Thread: WARNING: Phenylketonurics - Contains Phenylalanine

While I don't like and don't use aspartame because we don't really have long-term data on its effects, many of these points have been debunked - at least according to Snopes.

I still wouldn't use it or allow my children to consume it, but this is a bit over the top.

Fluoride is a deadly poison too, of course. As is sodium and chlorine, etc.

I learned a lot of funny stuff about aspartame.

That stuff is about 170 times sweeter than sucrose (regular table sugar). So you need a portion 170x smaller to be equivalent. Of course, that`s not a lot of aspartame. If ever you come across a satchet of artificial sweetner (same with Splenda), open it up and look at it under a light. You`ll be able to differentiate two different substances, the vast majority will be small white grains and there will be a few transparent crystals here and there, the latter is the aspartic acid. The rest is just an inert filler to not confuse the customer (try using a satchet with only 20 or so grains of sugar). The filler (which probably comprises around 90% of the sample`s weight) is found in the ingredients list under the fancy name of silica dioxyde. The rest of us call that sand (pulverized sand, if it makes any difference). Anyways, that`s not digestable so it just goes right through you.

Also, if ever you were to take a spoonful of the stuff, your pancreas would probably secrete massive amounts of insuline (which is used to break down sugar), eventually becoming unable to cope leaving you in a coma.

I can't understand why people are always going for the "light" products, it's not like consuming them will make them sexy. Want to get thin? Do exercise!

Originally Posted by pj

While I don't like and don't use aspartame because we don't really have long-term data on its effects, many of these points have been debunked - at least according to Snopes.

I still wouldn't use it or allow my children to consume it, but this is a bit over the top.

Fluoride is a deadly poison too, of course. As is sodium and chlorine, etc.

I'm interested to know which points were debunked, and were they done through official sources or through those with vested interest in aspartame, or from fear of harming their career by looking too fringe by questioning the establishment?

I've found that anyone impartial will always argue against aspartame use. Even your initial instinct tells you to stay away from the stuff. It took me to leave the U.S. to finally deprogram myself enough to stop drinking the diet drinks that I essentially grew up on. Even up until 6 months ago I was drinking at least two to three 8 oz. diet cokes a day. I always seemed to catch more colds than most people so I re-evaluated my diet and took out all the diet drinks, and voila, I feel a lot better and get sick less.

Someone asked, why drink diet? Well, I used to enjoy their taste more than regular non-diet drinks. I mean aspartame is 180 times sweeter than sugar, so can you blame me really for getting hooked?

I remember growing up with the artificial sweetener inception in the 80's, and there was initially this big problem with Saccharin and NutraSweet causing cancer in lab rats argument that somehow disappeared into the woodwork. Now everywhere you look the endless list of these diet drinks and artificial sweeteners pop up in almost every society. Vending machines... Billboards... and other avenues of unending shameless product placement...




Japan isn't really a big culture for sweet drinks, so they don't have nearly the same selection of soft drinks that America has, but you can see the advertising campaign growing to try and get people on the diet drink boat...It just doesn't seem right to steer people's minds to something that may be harmful...

Here in Japan, Coca-Cola Zero is being marketed as a diet cola for men. I don't know if the regular Diet Coke had some sort of "girly" stigma or what, but all the ads for Coke Zero have been like this.


HESITATE NOT, FOR YOU ARE A JAPANESE MAN.

It's interesting to note that the first shipments of Coke Zero sold out within days around here, and some stores had to wait over a month for more of the 1.5 liter size.

Long live corporate propaganda!!

It would not surprise me if there is something to all of that. I made the discovery a few years ago that monosodium glutamate (MSG), a flavor additive, makes me really sick when I eat too much of it. In fact, sucrose/"sugar" itself makes me sicker than anything you can legally put in food. Bleached wheat flour is right up there with it.

The companies make it really confusing. The glucose in your blood is known as "blood sugar", and simple carbohydrates are known as "simple sugars". So these big companies take what is in the "sugar cane" and put it through a bleaching chemical process, totally screwing up the nature of the carbohydrates and getting this nasty crystal granule stuff that is not at all natural, and they call it "sugar" so it will sound like it is some completely natural nutrient people have to have. Other companines take wheat and make wheat flour and put it through a bleaching process that creates garbage with screwed up carbohydrates. You most often find it in "white bread" and baking dough, which is used for everything from most pizza to most cookies. Because a lot of people have caught on to the fact that wheat flour is much better for you when it is not bleached, they eat "wheat bread". Well guess what. The vast majority of the grocery store bread labelled "wheat bread" is really bleached wheat bread mixed with other stuff so it looks brown. Because it is made from natural wheat, they can legally call it "wheat bread" because ALL bread made from wheat is technically "wheat bread". The only way to know you are getting the real thing is to check the label. If it is made from no wheat but "whole wheat", "whole wheat flour", or "unbleached wheat flour", you are buying the right stuff. But some of the loaves will be made from one of those things, listed as the first ingredient to sucker you, and then for a second ingredient something they will call "wheat flour", which can be bleached flour. They are not required by law to tell you that their wheat has been bleached.

And now for the problem with all of that. The crap I am talking about causes the symptoms of hypoglycemia and is terrible for people with diabetes. It causes a long list of horrible symptoms, including pretty much everything on the aspartame symptom list. I know it first hand from my own experience. I was diagnosed with hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), and I had to mostly do my own research to figure out what to do about it. It all pretty much comes down to what not to eat, and changing what I eat made a very big difference in my life. In fact, it was part of what was necessary for me to come out of a suicidal depression. I take this stuff very seriously. Unfortunately, it is really difficult to spread word of this sort of thing because most people don't give a damn. They like eating and drinking what they eat and drink, and nothing can change their minds, not even a list like the one in the initial post. On top of that, the companies get the medical schools in on their horrible scams. The "sugar" industry used to sponsor the nutrition classes people took in medical school. For all I know, they still do. It was only about thirty years ago that doctors even started to acknowledge the existence of hypoglycemia. Before that, people who had it were just screwed.

http://www.amazon.com/Sugar-Blues-Wi...3060751&sr=8-1

I heard from one of my grad school professors that aspartame was found in many studies to promote cancer in mice, and that this information was hidden from the public. Case closed for me. But MSG, as well as artificial colors and flavors, and scents, I am still researching. None of them look good however.

UM, I am surprised to see you supporting a "conspiracy" surrounding the harming of our food supply. The scope of such a thing is beyond imagination - to reproduce the same harmful ingredients in most wheat products in most stores across the country? Clearly if lobbyists can gain so much power over the food industry, who is to say what could be done by lobbyists for teh war industry? But I digress..

Originally Posted by memeticverb

UM, I am surprised to see you supporting a "conspiracy" surrounding the harming of our food supply. The scope of such a thing is beyond imagination - to reproduce the same harmful ingredients in most wheat products in most stores across the country? Clearly if lobbyists can gain so much power over the food industry, who is to say what could be done by lobbyists for teh war industry? But I digress..

I think you've been reading stuff from me in only the 9/11 threads. I have a really bad opinion of politicians and corporate executives. I think corporate executives are very good for the economy and the luxuries you and I both love, but the best at it are sociopaths. I think politicians are power seeking drones, but I think the fact that there are intelligent people sprinkled around in every town keeps them in good check for the most part. Read what I wrote in the thread about arms industry profit. I just don't think the 9/11 conspiracy hypothesis makes sense any way you tell the story. That does not mean I think politicians and corporate executives have anything warmer than ice water running through their veins.

I think the main problem with what's in our food is that the public does not give a shit. Since I was diagnosed with hypoglycemia, I have talked to about a hundred other people who also have been. Most of them have severe problems with anxiety, depression, lethargy, and feeling bad. Some of them are family members. Do you know how many of them I have ever convinced to actually treat their problem? Zero. That's right. Not one has ever gone all the way through with what has to be done about it even though most of them admit that they should. It seems to me that about a quarter of the population has hypoglycemia, and that is because of the garbage that is in food. But probably less than 1% of the people who have it will ever actually do something about it. That part I cannot blame on corporate executives, lobbyists, or politicians. People want their fucking Pepsi and doughnuts. It is so frustrating.

Speaking of corruption, did you see my thread titled "A very real conspiracy"? It involves Trent Lott. MSNBC is finally talking about it.

I doubt aspartame is any more dangerous than the other ingredients commonly in food. If I recall correctly, one study found that it caused cancer in mice when it was injected directly into the blood at a concentration corresponding to a human drinking a few hundred cans of soda every day for a few months. Under unrealistic conditions, almost anything can cause cancer.

Here's an MIT study from 1998:
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02p0317/02P-0317_emc-000479-02.pdf

During a four-month period, subjects received either aspartame, sugar or a placebo and underwent physical and psychological testing. Some subjects were given doses of up to 45 milligrams per kilogram of body weight--the equivalent of 17 to 24 12-ounce diet beverages for males and 14 to 19 12-ounce drinks for females. In the general population, most Americans who consume aspartame take in 3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day, the equivalent of one or less 12-ounce diet beverage. Despite the high consumption of aspartame, the 48 normal subjects showed no changes in mood, memory, behavior, electroencephalograms (which record the electrical signals of the brain) or physiology that could be tied to aspartame, Dr. Spiers found. Although some subjects reported headaches, fatigue, nausea and acne, the same number of incidences were reported by subjects taking placebo and sugar as those taking aspartame.

That would seem to rule out short-term symptoms.

A recent study on rats did show a cancer link(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in712605.shtml), but because so many other studies have not shown such a link, the study
looks like it will be repeated to verify that the results did not come by chance.

I avoid aspartame, not because aspartame is dangerous, but because diet soda and sugar-free foods usually taste awful.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Have you all ever seen that on the back of your diet drinks or any other products containing aspartame? Weird, huh?

Do you mean the ingredients label? Or am i missing something here? Because every food supplier is legally required to have an ingredients list.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Consider this, out of all the complaints that the FDA receives every single year, adverse reactions to the artificial sweetener aspartame comprises about 80 percent of consumer complaints.
Stop and think about that..........

I'm thinking... why would anyone want to complain about aspartame other than to report side effects? What, the cola didn't taste good?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

From 10,000 consumer complaints the FDA compiled a list of 92 Symptoms reported from aspartame use, including death.

FDA list of 92 aspartame-related symptoms:

Abdominal Pain
Anxiety Attacks
Arthritis, Asthma
Asthmatic Reactions
Bloating
Edema (Fluid Retention)
Blood Sugar Control Problems (Hypoglycemia or Hyperglycemia)
Brain Cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals)
Breathing Difficulties
Burning Eyes or Throat
Burning Urination
Can't Think Straight
Chest Pains
Chronic Cough
Chronic Fatigue
Confusion
Death
Depression
Diarrhea
Dizziness
Excessive Thirst or Hunger
Fatigue
Feel Unreal
Flushing of Face
Hair Loss (Baldness) or Thinning of Hair
Headaches/Migraines
Hearing Loss
Heart Palpitations
Hives (Urticaria)
Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)
Impotency and Sexual Problems
Inability to Concentrate
Infection Susceptibility
Insomnia
Irritability
Itching
Joint Pains
Laryngitis
"Like Thinking in a Fog"
Marked Personality Changes
Memory loss
Menstrual Problems or Changes
Migraines and Severe Headaches (Trigger or Cause From Chronic Intake)
Muscle spasms, Nausea or Vomiting, Numbness or Tingling of ExtremitiesOther Allergic-Like Reactions
Panic Attacks
Phobias
Poor Memory
Rapid Heart Beat
Rashes
Seizures and Convulsions
Slurring of Speech
Swallowing Pain
Tachycardia
Tremors
Tinnitus
Vertigo
Vision Loss
Weight Gain.

Can you provide me with the percentage of complaints that fall into each category? Looking at the linked page, i find the article on symptoms submitted to the FDA. It provides a breakdown of 25 symptoms, none of them being death! Half of the complaints are in relation to soft drinks, and strangely enough, half of the complaints are symptoms that would be caused by caffeine overdose. A further 20% of symptoms had less than 100 complaints and are thus statistically insignificant.
Can things such as weight gain really be attributed to a compound with no energetic value (within the human body)? Wouldn't seizures, heart palpitations, insomnia, irritability and itching be more likely to be attributed to the caffeine found in most soft drinks? And for the death one... Did a loved one call the FDA and complain that their family member had just died from consuming a product with aspartame?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Aspartame Disease/Toxicity Mimics Symptoms or Worsens the Following Diseases:

Fibromyalgia
Arthritis
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Parkinson's Disease
Lupus
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)
Diabetes and Diabetic Complications
Epilepsy
Alzheimer's Disease
Birth Defects
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Lymphoma
Lyme Disease
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Panic Disorder,
Depression and other Psychological Disorders.

What levels of aspartame are required to induce these symptoms?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Thoughts?

Another unsubstantiated claim linked to a scaremongering site. The information on PKU is quite interesting, but you'd know if you have it, because it requires treatment within the first few weeks of life (according to the site).

Phenylalinine: what is it? It's an essential amino acid that your body doesn't produce naturally, and hence you must get it from your food to survive.
But don't trust me, trust wikipedia - Phenylalanine. Or something other than a site devoted to unbalanced arguments.

If you want something to worry about, worry about how benzene (which is a know carcinogen) has been found in soda due to the reaction between sodium benzoate and various acids in the soda instead of worrying about claims that artificial sweeteners can cause cancer.

Artificial sweeteners defeat their own purpose anyway:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0630081825.htm

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

Large block of text... but unfortunately still one's appeal to their own authority and opinion

Again, you're looking to argue something essentially inarguable.

Sorry to disappoint, but the same thing applies in this thread as did in the fluoridation one. I don't claim to be an authority on the subject, and just posted what I found. There are enough people within the industry that question it's use to warrant bringing alarm to it's use. If one truly hold the keys of knowledge and information to disprove these ideas... by all means, write a book or dissertation and get your works published or peer reviewed and I'll give props where they are due. However, I'll not argue you.

I'm just pointing one in the direction of information that's out there. Don't be so quick to write it off as scaremongering without anything other than personal opinion backing it.

Blind acceptance of authority is the root of nearly all negligence and problems throughout history. It's only when people start to question that authority does any real positive change occur. That much is certain.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I don't claim to be an authority on the subject, and just posted what I found.

Solskye, if you refuse to even explore the opposing view, why post a thread?

As soon as someone asks for more information, or challenges some of your assertions, you go all vague on them and pretend like you didn't start this thread in a forum called "extended discussion". It's not called "extended link-to-things-and-claim-personal-ignorance-if-challenged".

The thing is, I've thoroughly explored a topic before I decide to post it. Nothing short of a published and peer reviewed paper could prove what I found wrong, because I'm absolutely sure that they are in no better a boat than I at finding out information on the internet.

So, with both viewpoints in mind, I found it worthy enough of posting for everyone to digest and enjoy. In this particular situation no party will ever be able to prove the other wrong on here, and I don't enjoy battling minds with people who already think they've won from word one.

Been there, done that. Yawn...

Its quite simple. You either take it, or leave it. Drop your two cents in the thread, or don't. But when you start to think yourself immediately right, or think the thread idea completely pointless from the start and drop in some condescension instead, who would want to try and talk with you? Seriously? That kind of subtle condescension gets old, fast. Going to the university doesn't give anyone any higher intuitive reasoning and understanding of anything. I'm sorry to burst one's bubble, but it doesn't. Not to mention, the intent in an individual is quickly felt in the tone they take in their post. I could EASILY go into the multitude of threads I find pointless and randomly start condescending on people as some of you seem to enjoy, but there is nothing gained from doing so. Obviously, you guys get something out of it. That's fine. Feed the pitiful ego. I'd be lying if I said, there were times I wasn't guilty of that myself.

So, frankly gnome, you and adam can take your superiority complex to R/S or senseless banter where it belongs. There, you can take turns freely unleashing it on all the other ego-driven minds there, to make yourself feel alive and superior. You unfortunately won't get the same satisfaction out of me. Sorry.

[Edit: look at how pj handled his post and how I responded. THAT is discussion. A meeting of the minds after admittance and acceptance of your own inadequacies. He nor I once claimed to be authorities on the subject. It was a simply an exchange of ideas. You and adam on the other hand, seem to think yourselves infallible and all-knowing]

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Again, you're looking to argue something essentially inarguable.

Sorry to disappoint, but the same thing applies in this thread as did in the fluoridation one. I don't claim to be an authority on the subject, and just posted what I found. There are enough people within the industry that question it's use to warrant bringing alarm to it's use. If one truly hold the keys of knowledge and information to disprove these ideas... by all means, write a book or dissertation and get your works published or peer reviewed and I'll give props where they are due. However, I'll not argue you.

I'm just pointing one in the direction of information that's out there. Don't be so quick to write it off as scaremongering without anything other than personal opinion backing it.

Blind acceptance of authority is the root of nearly all negligence and problems throughout history. It's only when people start to question that authority does any real positive change occur. That much is certain.

1) Read what i wrote. I apologise if you have, however it appears you didn't comprehend what i wrote.. because...
2) The only appeal to "my own" authority in my post is at the end; prior to that, I read through every page you linked and asked you to comment on my opinion, which you failed to do.
3) Information needs to be reliable and unbiased.
4) Articles need to be in-depth and state where they got their original information from. An article without data is merely opinion, not information.
5) The majority of my post was simply responding to points you made with questions, as opposed to even stating my own opinion.

I was asking for clarification. Now, if you would like to discuss, please clarify.

Yeah, no worries. I apologize, as well. I wasn't sent over the top from your post here, and admit I didn't initially give it due process. It was more from gnome's prick comment, in conjunction with the previous wind of initial condescension dealt with in the fluoridation thread which caused me to just throw my hands up and say, fuck it.

I admit to the possibility of it all being complete bs. I don't put it past people with too much time and paranoia on their hands to pull something like this right out of their ass. As for the list, I believe it should be off the initial page listed. If not, I'll find it later. I'm too tired to research this type of thing tonight. Peace.

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

If you want something to worry about, worry about how benzene (which is a know carcinogen) has been found in soda due to the reaction between sodium benzoate and various acids in the soda instead of worrying about claims that artificial sweeteners can cause cancer.

Hah, right. But so far aspartame has also been found to causally contribute to cancerous cell formation and cell death in the brains of mice (which if they have higher immunity than humans would mean that humans are even more susceptible)...
New Study Suggests Artificial Sweetener Causes Cancer In Rats At Levels Currently Approved For Humans

New Rat Study Links Artificial Sweetener with Lymphomas, Breast Cancer

The point is there have been hundreds of studies showing strong links between aspartame specifically, and many types of cancer.

Also, is it any coincidence that Donald Rumsfeld was the one who sold aspartame to the FDA?



"The ingredients in aspartame are aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methyl
alcohol. Methyl alcohol is a chemical that breaks down in high
temperatures and turns into formaldehyde and DKP (diketopiperazine), two
chemicals known to cause problems in the nervous system. Aspartame's life is 262 days at 77 degrees Fahrenheit, or 25 degrees Celsius. The FDA gets more complaints about aspartame than any other food or drink. The
symptoms of aspartame are a lot like the symptoms of multiple sclerosis
and Alzheimer's disease. Ever since aspartame was approved in l985, there has been an increase in brain tumors. There is no direct proof that
aspartame caused the brain tumors, but there is enough reason to suspect that, and the television show, "60 Minutes" recently did a report linking the increase in brain cancer to aspartame use."

Thx for posting that. Memeticverb. I've read those articles but was too lazy to find them again.

I also thought it was quite interesting that Rumsfeld was the one pushing for it's approval.

Aside: I believe Rumsfeld is clinically insane. That man has pushed for so much military action against the advice of military strategists; the UN; and, most importantly, the various US special forces (ie. Marines and others operating in the regions to be attacked). Unless it's all unsubstantiated bull, the wikipedia article on The Battle Of Fallujah (in Iraq) is a good starter, and the articles it was sourced from are great.
However, i don't think any of that would suggest that any idea pushed by Rumsfeld is a bad idea.

Methyl alcohol is a chemical that breaks down in high
temperatures and turns into formaldehyde and DKP (diketopiperazine)

utter nonsense.
Methanol's chemical formula is CH₃OH, formaldehyde's is H₂CO and diketopiperazines are a class of organic molecules that include Nitrogen. Where did this Nitrogen come from?

aspartic acid, phenylalanine,

both of which are amino acids present in your body. The only difference between the two is that phenylalanine is an essential amino acid.

there is no direct proof that aspartame caused the brain tumors

you said it yourself

the only problem i see with aspartame is it's conversion into methanol in the stomach and methanol's conversion into formic acid and formaldehyde, but that can easily be avoided by the consumption of ethanol.