Aspartame and other sweeteners

[smaul]

Are these really bad? Which ones are worse than other and does anyone have any links to back this up?  And in your opinion is it better to have sugar?  I guess if you're dieting no

[busyB]

Splenda is your best bet if you are going to use either one....but there will be some study come out where they give a rat 500 packs and he had a bad reaction. Would not recommend straight sugar (sucrose).

[WOOO]

there are a lot of new studies that are showing that although artificial sweetners have no bioavailable calories they provide many of the same effects as actual sugar in terms of spiking insulin levels and boosting appetite...


aspartame is death..

there is a great movie called "Sweet Misery" that will scare you out of eating it for good.

[busyB]

You can also try Stevia. Natural herb, nothing artificial at all about it.

[Markoni]

when I'm ordering  protein I always choose stevia for sweetener ,  or premium flavors 

[Beejis60]

You can also try Stevia. Natural herb, nothing artificial at all about it.

QFT!  This and splenda are the best bets, IMO.

[Arnold jr]

there are a lot of new studies that are showing that although artificial sweetners have no bioavailable calories they provide many of the same effects as actual sugar in terms of spiking insulin levels and boosting appetite...


aspartame is death..

there is a great movie called "Sweet Misery" that will scare you out of eating it for good.

Just curios, but do you have anything to back this statement up?

Here's something some of you may find interesting:

“When the sweetener aspartame is digested, its methyl ester bond is broken down into methanol, which further degrades into formaldehyde. Both methanol and formaldehyde are toxic in high doses, but a person would have to drink 600 cans of diet soda to get as much of either substance as is contained in a single orange.”
DISCOVER MAGAZINE (August 2005)

[Stubborn]

Just curios, but do you have anything to back this statement up?

Here's something some of you may find interesting:

“When the sweetener aspartame is digested, its methyl ester bond is broken down into methanol, which further degrades into formaldehyde. Both methanol and formaldehyde are toxic in high doses, but a person would have to drink 600 cans of diet soda to get as much of either substance as is contained in a single orange.”
DISCOVER MAGAZINE (August 2005)

Is this true? If so....no oranges either? I think the lesson here is to make your own whey and stay away from any other food on earth. Of course then there will inevitably be a study that says that protein is as toxic as plutonium and we will all be screwed!

[Arnold jr]

Is this true? If so....no oranges either? I think the lesson here is to make your own whey and stay away from any other food on earth. Of course then there will inevitably be a study that says that protein is as toxic as plutonium and we will all be screwed!

No, that's not the point. The point is that Aspartame is not as bad as some people like to believe. True, it is toxic to the body, but only in extravagant doses. The point of the above was to show that 600cans was not even at the level of toxic...how could it be when it equates to the same amount as one regular orange?

[Stubborn]

No, that's not the point. The point is that Aspartame is not as bad as some people like to believe. True, it is toxic to the body, but only in extravagant doses. The point of the above was to show that 600cans was not even at the level of toxic...how could it be when it equates to the same amount as one regular orange?

I use aspartame on a regular basis and seen to be fine so Im not too concerned, but I will damn sure be blaming cancer on it if I get it!!!

[SteelePegasus]

Just curios, but do you have anything to back this statement up?

Here's something some of you may find interesting:

“When the sweetener aspartame is digested, its methyl ester bond is broken down into methanol, which further degrades into formaldehyde. Both methanol and formaldehyde are toxic in high doses, but a person would have to drink 600 cans of diet soda to get as much of either substance as is contained in a single orange.”
DISCOVER MAGAZINE (August 2005)

wow, I would love to read the rest of that article, can you provide a link?

[jmt1]

wow, I would love to read the rest of that article, can you provide a link?

That these sweeteners were invented by chemists has long made them suspect. Saccharin was listed as an "anticipated human carcinogen" in 1981, sucralose has been shown to weakly mutate genes in test tubes, and aspartame has triggered fears about everything from autism to multiple sclerosis. Still, no concerns have held up under scrutiny. Food additives have to meet much higher standards than drugs, Walters points out, because their drawbacks aren't weighed against their medical benefits. Aspartame, for instance, has been studied more than any other substance in FDA history, yet it has consistently been declared safe. Sucralose has shown no carcinogenic effects in animals, even at high doses. And saccharin was rehabilitated as a safe additive in 1997, when scientists found that rats used in earlier studies had a predisposition to cancer unrelated to the sweetener.

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/aug/chemistry-of-artificial-sweeteners

[WOOO]

That these sweeteners were invented by chemists has long made them suspect. Saccharin was listed as an "anticipated human carcinogen" in 1981, sucralose has been shown to weakly mutate genes in test tubes, and aspartame has triggered fears about everything from autism to multiple sclerosis. Still, no concerns have held up under scrutiny. Food additives have to meet much higher standards than drugs, Walters points out, because their drawbacks aren't weighed against their medical benefits. Aspartame, for instance, has been studied more than any other substance in FDA history, yet it has consistently been declared safe. Sucralose has shown no carcinogenic effects in animals, even at high doses. And saccharin was rehabilitated as a safe additive in 1997, when scientists found that rats used in earlier studies had a predisposition to cancer unrelated to the sweetener.

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/aug/chemistry-of-artificial-sweeteners

watch SWEET MISERY

[SteelePegasus]

That these sweeteners were invented by chemists has long made them suspect. Saccharin was listed as an "anticipated human carcinogen" in 1981, sucralose has been shown to weakly mutate genes in test tubes, and aspartame has triggered fears about everything from autism to multiple sclerosis. Still, no concerns have held up under scrutiny. Food additives have to meet much higher standards than drugs, Walters points out, because their drawbacks aren't weighed against their medical benefits. Aspartame, for instance, has been studied more than any other substance in FDA history, yet it has consistently been declared safe. Sucralose has shown no carcinogenic effects in animals, even at high doses. And saccharin was rehabilitated as a safe additive in 1997, when scientists found that rats used in earlier studies had a predisposition to cancer unrelated to the sweetener.

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/aug/chemistry-of-artificial-sweeteners

thanks, I read the article..

[SteelePegasus]

watch SWEET MISERY

I am downloading it now

[WOOO]

I am downloading it now

i still consume aspartem... but in very low quantities

[Dr. D]

I am downloading it now

Get this book while you're at it:

http://www.mercola.com/sweet-deception-aspartame

[Rimbaud]

I stopped drinking soda this year (both regular & diet) & about 75% of my migraines went away.