NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember a couple years ago, asking a doctor about aspartame and she confirmed its safety. Of course, after coming across so much anti-aspartame propaganda on the Internet I couldn't help but feel a bit of fear about it so I had to double-check; and as part of my type 1 diabetes care program last summer I was at a meeting with a doctor, (different one than before) a nurse, and a dietitian, and they gave me a sheet they all agreed was valid about aspartame being safe within a certain ratio; I don't remember what the ratio was but I do recall something along the lines of it meaning that you'd have to weigh less than 100 pounds for having a half a dozen cans of diet soda a day to contribute to getting cancer from it.

I can't help but think the more popular opinion on this subject doesn't come from people who look to medical professionals for advice. To be blunt, I'm guessing that's because the whole anti-aspartame hysteria isn't really logical to begin with.

I mean, there's so much blatantly obvious fallacy. There's guilt by association; people talk about how "RUMSFELD got it approved, that must show how bad it is"... what the hell? That's like saying exercise must be bad for you because Hitler promoted it. There's presumed cause and effect "oh this person had aspartame and got cancer so the aspartame must have caused the cancer" when there's obviously so many things in our society that contribute a bit more considerably to cancer that to single out aspartame is just unreasonable. There's even appeals to nature like "sugar is NATURAL, it must be better for you than aspartame"... well, not like nature is good for you. Getting eaten alive by some wild animal, to put it mildly, isn't really healthy. But even if we were to say this was a purely chemical point rattlesnake venom is "natural" so according to the same "reasoning" if someone's bitten by a rattlesnake, they shouldn't go to a hospital, nnoooo, hospitals are artificial so they must be bad for you, instead, sit back, relax, and let the all-natural rattlesnake venom do whatever it oh-so-naturally does. It's bullshit.

I remember seeing something on Youtube from FOX "news" about aspartame, talking about how aspartame is everywhere and saying that as if it somehow proves a point about it being bad. Well, this leads me into my next analogy;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Notice how the person passing around that "petition" was talking about how "dihydrogen monoxide" was "everywhere"? Sound kinda similar to the "aspartame is used in so many different things" kind of argument? Really, there's quite a few similarities between the fear of aspartame and the petition in that video, not just the "it's everywhere" approach but the guilt by association as well.

Another thing, yeah there's a long list of different kinds of complaints about aspartame. It makes sense that given how there are so many people who consume aspartame that within that group there'd be enough people falsely misattributing things to aspartame to give up a variety of symptoms, especially when the presumably consciously instilled fear of aspartame might make people inclined to notice things that aren't as connected as they might seem.

Anyway, just a few rants about a few illogical arguments used against aspartame, (I'm guessing there's probably some more logical ones out there as well, to be fair) didn't really organize it but don't really want to. I haven't discussed this much in a new topic on a forum and I want to see how this goes...

Good news.
*sprinkles aspartame on sandwich, liberally*

It tastes disgusting. Diet Pop sucks.

It tastes disgusting. Diet Pop sucks.
Well, maybe to some extent, personally I don't notice much of a difference, but that's not really that much of a medical point anyway. I guess it's just that it's difficult for technology to mimic what I'm assuming we've been evolutionarily inclined to like the taste of. I'd say it's best to not really go for the junk food anyway, taste only lasts the few minutes you're eating and then it's gone, whereas health is comparatively FAR more long-term and important, but WITHIN people who want something sweet-tasting, I'd say it's probably better to settle for aspartame than to go for sugar.

Well, maybe to some extent, personally I don't notice much of a difference, but that's not really that much of a medical point anyway. I guess it's just that it's difficult for technology to mimic what I'm assuming we've been evolutionarily inclined to like the taste of. I'd say it's best to not really go for the junk food anyway, taste only lasts the few minutes you're eating and then it's gone, whereas health is comparatively FAR more long-term and important, but WITHIN people who want something sweet-tasting, I'd say it's probably better to settle for aspartame than to go for sugar.

(puts down lemonade)

I'm not dead yet.

(picks up lemonade)

(puts down lemonade)

I'm not dead yet.

(picks up lemonade)
Sugar lemonade or aspartame lemonade?

We fear getting horribly mutated. (http://www.mtv.com/shared/promoimages/movies/p/pans_labyrinth/pan/281x211.jpg) Thats why. ;)

I have heard that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde when it reaches body temperature.

Notice how the person passing around that "petition" was talking about how "dihydrogen monoxide" was "everywhere"?

I don't know if anybody on this thread is aware of this, but "dihydrogen monoxide" is WATER.

I have heard that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde when it reaches body temperature.


Really?

I don't know if anybody on this thread is aware of this, but "dihydrogen monoxide" is WATER.
That is why it is funny.

The thing is, EVERYTHING causes cancer in lab rats at the dosages they use, which are basically so high that you would practically have to eat your weight in whatever the substance is to match them.

I don't like artificial sweeteners of any sort because to me they all taste horrible! Some people, it seems, are genetically predisposed to having tastebuds that are more sensitive to some tastes, and for me, that bitter after taste of artificial sweeteners is so nasty that I can't even drink a diet soda if I am dying of thirst.

As to the fuss people make, some folks will fuss about everything. If aspartame works for you and your doctor approves, then go ahead. We should all use sweeteners in moderation anyway, so you should be safe.

I have heard that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde when it reaches body temperature.



I don't know if anybody on this thread is aware of this, but "dihydrogen monoxide" is WATER.
Of course I know that dihydrogen monoxide is water, THAT IS MY POINT. Do I need to replace saying "dihydrogen monoxide" with saying "water" in my post to make that clearer?

As for aspartame breaking down into formaldehyde, there's no toxic substances, only toxic amounts of substances, I doubt a single atom of lead could kill you. There's so little aspartame used in things like diet soda (I think a can of diet pepsi has less than an eighth of a gram of aspartame) that it really won't break down into a significant amount of formaldehyde (actually, I think it breaks down into methanol first, and I've heard there's higher concentrations of methanol in some fruits than aspartame in things like diet soda.)

Really?


There was a theory going around that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by diet soda that was kept at too warm a temperature and the artificial sweetener broke down and was poisoning people. I heard a story about it on NPR, but have no idea whether it was ever validated or not.

I don't like artificial sweeteners of any sort because to me they all taste horrible!
Well, I dunno. I've noticed that splenda (I think that one uses sucralose) on its own doesn't taste like sugar on its own (splenda has a comparatively more salty taste) but when you put it on cereal it's hard to tell the difference.

Well, I dunno. I've noticed that splenda (I think that one uses sucralose) on its own doesn't taste like sugar on its own (splenda has a comparatively more salty taste) but when you put it on cereal it's hard to tell the difference.

I haven't tried that one, but mostly because all the others I have tried were so icky, I haven't bothered. Maybe I will give it a shot and see. I don't do that much sugar anyway, so it is not too bad if I have something sweet once in a while with real sugar.

I'm skinny enough as it is. I need those extra calories, thieving bastards. :mad:

There was a theory going around that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by diet soda that was kept at too warm a temperature and the artificial sweetener broke down and was poisoning people. I heard a story about it on NPR, but have no idea whether it was ever validated or not.
What the hell? I think Gulf War Syndrome would have a bit more to do with all the weapons of war having been used...

Something must be seriously wrong with popular opinion to be more inclined to attribute something to an artificial sweetener than to war.

I'm skinny enough as it is. I need those extra calories, thieving bastards. :mad:
Ironically, for me, the same reason I'm (kinda) skinny (type 1 diabetes) is the same reason aspartame is a better alternative for me.

What the hell? I think Gulf War Syndrome would have a bit more to do with all the weapons of war having been used...

Something must be seriously wrong with popular opinion to be more inclined to attribute something to an artificial sweetener than to war.

You would think so, but as I recall, the particular symptoms (tremors, seizures, whatever) could all be tied somehow to the ingredients in Diet Pepsi, which was provided by the boat load to soldiers in the desert.

As I said, though, I don't know if any of this has been verified, studies were apparently being done, and it was a while back that I heard this theory.

Aspartame tastes like shit. I'd rather just drink less soda than choke down that stuff...

Aspartame tastes like shit. I'd rather just drink less soda than choke down that stuff...
Well, that's good, it's just that when people say sugar is better is when it becomes clearly illogical.

Have you ever been to Come by Chance?

Have you ever been to Come by Chance?
Not really I don't even know where it is, but it sounds familiar so I guess it's in Newfoundland... whoops that location is incredibly outdated, I'm in St. John's now (though ironically I'm going back to Gander to visit in a couple days anyway) but I'm a MUN student and I'm guessing MUN is a bit more recognized outside Newfoundland and/or outside Canada than Gander.

Well, that's good, it's just that when people say sugar is better is when it becomes clearly illogical.

Not at all. They're just different...now saccharin may be different in terms of its potential health effects, but aspartame and sucralose are both pretty safe, at least given that there doesn't appear to be any causal relationship between consumption of them and cancer rates.

If anything, consuming sugar is more likely to increase your chances of cancer and other illnesses than artificial sweeteners. Personally, I think it's better to just drink fewer sodas in general than try to get away with immoderate consumption through "diet" drinks.

Not really I don't even know where it is, but it sounds familiar so I guess it's in Newfoundland... whoops that location is incredibly outdated, I'm in St. John's now (though ironically I'm going back to Gander to visit in a couple days anyway) but I'm a MUN student and I'm guessing MUN is a bit more recognized outside Newfoundland and/or outside Canada than Gander.It's by Arnold's cove. I thought I'd mention it because it has to be one of the best names I've heard for a town. Sure there is Dildo and Cormack, but Come by Chance takes the cake.

But what are you taking at MUN? I've heard it is pretty good for engineering.

Ironically, for me, the same reason I'm (kinda) skinny (type 1 diabetes) is the same reason aspartame is a better alternative for me.Oooh, long time since I've met anyone with type 1 diabetes. I can see why you prefer the artificial sweeteners then.

Aspartame triggers pre-diarrhoea(personal experience). That alone is quite enough to put me off "sugar free" sweets and stuff for life. I've never had a problem with saccharin. Besides which the Saccharin that supposedly caused cancer was given in much higher doses than aspartame, combined with them using rats that were so vulnerable to cancer, injecting them with Dihydrogen Monoxide caused cancer.

Aspartame isn't only used in soda... its in a lot of light products and other other non brand products... its is not the fear that you drink to much light cola but a whole variety of products with aspertame... that is the dangerous part. you can't check how much the intake of aspertame is because it is in so many products.

What the hell? I think Gulf War Syndrome would have a bit more to do with all the weapons of war having been used...

Something must be seriously wrong with popular opinion to be more inclined to attribute something to an artificial sweetener than to war.

Why?

Soldiers can't be poisoned?

What is this aspartame you speak of?

What is this aspartame you speak of?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Aspartame_structure.png

I can't help but think the more popular opinion on this subject doesn't come from people who look to medical professionals for advice. To be blunt, I'm guessing that's because the whole anti-aspartame hysteria isn't really logical to begin with.


It is worth bearing in mind that not all medical opinion is equal. Not all scientific opinion is equal.

I've seen studies that show very strong correlations between aspartame and a variety of symptoms, from the formaldehyde poisoning someone else has already mentioned, through lymphomas and pseudo-fibromyalgia, to increase in morbid obesity.

So - why is there conflicting opinion?

Part of it may be to do with the nature of the research. (Anyone remember a few years ago, tobacco companies sponsoring research - directly and indirectly - to show that smoking wasn't bad for you?)

Example:

"Studies of aspartame in the peer reviewed medical literature were surveyed for funding source and study outcome. Of the 166 studies felt to have relevance for questions of human safety, 74 had Nutrasweet® industry related funding and 92 were independently funded. One hundred percent of the industry funded research attested to aspartame's safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research identified a problem.

http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

Look at the people doing the Independent research - MIT, FDA, NIMH...
http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

Worth bearing in mind, maybe?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Aspartame_structure.png

Ah. Carry on.

Have you ever been to Come by Chance?

No, but I aim to swing by when I visit Blow Me Down and Whippet Harbour

From woody point to come-by-chance to good ol’ ferryland
Come take a look at gander, blackhead’s mighty grand
Don’t let the names deceive you, newfoundland’s mighty fine
So spend a night on dildo if you think you’ve got the time

It's by Arnold's cove. I thought I'd mention it because it has to be one of the best names I've heard for a town. Sure there is Dildo and Cormack, but Come by Chance takes the cake.

But what are you taking at MUN? I've heard it is pretty good for engineering.
Yeah, but I'm taking science. I don't think engineering would get me into cryonics research. I know a buddy of mine who's doing engineering though.

Why?

Soldiers can't be poisoned?
... what?

I guess people are afraid of not having calories?

You do need calories to....well....live.

I guess people are afraid of not having calories?

You do need calories to....well....live.This is true. That must be it; people dislike Aspartame because they're afraid of starving to death. ;)

This is true. That must be it; people dislike Aspartame because they're afraid of starving to death. ;)

I can habeeb it

Aspartame is fine, actually. It's only about 100 times sweeter than regular sugar.To put this in context, sucralose (splenda) is about 300 times sweeter, and saccharin is about 600 times sweeter.

Saccharin is ok as well - it's well tolerated by the metabolic system, and it's only used in tiny amounts because it's so strong a sweetener. I've actually got a pharmaceutical grade sample of it in my lab - and it actually makes the air taste sweet if you waft a bit about the place (I'm talking a tiny pinch here, spread about using a desk fan).

Sucralose, on the other hand, is a chlorinated version of natural sugar. Basically, sugar is a very short carbohydrate - the monomer for building carbohydrate polymers - such as starches and higher order polymers like cellulose. Sugar is very soluble in water because it's got hydroxy groups on nearly every carbon in the chain. You can pretty much make any proportions of sugar and water mix and form a liquid (although very high sugar concentrations need a bit of heat to make this happen, and tend to be viscous, like golden syrup or molasses).
In sucralose, all the hydroxy groups are replaced by chlorine. This makes the stuff more fat soluble than water soluble. It gets into your fat and stays there (unless you go on a diet and lose fat). It can also cross the blood-brain barrier for the same reason, and this is probably not a good thing.

Aspartame is safest though. It's a very short peptide, consisting of the methyl ester of phenylalanine, coupled with glycine (both of these are amino acids, found in most proteins). It is however rapidly metabolised, quickly releasing an excess of phenylalanine into the bloodstream, which has a slight amphetamine-like effect. You can try this - phenylalanine supplements are available from vitamin and health food stores. 500 mg (the usual capsule size) of it will perk you up a bit - like drinking a few cans of jolt cola. In fact, some of the stimulant effects of diet coke come from this, as well as the caffeine. To put this into perspective again, the beginners dose of most proper amphetamine stimulants is about 20-30 mg.
So aspartame may not be a good idea to give to young kids, as it can make them more hyperactive than usual - and has an enhanced effect because of their typically smaller body mass. But this is the only danger of it.

Aspartame is fine, actually. It's only about 100 times sweeter than regular sugar.To put this in context, sucralose (splenda) is about 300 times sweeter, and saccharin is about 600 times sweeter.

Saccharin is ok as well - it's well tolerated by the metabolic system, and it's only used in tiny amounts because it's so strong a sweetener. I've actually got a pharmaceutical grade sample of it in my lab - and it actually makes the air taste sweet if you waft a bit about the place (I'm talking a tiny pinch here, spread about using a desk fan).

Sucralose, on the other hand, is a chlorinated version of natural sugar. Basically, sugar is a very short carbohydrate - the monomer for building carbohydrate polymers - such as starches and higher order polymers like cellulose. Sugar is very soluble in water because it's got hydroxy groups on nearly every carbon in the chain. You can pretty much make any proportions of sugar and water mix and form a liquid (although very high sugar concentrations need a bit of heat to make this happen, and tend to be viscous, like golden syrup or molasses).
In sucralose, all the hydroxy groups are replaced by chlorine. This makes the stuff more fat soluble than water soluble. It gets into your fat and stays there (unless you go on a diet and lose fat). It can also cross the blood-brain barrier for the same reason, and this is probably not a good thing.

Aspartame is safest though. It's a very short peptide, consisting of the methyl ester of phenylalanine, coupled with glycine (both of these are amino acids, found in most proteins). It is however rapidly metabolised, quickly releasing an excess of phenylalanine into the bloodstream, which has a slight amphetamine-like effect. You can try this - phenylalanine supplements are available from vitamin and health food stores. 500 mg (the usual capsule size) of it will perk you up a bit - like drinking a few cans of jolt cola. In fact, some of the stimulant effects of diet coke come from this, as well as the caffeine. To put this into perspective again, the beginners dose of most proper amphetamine stimulants is about 20-30 mg.
So aspartame may not be a good idea to give to young kids, as it can make them more hyperactive than usual - and has an enhanced effect because of their typically smaller body mass. But this is the only danger of it.

Then what about the fructose in high-fructose corn syrup?

Then what about the fructose in high-fructose corn syrup?

DEATH

I've tested and compared regular sugar and various artificial sugars (aspartame?), in soft drink form and regular powder form (so sue me I was bored), and while powdered sugar goes down pretty easily, as does sugared soft drinks, artificially sugared sodas taste "off" while artificial powdered sugar tastes simply horrible to the point where I can't even keep it in my mouth.

It is worth bearing in mind that not all medical opinion is equal. Not all scientific opinion is equal.

I've seen studies that show very strong correlations between aspartame and a variety of symptoms, from the formaldehyde poisoning someone else has already mentioned, through lymphomas and pseudo-fibromyalgia, to increase in morbid obesity.

So - why is there conflicting opinion?

Part of it may be to do with the nature of the research. (Anyone remember a few years ago, tobacco companies sponsoring research - directly and indirectly - to show that smoking wasn't bad for you?)

Example:



http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

Look at the people doing the Independent research - MIT, FDA, NIMH...
http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

Worth bearing in mind, maybe?
Hmm... interesting. I had a feeling that there were more logical arguments against aspartame than what I was used to. However, I think you're using a weak analogy in comparing aspartame to tobacco; I don't see doctors, nurses, and dietitians all recommending tobacco at the same time. Though yeah, worth bearing in mind. I'm not particularily inclined to view the pages you linked to at this point in time, but I might sometime, I might even bookmark it. I still disagree, but yeah I admit I this insight on this subject was more rational on than I had previously expected.

Diet soda is a joke. If you can't have the real thing, then don't drink soda.

Diet soda is a joke. If you can't have the real thing, then don't drink soda.

Uh...no.

I don't like the cloying, overwhelming sweetness of high-fructose corn syrup. I can tolerate the occasional cane sugar soda (Boylan's, Jones), but HFCS is nasty. I will drink soda if i want to, and it will not be disgustingly sweet.

I've tried the various diet Colas and they are horrible due to the artifcial sweeteners used. I can tolerate Diet Pepsi while I cannot drink any Diet Coke.

I have heard that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde when it reaches body temperature.

Aspartame is safest though. It's a very short peptide, consisting of the methyl ester of phenylalanine, coupled with glycine (both of these are amino acids, found in most proteins). It is however rapidly metabolised, quickly releasing an excess of phenylalanine into the bloodstream, which has a slight amphetamine-like effect.
Actually it is aspartic acid and phenylalanine (hence the name aspertame). It's the methyl ester of the dipeptide aspartylphenylalanine. It's an ester, it splits into the dipeptide aspartylphenylalanine and methanol. Aspartylphenylalanine is digested the same way as other proteins and peptides. Keep in mind, though, that phenylalanine is also present in other protein rich foods: the liver would extract the excess amino acids.

Methanol, however, is oxidized to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, just like ethanol (your good ol' alcohol) being oxidized to acetaldehyde (gives you the hang-over) and then to acetic acid (same component as vinegar).

I don't like the cloying, overwhelming sweetness of high-fructose corn syrup. I can tolerate the occasional cane sugar soda (Boylan's, Jones), but HFCS is nasty. I will drink soda if i want to, and it will not be disgustingly sweet.

I don't know, I never tasted disgustingly sweet until aspartame. Saccharin is worse, but it's not in many sodas (except for Tab...). Splenda, or sucralose, is pretty decent, especially when compared to the crap that came before it. Personally, I'd bank on stevia-related compounds as the best route for artificial sweeteners.

Even so, I don't really like sweet drinks to begin with. I'll dilute my Coke with a part or two of soda water before drinking it. That makes it palatable rather than cloying and oily.

I am shocked at how udderly uninformed everyone is on this subject.

The stuff in fruit is paired with another compnent that allows the body to pass it without harm the stuff used in pop lacks that compnent and it gets stuck in the body and builds up.

When enough gets stuck in your system and builds up sicknesses begin showing up, how fast that illnesses begin showing up depend on each persons tolarance. This is not the same as what rests in fruits, this stuff will kill you slowly and painfully but not before makeing a person go stupid.

I am shocked at how udderly uninformed everyone is on this subject.

I'm shocked that you can say this and be content to make a post with terrible spelling.

I'm shocked that you can say this and be content to make a post with terrible spelling.
And frankly, I don't get the point of his/her post either... if there was, it's incomprehensible. I was about to give a flippant remark, but I wanted to maintain my image...

I dont see what spelling has to do with anything so long as it can be understood, it dont bother me if you all dont care enough not to want your brains (among other portions of the body) to be farked.

Too bad i was correct about this forum its like your all still stuck on 1950s goverment propaganda.

Good luck to you all hope you thinking ability lasts long enough to understand what is going on.

What? I've never heard this myth before...and to think I though chemtrails were the best of the best when it comes to utterly implausible conspiracy theories.

But then again, I'm just your friendly neighborhood G-man. And I'm on to you.

I am shocked at how udderly uninformed everyone is on this subject.
Ok, I'll try and make sense of this

The stuff in fruit
What stuff?
is paired with another compnent
What other component?
that allows the body to pass it without harm the stuff used in pop
You mean aspartame?
lacks that compnent and it gets stuck in the body and builds up.
Again, what is this magical component?

When enough gets stuck in your system and builds up sicknesses begin showing up,
How much has to build up before it becomes toxic?
how fast that illnesses begin showing up depend on each persons tolarance.
What are the symptoms of this illness?
This is not the same as what rests in fruits,
What?
this stuff will kill you slowly and painfully but not before makeing a person go stupid.
AGAIN, what is this 'stuff'? Aspatame? Something in fruit? The mystical component that makes the 'stuff' in fruit safe? I'm sure all these things have names, try using them so people will be able to tell what you're talking about.
I dont see what spelling has to do with anything so long as it can be understood, it dont bother me if you all dont care enough not to want your brains (among other portions of the body) to be farked.
Pity you haven't demonstrated that we're at risk of 'farking' our brains or any other major organs.

Too bad i was correct about this forum its like your all still stuck on 1950s goverment propaganda.
What?

Good luck to you all hope you thinking ability lasts long enough to understand what is going on.

What are you talking about?

Sugar's fine as it is. In fact, it's great.; I love sweet food but only if they're actually sweet. Why do people try to make new stuff to replace it? It'll never work. A few 1000 years of civilisation can never compete with billions of years of evolution. I'm skinny enough as it is. I need those extra calories, thieving bastards. :mad:Me too. People need calories to live. Why do people want to take that away? I could halfway understand it if it would be just for diabetics but not for other people.

Uh...no.

I don't like the cloying, overwhelming sweetness of high-fructose corn syrup. I can tolerate the occasional cane sugar soda (Boylan's, Jones), but HFCS is nasty. I will drink soda if i want to, and it will not be disgustingly sweet.Ah, yeah, they do use that over where you are, don't they. Took a while to get used to for me. I thought they'd stretched the drinks with water because the taste of the corn syrup (in contrast to what gets used to sweeten drinks in Europe) reminded me of the taste of the tap water.

I know I prefer sugar because I would much rather have the sweet, sweet juice of a nice green tropical plant than a chemical knocked up in a factory from oil by-products.

I know I prefer sugar because I would much rather have the sweet, sweet juice of a nice green tropical plant than a chemical knocked up in a factory from oil by-products.

Why exactly is something that comes from a plant better than something that comes from a factory?

Diet soda is a joke. If you can't have the real thing, then don't drink soda.Yeah. Have diet iced tea instead!

Sugar's fine as it is. In fact, it's great.; I love sweet food but only if they're actually sweet. Why do people try to make new stuff to replace it?Because sugar is harmful?

Sugar's fine as it is. In fact, it's great.; I love sweet food but only if they're actually sweet. Why do people try to make new stuff to replace it? It'll never work. A few 1000 years of civilisation can never compete with billions of years of evolution.

Me too. People need calories to live. Why do people want to take that away? I could halfway understand it if it would be just for diabetics but not for other people.
Sugar's fine as it is? What are you talking about? It contributes to such a wide range of problems, such as obesity, vitamin deficiency, etc... (though to be honest I don't know much about the specifics or specific examples, I might ask my sister about that since she's a nutrition major) so yeah we SHOULD replace it, it doesn't seem easy but that's no excuse to just GIVE UP.

People need calories to live, but given what I've heard about obesity being on the rise we have more than enough. It's not just for diabetics, (and it's not that we're supposed to avoid sugar, just that carbohydrate consumption in general needs to be closely watched so as to adjust the insulin dose accordingly, and irregular patterns of it could cause changes in blood glucose level) it's for most people who would be reasonable about their health.

Well, I dunno. I've noticed that splenda (I think that one uses sucralose) on its own doesn't taste like sugar on its own (splenda has a comparatively more salty taste) but when you put it on cereal it's hard to tell the difference.

Hard to tell the difference? Are you serious?

Splenda is nasty. Everything I use it on tastes bitter and unsweet... And when I make those same things with sugar (usually pies, cakes, cookies, and the like, but basically everything you can imagine), they taste divine. Splenda has a bittersweet taste and a bitter, salty finish that kills the back of the tongue.

It's just like every other artificial sweetener: Bad.

Sugar's fine as it is? What are you talking about? It contributes to such a wide range of problems, such as obesity, vitamin deficiency, etc... (though to be honest I don't know much about the specifics or specific examples, I might ask my sister about that since she's a nutrition major) so yeah we SHOULD replace it, it doesn't seem easy but that's no excuse to just GIVE UP.

People need calories to live, but given what I've heard about obesity being on the rise we have more than enough. It's not just for diabetics, (and it's not that we're supposed to avoid sugar, just that carbohydrate consumption in general needs to be closely watched so as to adjust the insulin dose accordingly, and irregular patterns of it could cause changes in blood glucose level) it's for most people who would be reasonable about their health.

I honestly believe that our major eating problems are due to poor diet and lack of exercise, not sugar intake. We shouldn't have to replace sugar because a good amount of people are falling ill for not eating and exercising properly.

Hey, I never said aspartame is actually good for you. I just said that out of all the artificial sweeteners used, it's probably the safest. Yeah, you do metabolise a bit of methanol from it, which is probably going to give you a headache, but only if you drink gallons of diet soda every day. Mind you, some people do.

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is sort of semi-artificial. Straightforward corn syrup (the kind thats been around for a hundred years or more) is mostly glucose and some sucrose in water - with some other soluble organic garbage from the corn. A bit like molasses is still 40-50% sugar, but has so much other decomposed plant matter in it that it doesn't really taste all that sweet.

However, about 40 years ago, the technology was developed for upping the fructose content of corn syrup, to make HFCS. Fructose is natural fruit sugar (it's an isomer of glucose), present in nearly all ripe fruit. It's about twice as sweet as ordinary sugar - meaning you need less of it to sweeten something.
It's used in a lot of soft drinks, biscuits, cakes, ice creams, cookies, sauces, and perhaps surprisingly, bread products (because it helps keep bread soft by retaining water).

You metabolise fructose in the same way as glucose. But because it's a single unit sugar, it's a form of "instant" energy - giving you a rapid energy high, which tends to decline quickly. You run out afterwards, and your body doesn't always react fast enough to build your blood sugar levels up again, giving you an energy low. So it's not that good for you - it stresses out the insulin / glucagon / glycogen maintenance system in your body, which can lead to early onset (type 2) diabetes.

I honestly believe that our major eating problems are due to poor diet and lack of exercise, not sugar intake. We shouldn't have to replace sugar because a good amount of people are falling ill for not eating and exercising properly.
Wouldn't sugar qualify as being part of a poor diet? And with regards to the exercise part, I doubt it's a good idea to "work off" sugar such as that in candy, since it's calories without the vitamins. I remember from my grade 12 chemistry textbook that some nutrients like vitamin C and beta-carotene (a form of vitamin A) were anti-oxidants in the sense that they react with oxygen free radicals before cells do, and if I recall correctly that includes oxygen itself. Since exercise increases oxygen intake, wouldn't that imply that more oxygen would be reacting with vitamins, therefore implying that you need more vitamins when you're exercizing more, therefore that your vitamin intake should be proportional to your calorie intake even (if not especially) when you're exercizing, making sugar a bad option either way?)

Hard to tell the difference? Are you serious?

Splenda is nasty. Everything I use it on tastes bitter and unsweet... And when I make those same things with sugar (usually pies, cakes, cookies, and the like, but basically everything you can imagine), they taste divine. Splenda has a bittersweet taste and a bitter, salty finish that kills the back of the tongue.

It's just like every other artificial sweetener: Bad.
To be fair, I haven't had actual sugar in my cereal in a while (probably years) so I guess it'd be hard to tell the difference without direct comparison, but I find that while splenda on its own tastes just salty unlike sugar on its own which tastes sweet, I find mixing splenda with cereal and milk manages to sweeten it.

Kinda sick that there's only 4 usable posts in 5 whole pages on this particular topic.

:(

Perhaps the most obvious part of what is missed, bafflingly, on this subject, is phenylketonuria ... which is obviously bolded and sometimes even provided in red on most products containing aspartame, especially since the *demise* of Nutrasweet.
That could cause concern, yes, for people who have an idea about it, and why there's screening for it in certain states in newborns.

What's with the overblown illogical fear of aspartame?

Illogical?

THIS IS ASPARTAAAAAAAME!

Sorry. Carry on.

I don't like the taste.

Might I also point out that claiming it is not a sugar is silly in chemical terms?

http://www.junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/

Here's a little reading for everybody who thinks sugar and fats are deadly poison.

Sugar's fine as it is? What are you talking about? It contributes to such a wide range of problems, such as obesity, vitamin deficiency, etc... (though to be honest I don't know much about the specifics or specific examples, I might ask my sister about that since she's a nutrition major) so yeah we SHOULD replace it, it doesn't seem easy but that's no excuse to just GIVE UP.

Sugar tastes different from artificial sweeteners; it's just the best for a lot of foods because of that difference. Of course, the entire point is moderation; I have no doubt you would suffer ill health effects if you consumed a huge amount of aspartame, or sucralose, or saccharin, or stevia, or any other artificial or natural non-sucrose sweetener.

Sugar isn't bad for you, eating too much sugar is. (Perhaps if there were some way to offset its negative effects, people could eat more, but that's something someone else will have to try. I would, however, consider investing in it...)

Sugar's fine as it is. In fact, it's great.; I love sweet food but only if they're actually sweet. Why do people try to make new stuff to replace it? It'll never work. A few 1000 years of civilisation can never compete with billions of years of evolution. Me too. People need calories to live. Why do people want to take that away? I could halfway understand it if it would be just for diabetics but not for other people.

Amen. The problem is almost never in the food itself, but how (and even why) we eat it. I've just started learning to bake and cook, and I'll tell you that neither artificial sweetener nor margarine will find it's way into my cookies. Why? Because butter and sugar are the best for baking, period. The problem lies in sitting down all day and eating a dozen cookies without consummate activity to burn those calories.

Another aspect of the problem is that we're no longer eating, as a society, for sheer survival, and we're no longer reliant on seasonal variances in food availability. We can have whatever we want whenever we want it, and that leads to eating almost exclusively for pleasure/taste. Liking certain flavors and textures, again, isn't a problem in and of itself. Liking them and consuming them to the exclusion of most others is. The "good" news on that front is that fuel prices will eventually rise to the point where everything from transporting food ridiculous distances to fertilizing corporate farms with petroleum by-products will become too expensive, and we'll have to re-learn to eat regionally and for sustenance.


Because sugar is harmful?

Anything is harmful if you consume enough of it. You've been sold a lie about sugar because of the nation's "obesity epidemic". The way I see it, sugar has been demonized because nobody wants to look at their own behavior and do anything about that. That's kinda the American Way. Since the 50s, when we were knocking out polio and other diseases with magic-bullet vaccines, America believes in single-aspect solutions to multifaceted problems.

Nobody wants to look at sedentary lifestyles caused by things like the shift in jobs from those requiring physical exertion to those requiring we plant our asses in cubicles or desks for the work day. Or how entertainment has become a largely sedentary enterprise with the 'Net and game consoles and the like. I've been in North Dakota for going on three years, and despite my best efforts, I've not been able to scrounge up a pick-up basketball game (indoors or out, before the weather jokes come in response) like I used to a decade ago when all I had to do was drive around town to the local "circuit" of basketball courts to find a game.

Sugar is not the enemy -- we are.

Sugar's fine as it is? What are you talking about? It contributes to such a wide range of problems, such as obesity, vitamin deficiency, etc... (though to be honest I don't know much about the specifics or specific examples, I might ask my sister about that since she's a nutrition major) so yeah we SHOULD replace it, it doesn't seem easy but that's no excuse to just GIVE UP.

People need calories to live, but given what I've heard about obesity being on the rise we have more than enough. It's not just for diabetics, (and it's not that we're supposed to avoid sugar, just that carbohydrate consumption in general needs to be closely watched so as to adjust the insulin dose accordingly, and irregular patterns of it could cause changes in blood glucose level) it's for most people who would be reasonable about their health.

Again, the fault does NOT lie with the food. It lies with the consumer. Sugar does NOT need to be replaced, it's intake needs to be -- wait for it -- MODERATED. Watched. Considered, even. We're omnivores, see, and that means we can and should eat moderate amounts from all over the food spectrum. Fad diets where you cut out one entire category of food are unhealthy. You cut out carbs -- okay, so where do dietary fiber and vegetable nutrients come from? You cut out meat -- where do meat proteins come from?

Sugar is important in a diet, as I learned in seventh grade when my science teacher told us about monosaccharide, disaccharide and polysaccharide carbohydrates. "Mono"s, like glucose and fructose, provide instant energy (the honey on a piece of toast), "di"s, like sucrose and lactose, take a bit longer to digest and provide the "second stage" of energy (the milk in your cereal). "Poly"s, like amylose -- a.k.a. starches, are complex carbs that take a long time to digest, and sustain energy between meals (the wheat or corn cereal itself, or the hashbrown potatoes). Throw in some protein (bacon, sausage, ham, et. al.), and you've got energy for the whole of the morning, as proteins take the longest to digest.

Glass of orange juice, whole wheat toast or cereal and milk, couple of strips of bacon, and you're fueled (good grief, I sound like some between-cartoon public service announcement on a Saturday morning). The trick is not to have seventeen pieces of bacon or a bowl of cereal the size of your head. I know because that was my problem. I then figured out that after the first few pieces of whatever I was gorging myself on, it was no longer flavor or hunger that was driving me, but habit -- and we are creatures of habit, to be sure.

One thing that helped me was switching to soy milk (it's really soy juice, but nobody would buy that...thank you Lewis Black). I discovered that milk actually enabled my love, and unhealthy gorgings of, things like cookies, cake and donuts. Once I switched to soy, I eventually stopped buying Oreos and donuts and the like because they don't taste as good to me with soy as they do with milk. No abundance of sweets in my house meant no abundance in my diet. I'm under 200 pounds for the first time since the turn of the century.

Now granted, soy milk is an acquired taste, and I also started doing 20 minutes of cardio three times a week and took up yoga and hiking. What I did worked for me, as far as I can tell, and it might not for anyone else, which is why I'm not telling anyone to do what I did. Except for the part where I thought about how and why I ate, and how much time I spent not burning it off, and only because I was tired of being tired, feeling old, and looking bulgy...especially man-boobs *shudder*.

FOOD IS A TOOL OF SURVIVAL (and sometimes a work of art or culinary pleasure) -- it isn't bad in and of itself. Our use of it is what can cause problems.

The problem lies in sitting down all day and eating a dozen cookies without consummate activity to burn those calories.
No it doesn't. See my point about exercize not solving the problem of calorie intake not being proportional to VITAMIN intake.

Anything is harmful if you consume enough of it. You've been sold a lie about sugar because of the nation's "obesity epidemic". The way I see it, sugar has been demonized because nobody wants to look at their own behavior and do anything about that. That's kinda the American Way. Since the 50s, when we were knocking out polio and other diseases with magic-bullet vaccines, America believes in single-aspect solutions to multifaceted problems.

Nobody wants to look at sedentary lifestyles caused by things like the shift in jobs from those requiring physical exertion to those requiring we plant our asses in cubicles or desks for the work day. Or how entertainment has become a largely sedentary enterprise with the 'Net and game consoles and the like. I've been in North Dakota for going on three years, and despite my best efforts, I've not been able to scrounge up a pick-up basketball game (indoors or out, before the weather jokes come in response) like I used to a decade ago when all I had to do was drive around town to the local "circuit" of basketball courts to find a game.

Sugar is not the enemy -- we are.


Yeah, the aesthetically unfashionable side affect of abundance, prosperity and progress is the worst thing to ever happen to our society ever :rolleyes:.

http://www.junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/

Here's a little reading for everybody who thinks sugar and fats are deadly poison.Is that affiliated with Junk Science?

Because sugar is harmful?Certainly not in itself. Sugar is the basic foodstuff animals in general, and thus also people, need to survive. They may obtain this in the form of starch and other carbohydrates and later break it down into sugar but sugar is essential for staying alive.

Sugar's fine as it is? What are you talking about? It contributes to such a wide range of problems, such as obesity, vitamin deficiency, etc... (though to be honest I don't know much about the specifics or specific examples, I might ask my sister about that since she's a nutrition major) so yeah we SHOULD replace it, it doesn't seem easy but that's no excuse to just GIVE UP.

People need calories to live, but given what I've heard about obesity being on the rise we have more than enough. It's not just for diabetics, (and it's not that we're supposed to avoid sugar, just that carbohydrate consumption in general needs to be closely watched so as to adjust the insulin dose accordingly, and irregular patterns of it could cause changes in blood glucose level) it's for most people who would be reasonable about their health.Obesity is not caused by people eating sugar and for no other reason. Obesity is caused by eating too much sugar as well as other carbohydrates and fat and not doing enough exercise. Sugar is not connected to vitamin defiency at all. You can easily have lots of sugar and get your vitamins as well. Sugar should definitely not be replaced. It should be accepted that it is an important part of everyone's diet but people should be encouraged to have responsible diets. Instead of encouraging them to replace one of the essential parts of your diet because they're not getting enough of another essential, surely it's much more sensible to just encourage them to get their vitamins as well as their sugar.
No it doesn't. See my point about exercize not solving the problem of calorie intake not being proportional to VITAMIN intake.Exercise solves the obesity problem but not the vitamin defiency 1. Eating vitamin-rich food as well as sugary foods is.

Yeah, the aesthetically unfashionable side affect of abundance, prosperity and progress is the worst thing to ever happen to our society ever Yeah cos that's not twisting what he's saying. Obesity is unhealthy not just aesthetically unfashionable. Nowhere does he say anything about it being the worst thing that happened to this society ever or any such equivelant. Perhaps the abundance, prosperity and progress of this society are as worth having as people make out anyway.

No it doesn't. See my point about exercize not solving the problem of calorie intake not being proportional to VITAMIN intake.

Your point makes no sense if vitamin deficiency is not the problem. Calorie intake is balanced or ameliorated through burning calories -- simple as that. Vitamins have a role, but a throrough intake of vitamins will not make up for sitting on your ass all day.

Yeah, the aesthetically unfashionable side affect of abundance, prosperity and progress is the worst thing to ever happen to our society ever.

Right, 'cause that's what I said. :rolleyes:

It isn't the worst thing to happen, but it sure as hell isn't helping any other thing get better. If you're umotivated because you're tired and depressed and that's because you don't exercise, then that's one more person who's not out doing something productive. Enough of that, and it just might be a larger problem for society than you'd think.

*snip*
Perhaps the abundance, prosperity and progress of this society are as worth having as people make out anyway.

Or at least not the US version of abundance, prosperity and progress...'cause that rising tide sure as hell doesn't float all boats.

Dunno about _fear_... it just leaves a nasty aftertaste in my mouth and messes up my stomach. :(

Then again, my Australian friend told me that over there at least aspartame is used to poison ants (or rats, I have bad memory). :p

Diet soda is a joke. If you can't have the real thing, then don't drink soda.

Amen to that. I'd rather do an hour at the gym to burn off those sugary calories than drink or eat the horrible "sugar free" (if they want to make non-sweet things, why put some freaking sugar-wannabe in it?!) crap.

This is not the same as what rests in fruits, this stuff will kill you slowly and painfully but not before makeing a person go stupid.

AGAIN, what is this 'stuff'? Aspatame? Something in fruit? The mystical component that makes the 'stuff' in fruit safe? I'm sure all these things have names, try using them so people will be able to tell what you're talking about.

There was a scare some years back about USA apples having a pesticide or similar used on them when they were growing that supposedly upon being irradiated (as many fruits in the States sadly are to ensure hygiene, I've been given to understand) broke down into compounds that could pass the blood-brain barrier and attach your neurons, destroying them and making the victims stupid.

If there's any truth in that myth, Naream is probably living proof... ;)

Why exactly is something that comes from a plant better than something that comes from a factory?

Vitamins. :p

And taste. Don't forget taste.

Applauds Intangelon's original post loud and long- oh well said, thank you very much for saying it so bluntly and so well!

It's how much we eat, how imbalanced our diets have become, and how little we exercise, added to a dash of genetics!

I tend to avoid sugar in drinks, and I always choose 'diet'. I suppose it's partially weight-related, but I also prefer the taste.

One day sugar's bad for you, the next day it's sweetener. Tomorrow it will be carbohydrates and Wednesday it'll be water!

Amen to that. I'd rather do an hour at the gym to burn off those sugary calories than drink or eat the horrible "sugar free" (if they want to make non-sweet things, why put some freaking sugar-wannabe in it?!) crap.

You realise that's bulimic behaviour, right?

Dunno about _fear_... it just leaves a nasty aftertaste in my mouth and messes up my stomach. :(

Then again, my Australian friend told me that over there at least aspartame is used to poison ants (or rats, I have bad memory). :p

I haven't heard of that.

I suppose I haven't heard of anyone with a Kangaroo in their backyard either.

Why is aspartame bad?

Because I much rather intoxicate myself with a blend of dihydrogen monoxide, fluoride, chlorine, phosphoric acid, and sodium hydroxide.

That and I hate the taste of soda in general (rather it's cane sugar, aspartame, or high fructose corn syrup). But I will have to say that aspartame taste the worst out of the 3 in my book.

Illogical?

THIS IS ASPARTAAAAAAAME!

Sorry. Carry on.
A winrar is yuo!
http://www.junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/

Here's a little reading for everybody who thinks sugar and fats are deadly poison.

Sugar and fats, like most other things in life, are dangerous if you have too much of them. However, you're equally fucked if you don't have enough of them.

ah, use stevia



from a plant's bud that is naturally like 270x sweeter than sugar



and maybe we wouldn't be getting so much diabetes
if the food corporations didn't put it in almost everything we eat.
including garlic pepper seasoning!!!
what the f?!?
i want garlic & pepper flavor, not some sweetener to shake on my food!!!

<snippy>

Dunno, I haven't seen much hysteria about it here. Me, personally, I just can't stand the taste of that stuff.

ah, use stevia



from a plant's bud that is naturally like 270x sweeter than sugar



and maybe we wouldn't be getting so much diabetes
if the food corporations didn't put it in almost everything we eat.
including garlic pepper seasoning!!!
what the f?!?
i want garlic & pepper flavor, not some sweetener to shake on my food!!!

There's a really, really simple solution to that : if you want garlic and pepper flavour, just use garlic and pepper. See? It's really that simple.

There's a really, really simple solution to that : if you want garlic and pepper flavour, just use garlic and pepper. See? It's really that simple.
Not always. There aren't enough apples to make apple flavored candy, for instance.

Not always. There aren't enough apples to make apple flavored candy, for instance.

Why would you want that, anyway? :confused:

Why would you want that, anyway? :confused:How DARE you question the addition of a sixth flavor to the Haribo Goldbären?! :mad:

How DARE you question the addition of a sixth flavor to the Haribo Goldbären?! :mad:

Meh, if it was for me, they'd all be red. And white.

Meh, if it was for me, they'd all be red. And white.
Well, now there's two types of red gummi bears.

Well, now there's two types of red gummi bears.

:eek:


... *blinks*


:eek:


TWO??? OMG... our poor old Latin teacher will spend the rest of his life standing in supermarkets trying to find the pack with the most dark-red gummi bears and the most light-red gummi bears.
Oh, the humanity...

Certainly not in itself. Sugar is the basic foodstuff animals in general, and thus also people, need to survive. They may obtain this in the form of starch and other carbohydrates and later break it down into sugar but sugar is essential for staying alive.

Obesity is not caused by people eating sugar and for no other reason. Obesity is caused by eating too much sugar as well as other carbohydrates and fat and not doing enough exercise. Sugar is not connected to vitamin defiency at all. You can easily have lots of sugar and get your vitamins as well. Sugar should definitely not be replaced. It should be accepted that it is an important part of everyone's diet but people should be encouraged to have responsible diets. Instead of encouraging them to replace one of the essential parts of your diet because they're not getting enough of another essential, surely it's much more sensible to just encourage them to get their vitamins as well as their sugar.
Exercise solves the obesity problem but not the vitamin defiency 1. Eating vitamin-rich food as well as sugary foods is.

Yeah cos that's not twisting what he's saying. Obesity is unhealthy not just aesthetically unfashionable. Nowhere does he say anything about it being the worst thing that happened to this society ever or any such equivelant. Perhaps the abundance, prosperity and progress of this society are as worth having as people make out anyway.
Not proportionally to carbohydrate.

ah, use stevia



from a plant's bud that is naturally like 270x sweeter than sugar



and maybe we wouldn't be getting so much diabetes
if the food corporations didn't put it in almost everything we eat.
including garlic pepper seasoning!!!
what the f?!?
i want garlic & pepper flavor, not some sweetener to shake on my food!!!
Horse shit. Getting diabetes is NOT caused by eating too much sugar. Stop trying to make my condition look like a consequence of my actions when it in fact is NOT. I hope you get diabetes.

Vitamins. :p
Which are dangerous is high doses.

And taste. Don't forget taste.
Subjective.

Not proportionally to carbohydrate.
This is quite ambiguous. What isn't what proportionally to carbohydrate?