in the US: triaging! In Both professions, this is something we spend a great deal of time on. Referring out to specialists, sending out for lab work, MRs, etc. I bet the similarities would intrigue you if you hung around a high volume practice. (500+ patient visits a week).
As per aspartame, I tend to sit on the fence still. I've seen legitimate research on both sides, so I just try to minimize my exposure to toxins as best as possible without it severely impacting my life. This usually ends up being about 1-2 diet sodas a week, but definitely not an everyday thing.
What do you specialize in PV?
-
And so through all of this retardedness and the worlds longest commute home nobody has still yet provided a study linking sugar substitutes with cancer in humans.
Next.
-
I declare aspartame safe.
Next nut job theory please. . .
-
May I propose the Mountain Dew Yellow 5 theory.
-
May I propose the Mountain Dew Yellow 5 theory.
;D
Those devils over at Mountain Dew are out to get me! I knew it all the time.
-
I will keep this information in mind the next time I reheat my coffee in the microwave. At 69 years of age, I can't be too careful. Don't want to risk an early death.
-
The commentary on why Harvard Hospital apologized for promoting the aspartame cancer study is below by Hiyaguha Cohen. My commentary: http://www.mpwhi.com/harvard_sorry_they_told_you_aspartame_is_bad.htm
Consumption Of Artificial Sweetener– And Sugar-Containing Soda And Risk Of Lymphoma And Leukemia In Men And Women:
http://www.mpwhi.com/schernhammer_harvard_aspartame.pdf [PDF format] (It will open in a new window)
Note how strong this study is with a quote from the authors: "The data from approximately 77,000 women (nurses) and 48,000 men (doctors, dentists, pharmacists, etc) led the authors to conclude "In the most comprehensive long-term epidemiologic study, to our knowledge, to evaluate the association between aspartame intake and cancer risk in humans, we observed a positive association between diet soda and total aspartame intake and risks of NHL (non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma in men and women."
Harvard stopped speaking out about aspartame as did Dr. Richard Wurtman years ago. Dr. Wurtman who testified before Congress against aspartame reported that the VP of G.D. Searle threatened him if he did studies on aspartame and seizures his research funds would be rejected and they were. So what happened with this study? Oops Harvard must have forgotten not to release it. The modus operandi of the FDA is simply to ignore damning studies on aspartame as they have with Dr. Morando Soffritti's research which in 3 studies proved aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen, also lymphoma and leukemia. Did industry get to Harvard? Obviously upset that this study was called by the authors themselves the most comprehensive long-term epidemiologic study, to evaluate the association between aspartame intake and cancer risk in humans, how could they get over the strength of this study? They announce its "weak" science and apologize, and hope the public believes their lie.
There is no place to hide. Aspartame has been shown from the beginning to cause cancer and FDA reported the manufacturer had filtered out the things they didn't want them to see such as cancer. Even in the Bressler Report it mentions adenocarcinoma. http://www.mpwhi.com/complete_bressler_report.pdf Their own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, testified before Congress on 8/1/85 that aspartame violates the Delaney Amendment because it caused brain cancer,. Almost 100% of independent scientific peer reviewed research on aspartame has shown the problems, but FDA continues to ignore it. They have even ignored the Citizens Petition to ban and imminent health hazard amendment.
How many times does aspartame have to be proven to cause cancer? Only industry studies would say its safe and that's because they are trying to defend their chemical poison. Because of conflict of interest there is no way for the public to accept industry studies. The FDA themselves tried to have the manufacturer indicted for fraud.
In the December 2012 article, "Is Drug Research Trustworthy?" it states "Scientists around the country are pursuing government-funded research at the same time they are taking money from pharmaceutical companies, which often poses a potential conflict of interest." ...."We were able to identify $1.8 million in payments from a handful of drug companies to NIH grant recipients in New York State along - payments for speakers bureau appearances, consulting job and other services."
So damning studies are ignored and industry defense studies are unacceptable, For over 3 decades aspartame has caused global epidemics. Cancer spreads like gasoline poured on a fire. If you show how deadly aspartame is from the FDA records themselves they ignore it. Left with the only challenge being efforts to ban, FDA ignores the petitions serving above the law. The deck is stacked. Even some media cry because of advertising they are not allowed to report the news. The public goes on dying. Physicians can't help because their hands are tied with lack of knowledge operating under propaganda from industry, FDA and front groups. If a patient is suffering aspartame cancer the physician doesn't know to warn the patient. How can you treat cancer with the patient continuing to consume a deadly carcinogen daily? Without knowledge of drug interaction (Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, http://www.sunsentpress.com by H. J. Roberts, M.D. ) how would the physician know how to treat the patient?
Now we are confronted with Title 18 of the domestic genocide law!
-
^^^ I've read this before, very good read. Definitely makes you look at things differently.
-
Hmm interesting. I never had the faintest desire to prescribe medication or perform surgeries, hence the reason I chose this path. I could personally care less bout ego-boasting titles. I chose my path because I felt I could help the most amount of people in this way. Either way, US law still requires me to grind out my 8 years of schooling on top of a 4 part board examination process to put that "Dr." in front of my name, so Ill accept the title that the US government has appointed unto me.
Another funny thought I always have is when did a GP become the gold standard for health care? A chiropractor harms far less patients in their office compared to your family doctor, as evidenced by the fraction of malpractice insurance I'll pay compared to a "family doc.". Not bashing on allopathics, just a funny cultural observation I've noted. There is an assumed trust that always seemed odd to me when you analyze the data showing the risk of becoming a victim of malpractice by just stepping foot into your GPs office.
Also interesting the similiarities shared by professjons. One of the most common function of your GP is something that is shared with chiropractors in the US: triaging! In Both professions, this is something we spend a great deal of time on. Referring out to specialists, sending out for lab work, MRs, etc. I bet the similarities would intrigue you if you hung around a high volume practice. (500+ patient visits a week).
As per aspartame, I tend to sit on the fence still. I've seen legitimate research on both sides, so I just try to minimize my exposure to toxins as best as possible without it severely impacting my life. This usually ends up being about 1-2 diet sodas a week, but definitely not an everyday thing.
What do you specialize in PV?
8 years? Are you including undergraduate? Chiropractic school is 3 years in the US, and that's with clinical internships.
I was a CNA for 2 years, and I'm gonna take the MCAT in March... if I do well enough, I'll consider med school. Maybe orthopedic surgery. Maybe rheumatology. I'm leaning towards hospital administration though
No need to go on the defensive, hombre. I recognize the value of chiropractors.
-
8 years? Are you including undergraduate? Chiropractic school is 3 years in the US, and that's with clinical internships.
I was a CNA for 2 years, and I'm gonna take the MCAT in March... if I do well enough, I'll consider med school. Maybe orthopedic surgery. Maybe rheumatology. I'm leaning towards hospital administration though
No need to go on the defensive, hombre. I recognize the value of chiropractors.
Yep, 4 undergrad + 3.5 for DC.
Good luck man, I have some buds taking MCATs in march as well 8)
-
Been doing a lot of thinking as of late...taking inventory and going through articles regarding aspartame. Bodybuilders that "overload" with diet coke/pepsi vs. bodybuilders who refresh their bodies with natural spring/filtered water. We all know that bodybuilders fill up and slake there thirst and hunger with diet soda.
Is there a link? Seriously, this needs to be investigated.
STAY POSITIVE!!!!
If what you posted is the result, I'd cut back on all that thinking.
-
I never argued your point as I enjoy a delicious, crisp diet soda. I've been drinking Diet Pepsi since it was called Pepsi Free. My only problem is that these bodybuilders are "filling" up on this stuff. I was close to a bodybuilder who recently passed and watched him drink almost a case at a picnic. I understand drugs but this aspartame stuff does need closer examination. I'm not looking to argue...just food for thought. Everyone jumps on the drug train but these guys are also ingesting some serious quantities of food and beverage that may OR may not be healthy. Too many Kidney problems in bodybuilding...I think we found "ONE" of the causes!!!!!
This is written in response to the article entitled, "Diet Soda, Aspartame Shown To Destroy Kidney Function", which may be found at: http://naturalsociety.com/aspartame-alert-diet-soda-destroys-kidney-function
Aspartame ravages every organ in the body. A 1000 page medical text, "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" by world expert, H. J. Roberts., M.D. gives the mechanism by which it triggers or precipitates disease, http://www.sunsentpress.com Also, "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills" goes into aspartame and MSG, by neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., http://www.russellblaylockmd.com
The Ramazzini Studies have proven kidney cancer. http://rense.com/general68/tiz.htm and http://rense.com/general77/lowdoses.htm No way to get around it, aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen and should be removed from the market because it violates the Delaney Amendment which forbids adding anything in food that causes cancer. In original studies aspartame produced brain tumors and brain cancer, and more. FDA senior scientist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told the Senate in 1985 the FDA should not have been able to set an allowable daily dose because of the cancer. He said "If the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public?"
Even a recent Harvard Study confirms the work of Dr. Morando Soffritti with aspartame causing leukemia and lymphoma and more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037772_aspartame_leukemia_lymphoma.html
As to safe sweeteners you have "Just Like Sugar" which is on http://www.justlikesugarinc.com
Read those study's, don't just link them. Random pick from one of them = "CONCLUSION: Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects and occurrence of an apparent cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation." What it means? They can't prove link between aspartame and cancer. As I say, there is plenty of foil hat morons mixing this soup, but the scientific evidence is still missing. I have told this plenty of times, you guys should look at the big picture. It isn't just aspartame or saccharin which you should to concentrate, it is everything up to it.
What it mean? After you have born and before it, you face plenty of hazardous materials and chemicals, which all has effect on you. Did your mother drink or smoke while pregnant, did your family smoke while you were child, were there asbestos in the house you were living, did you live in town or countryside. List is endless, but the point is that in your age, you have face tens of thousands of chemicals which could give you cancer by itself, fifteen years from the intake, so how the hell you will know? I stop smoking 1988, and it take 20 something years to reach the point, where you are in the same line than non smokers. In that point of view, how you can rule something in or out? You consume poisons with half time of fifty years with no problem, and fear artificial sweeteners? How smart is that? There was a study about the pot, what you smoke with it. I know many of you guys smoke it because it is more healthy than alcohol. They tested marijuana which was growth to "medical purposes only" and find all kind of shit, starting with good old shit itself. There was numerous carcinogenic substances, poisons etc. in this "medicine". You eat gene manipulated meat and shit like that with no worries, but then there is diet soda, oh help me god, my life is ruin.. ;D
-
They eat batteries?
i'm been laughing for like 3 straight minutes over this comment. Well done@
-
Yep, 4 undergrad + 3.5 for DC.
Good luck man, I have some buds taking MCATs in march as well 8)
Cool that's what I figured. Same to you, Dr Flex
-
;D
Those devils over at Mountain Dew are out to get me! I knew it all the time.
Mountain Dew-nectar of the Gods when hungover.