Aspartame nothing but a chemical poison?

[ajdos]

People generalize with the funding too much, show the study in which was funded by said company but show how the actual study was flawed if you are going to do so as in how did the funding corrupt the study? If the study had of contradicted the interest of those funding it it wouldn't get published however just because in the end it came out in their favor does not mean the study is flawed. I urge people to look at the actual studies the actual science, if the researchers are misrepresenting the data the study will show it upon review.

What the funding does make you wonder is what studies didn't get to see the light but it's an open ended question it doesn't make a well planned an executed study hold less weight. I say this with all research, read the study not just the abstract and have a solid base in science so you can weed out the good from the bad.

I think we were hitting on this a bit the other day nut, they sure can make the study or research say what they want.

 

[NutNut]

I think we were hitting on this a bit the other day nut, they sure can make the study or research say what they want.

Yup and I don't at all disagree, it's why the methods and data are more important than the researchers conclusion. I've seen ppl use studies to back a point the study contradicted because all they did was skim a conclusion.

When it comes to aspertame i'm not convinced either way so I avoid it (and try to avoid sucralose as well as it's not the safest looking compound either).

 

[SHINE]

Yup and I don't at all disagree, it's why the methods and data are more important than the researchers conclusion. I've seen ppl use studies to back a point the study contradicted because all they did was skim a conclusion.

When it comes to aspertame i'm not convinced either way so I avoid it (and try to avoid sucralose as well as it's not the safest looking compound either).

maybe ocasional use, think I'll be sticking to mainly the stevia like you mentioned.

I'd assume the crap is like alot of things they say can be bad for you thoug, your probably not going to die tomorrow if you used some today to cut calories. lolol

There are some good points here as well, good link NutNut --------> Aspartame and Formaldehyde (or not…) « What does the Science say?

 

[Ms.Wetback]

ALL data can be skewed in one direction or another. How many times were eggs bad for you, wait good for you, wait wait bad for you. WTF????

I look at it this way, if it is natural and organic it can not be that bad in moderation.

 

[SHINE]

ALL data can be skewed in one direction or another. How many times were eggs bad for you, wait good for you, wait wait bad for you. WTF????

I look at it this way, if it is natural and organic it can not be that bad in moderation.

Moderation is definitely the key ms.w. Sure most will be fine as long as like stated there not one of the unlucky few lacking that enzyme to metabolize aspartame to begin with.

 

[NutNut]

ALL data can be skewed in one direction or another. How many times were eggs bad for you, wait good for you, wait wait bad for you. WTF????

I look at it this way, if it is natural and organic it can not be that bad in moderation.

Their are many natural plants that have a rather low LD50. I know what you are trying to say though and I agree with eating as naturally as possible, after all we haven't evolved to eat processed crap and the westernization of other cultures has shown this.

As for eggs, if you actually read the studies very little valid research ever supported whole eggs being bad for you, mainstream media is good at misinterpretation though and bad at proper understanding. Data can always be misunderstood but that's where peer review and a little background in scientific study comes in. A studies flaws can't be hidden and data it's self can't be skewed without evidence that such was done if you know where to look. Most people lack the background to understand a study let alone see it's flaws or intemperate the raw data sets on their own. Researchers will not purposely change data sets otherwise the scientific community would out them for it. If such is done it won't stand up to replication anyway and a study is not valid if the result cannot be replicated.

 

[Ms.Wetback]

Their are many natural plants that have a rather low LD50. I know what you are trying to say though and I agree with eating as naturally as possible, after all we haven't evolved to eat processed crap and the westernization of other cultures has shown this.

As for eggs, if you actually read the studies very little valid research ever supported whole eggs being bad for you, mainstream media is good at misinterpretation though and bad at proper understanding. Data can always be misunderstood but that's where peer review and a little background in scientific study comes in. A studies flaws can't be hidden and data it's self can't be skewed without evidence that such was done if you know where to look. Most people lack the background to understand a study let alone see it's flaws or intemperate the raw data sets on their own. Researchers will not purposely change data sets otherwise the scientific community would out them for it. If such is done it won't stand up to replication anyway and a study is not valid if the result cannot be replicated.

Even research data and trials mean nothing in the big picture. You know how many products and drugs get approved after YEARS of trials and are replicated only later say that they are killing people with that very drug. Accutane is one example and there are hundreds more. Same applies for eggs. Good, bad, good bad; they have no friggin clue imo.

It pays to have people sick and not healthy. It benefits big pharma and creates jobs.

 

[SHINE]

Even research data and trials mean nothing in the big picture. You know how many products and drugs get approved after YEARS of trials and are replicated only later say that they are killing people with that very drug. Accutane is one example and there are hundreds more. Same applies for eggs. Good, bad, good bad; they have no friggin clue imo.

It pays to have people sick and not healthy. It benefits big pharma and creates jobs.

Phentermine and Fenfluramine comes to thought. (the original phenFen) I've seen the damage done to a person after 2 months use.

and Acctane to! It's even used as a chemotherapy for certain cancers , but the dose I have no idea as compared to what is used for acne problems.

although there are cases of people with burnt up thyroids and on Thyroxine now that were taking 60-80mg ed of accutane for 2-3 months for acne. Imo people need to have a thyroid panel done every month if they use accutane to make sure there thyroid and and even liver values as well.

This thread has been entertaining and productive! lol

And I never believed the Egg BS! lolololololz

 

[JackD]

Yeah, you should stick to all natural sweetener or just good ole sugar. To many conflicting reports out there, but I would bet more money on the fact this stuff is bad for you, than won't harm you. Anything that converts to formic acid and formaldehyde is not going to be doing any good inside of your body. And what that article doesn't compare is the actual amounts of this sweeter people actually take in every day. Because it's in diet soda, low calorie fruit juices, sugar free candy, lite goods, low sugar foods, lite yogurt. Why doesn't someone compare what someone is taking in every day and determine if those amounts are harmful. Because I can tell you, the obese person sitting next to me who drinks 15 diet sodas every day, and eats everything else sugar free or diet wise because she is diabetic probably is not to far away from being a walking formaldehyde tank really soon. No one eats natural anymore and in moderation.

Just saying, everything is fine in moderation. But people don't know moderation, its like we have a country full of Asperger's patients.

 

[dangerouscurves]

I finally woke up one day about.a month ago anddecided I was done with diet soda...not sure what spurred it but I was far oveerdoing it and not within moderation or close...being all the other food I eat is generally not processed highly that pretty much did away with aspertame in my diet...I get crazy grumpy, irritable , and headaches when I drop aspertame...and have only had two diet sodas since...I always said I'm going to die somehow, and get cancer from everything so why restrict something I enjoy that is not otherwise harming my health.... but I guess I ate my own words when I felt better after giving it up :/ and like I said it wasn't spurred by anthing just lierally woke up and said I'm dne and I was probably drinking over a liter of diet soda everyday!! As well as diet energy drkinks etc....now if I could give up splenda I'm sure id feel even better, I think that revelation will be coming soon

 

[NutNut]

Even research data and trials mean nothing in the big picture. You know how many products and drugs get approved after YEARS of trials and are replicated only later say that they are killing people with that very drug. Accutane is one example and there are hundreds more. Same applies for eggs. Good, bad, good bad; they have no friggin clue imo.

It pays to have people sick and not healthy. It benefits big pharma and creates jobs.

Pharmacuticals are a big can of worms and a world of difference exist between pharma trials and nutrition research. Isotretinoin always had it's issues and the data showed them the FDA just didn't care because they are in big pharma's pocket, apples to oranges here. It wasn't the data that was useless it's the FDA that is, unless of course you have an example you would wish to share of this well designed double blind that was replicated and then shown to be incorrect? Getting something approved by the FDA does not make it safe by any means nor do I claim science is perfect but it sure does have it's good and bad. I already explained the egg thing, people ignore or fail to intemperate the data properly, It wasn't the data that was the issue it was the media. Dietary cholesterol provided ... [Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI there's a pretty food review of the evidence, randomized controlled trials never supported what the media liked to portray. Fear brings viewers.

We can disagree if you so wish but my conclusion is that research can be good or bad, using a blanket statement to say research and trials mean nothing based on big pharma....not accurate.

 

[ketsugo]

I want to say Im almost agreeing with Ms Wetback, I actually just finished posting on another thread taking a similar stance, only cuz so many studies are biased , flawed. I consider how corrupt goverment agencies like the FDA are becuase I have worked for the government most my life and it burns me every time I see the agency head public speaking and lying through their teeth. Our country is in dire flux because our gov is corrupt, so we got all these goverment agencies that do inspections and make approvals based on biased and corrupt standards. I attended a pharmaceuticl conference just this wek for Jensen that make a psychotropic compound called risperdal consta- they went on and on how they have done countless trials and since the drug is suspended in water that its painless. Yet all my clients that attend clinic are psychologically decmpensating cuz they refuse it saying its the most painful injection they ever had lMAO- so I see so many other similiar areas where research can be done by idiots- some kids after school making minmum wage doing the actual physical work, then the media lies so full of lies- I can only trust my grand dad- He say dont believe anything you read or hear and only half of what you see, always investigate yourself.