Diet Soda?

[cyrex]

I was the unfortunate victem of a can of diet soda that had 'furmented' into formaldehyde. It made me sick for 4 days from just 1 sip. I was never a fan of diet soda in the first place. The company I work for keeps it stocked in the fridge (but refuses to buy water for us.. GRRR). I'll never again drink diet soda. Now the only time I have soda of any kind is once every 2 months IF I go to a movie on a sunday. So far it's been 6 months since I happened to goto a movie on a sunday but the next time I do I'll be grabbing a coke haha. It was my #1 enemy as a child. It allowed me to get over 200 lbs in elementary school ;-)

 

[Mr.X]

Consumed alone, yes... but if you need it, try combining something sweet (natural or artificial) with protein. usually eliminates that increase or stimulation of your appetite.

I think you're not understanding how bad aspartame and related products are for you. read over the links I've posted, it goes beyond just hunger...

 

[cyrex]

If you don't want to read.. read this:


ITS fricken HORRIBLE. The only reason it's still on the market is because of how much money Pepsi and Coca Cola use for lobbying

 

[WoNderWoMan25]

I think you're not understanding how bad aspartame and related products are for you. read over the links I've posted, it goes beyond just hunger...

Dude, I'm understanding it! No need for embalming fluid after the stuff causes cancer & kills you... That stuff will basically preserve you -- alive!

 

[Mr.X]

Dude, I'm understanding it! No need for embalming fluid after the stuff causes cancer & kills you... That stuff will basically preserve you -- alive!

there you go....see the product is very bad for your health.

 

[psychedout]

I think consuming aspartame is just fine. Here is a piece of literature that is fairly newm 2003.

Med Pregl. 2003;56 Suppl 1:27-9.

[Controversies with aspartame]

[Article in Serbian]

Jankovic SM.

[email protected]

INTRODUCTION: Artificial sweeteners are nowadays inevitable food additives, since they provide necessary food diversity to people suffering from diabetes. Aspartame is the most frequently used artificial sweetener ever and its safety profile is much better than that of saccharin or cyclamate. It received marketing approval in 1973, but only 3 months later aspartame was withdrawn because of allegations based on improperly designed experimental studies dealing with its carcinogen effects on rodent brain. However, extensive studies using the same model did not confirm such suspicions, and aspartame received a second marketing approval. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES: Almost two decades later an epidemiological study found a relationship between aspartame and an increased frequency of brain tumors in humans. However, this study included a short time span of observation, and it did not estimate actual intake of aspartame, which led to loss of validity. Later on no epidemiological studies found correlation between aspartame use and incidence of brain tumors in humans. Up to now the only safety concern about aspartame, which received valid scientific proofs, is pro-seizure action of its excessive intake. In patients with epilepsy, excessive intake of aspartame can decrease the threshold for seizures or prolong them once they appear. However, if the intake is not above the recommended level of 40 mg/kg b.w./day, aspartame is well tolerated even in this subpopulation. CONCLUSION: Based on detailed analysis of published studies on safety of aspartame, it should not be restricted, but used in recommended amounts.

 

[psychedout]

Artificial sweeteners—do they bear a carcinogenic risk?
M. R. Weihrauch* and V. Diehl
Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

* Correspondence to: Dr M. R. Weihrauch, Immunologisches Labor Haus 16, Uniklinik Koeln, Joseph-Stelzmann-Strasse 9, 50924 Koeln, Germany. Tel: +49-221-4784488; Fax: +49-221-4785912; Email: [email protected]

Artificial sweeteners are added to a wide variety of food, drinks, drugs and hygiene products. Since their introduction, the mass media have reported about potential cancer risks, which has contributed to undermine the public's sense of security. It can be assumed that every citizen of Western countries uses artificial sweeteners, knowingly or not. A cancer-inducing activity of one of these substances would mean a health risk to an entire population. We performed several PubMed searches of the National Library of Medicine for articles in English about artificial sweeteners. These articles included ‘first generation’ sweeteners such as saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame, as well as ‘new generation’ sweeteners such as acesulfame-K, sucralose, alitame and neotame. Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder cancer-inducing effects of saccharin and cyclamate that had been reported from animal studies in rats. Despite some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. Case–control studies showed an elevated relative risk of 1.3 for heavy artificial sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of >1.7 g/day. For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial sweeteners are combined in today's products, the carcinogenic risk of a single substance is difficult to assess. CONCLUSION: According to the current literature, the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be negligible.

 

[psychedout]

And if you don't know, Aspartame is a dipeptide of Aspartic acid and Phenylalanine.

You'd very likely obtain more of this dipeptide from your NORMAL food intake during the course of a day (and its subsequent proteolysis) than from ingesting aspartame from artificially-sweetened products.

Note, I am discussing Aspartame in its relation to major health issues such as cancer. In which case the evidence, IMO, seems to point in other directions.

Based on personal experience, I do agree that it can contribute to hunger swings. However, in terms of detriment to overall health, I believe the effects of Aspartame to be negligble.

 

[Mr.X]

Paid for by your local Coca Cola and pepsi producer!

Hey, if you want to drink diet soda and kill yourself, go right on bro...no problem. There were studies that smoking was good for you in the 50s, hell same for drinking.

psychedout , bro you're right, YOU drink as much diet soda as you want!

 

[psychedout]

Paid for by your local Coca Cola and pepsi producer!

Hey, if you want to drink diet soda and kill yourself, go right on bro...no problem. There were studies that smoking was good for you in the 50s, hell same for drinking.

psychedout , bro you're right, YOU drink as much diet soda as you want!

I consume an average of 2 or 3 cans per week. I do not believe that it will have an apprecaible effect on my health. I do always keep an open mind on issues though. It just so-happens to be that the evidence I see points to aspartame being safe. Can I prove this? No, of course not. Any individual who has any concept of the Nature of Science (NOS) will be able to indenitfy that there is indeed no such concept as proof. There is merely evidence from various sources that get mounded against one another. Do we have to consider bias in research? Certainly. Have I considered it at this point? To an exten yes. And based on what I have seen presented from both sides of the coin, I would contend that aspartame is indeed fine for consumption. The negative effects it may possess are negligble in the short term and long run. Is it healthy? No, I have yet to read anything to suggest that aspartame will yeild some sort of health benefit. This in its own might be enough for people to avoid its useage. However, for the overwhelming majority of people, consider the alternative. A 355ml can of traditional soda contains typically 35-45 grams of sugar. Whats worse? A pinch of aspartame or 6 tbsp of sugar?