Aspartame is also linked in some studies to weight gain, GI disorders, mental health issues and more:
According to some studies, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners can lead to weight gain instead of weight loss 12. Aspartame has been linked to increased appetite, diabetes, metabolic derangement and obesity-related diseases 2.
One study showed that aspartame causes greater weight gain than a diet with the same calorie intake but no aspartame 1. Another study found that even acceptable daily intakes of aspartame might make you hungrier and lead to weight gain 3.
…some research suggests an association between aspartame intake and metabolic damage to the central nervous system (CNS), such as changes in enzyme and neurotransmitter activities 2. Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brain’s vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health 3.
There is also some evidence that high-aspartame consumption may lead to weaker spatial orientation, irritability, depression, and other neurobehavioral conditions 14. However, these studies are limited in scope and further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of aspartame on human health.
Worth researching more, especially if you eat/drink anything with this stuff - and it’s in a lot of food products.
WHO is one of those organizations whose advice I wish I could take at face value, but with anything that should be science based, it only takes a few disappointing compromises to take away a lot of trust.
And how their recommendations result in our country’s maternity wards try acupuncture and breathing as pain relief first, leaving mothers in debilitating pain for hours before giving them any of the real, safe, proven painkillers.
I get the reasoning - that accepting the commonly held medical belief of e.g. China allows them to hold some authority there and be a more global force of good - but to me it just make anything they say go on the “ok interesting, I’ll fact check it later” pile.
So let’s say we stop playing semantics to the degree of harm and say that aspartame is not good for humans. Ok. What sweetener currently on the market is the least damaging option for me to pursue?
Probably regular sugar in moderation. Unfortunately moderation doesn’t seem to be a word that food companies understand when it comes to sugar or sweetener. But if you drink coffee and add your own sugar, then that’s probably the safest. At least your body knows what it is and how to deal with it.
I’ve found a better solution. Bypass the soda and just get sparkling water or seltzer and toss in your own flavor from natural sources. Lemon, grapefruit, mint, strawberries, cucumber, frozen grapes, etc.
I’ve basically completely over soda except in the case of a maybe once a month craving for something like a float.
Feels like there are 2 classes of sweeteners:
- Proven to be bad for your health
- Not yet proven to be bad for your health
And whenever one in the second category becomes popular, it inevitably transitions to the first category.
Stevia, erythritol, xylitol.
deleted by creator
IDK why people are so determined to consume that shit.
Because I like cold carbonated drinks, I like the taste of cola, but I don’t like the thick, sugary, syrupy taste of actual Coke?
Surely you realize it’s not because we have “aspartame cravings” or that we somehow think it’s healthier (there’s nothing healthy about Coke in any form anyway)…
It’s definitely bad for you. Original Coke is better but of course still not good.
I have kidney disease and whenever I drank something with aspartame in it, my body would reject it and push it out via my tongue, so I would taste aspartame for 2-3 days after!
Now I just don’t drink any cold drinks at all. Water with a drop of concentrate (after checking ingredients) or water with a drop of fruit juice.
No it’s not. Where are some reliable proofs for that?
It’s definitely bad for you. Original Coke is better but of course still not good.
This is totally baseless statement and most likely false. Sugar as far as I know still way more deadly to humans than all the sweeteners combined.
t’s definitely bad for you.
Define “bad”. People act like certain foods are “good” or “bad” when it’s shades of grey and proabilities. One diet soda is fine. One “og” coke is fine. Drinking gallons a day? Likely unhealthy in any case (even water is unhealthy in large enough quantities).
In most studies of aspartame the quantities needed to ‘cause’ cancer are enormous. Whereas “normal” consumption of the amount of sugar in non-diet sodas is highly correlated with increases in obesity and diabetes across a population.
There are so many artificial sweetners in the market now.Even purely natural onea like stevia powders have maltitol added to it. It might be better to give up sweet things completely may be with the exception of fruits for better health.
That is if you go find fruits in their original form. Current grocery store fruit have been bred to be full of sugar. Bananas used to have large seeds. Sadly if you want to eat anything sweet you’re just going to have to accept the fact that it’s not healthy.
Hasn’t it already been proven to facilitate the development of Alzheimer? Honest question - I’m a layman in medicine and just worried about my dad chugging tons of diet products full of aspartame, thinking it’s the healthy choice (as opposed to non-diet lemonade for instance).
I don’t know enough to disqualify the studies they cite, but I guess at least these folks seem to be the opposite of industry shills? There is an Alzheimer’s section. US Right to Know: Aspartame
The Alzheimer’s Association (safely covering their asses) defers to the FDA’s approval but does note concerns have been raised. it’s myth 5 here
It’s not this straight forward. I read the reuters article about this that goes into more detail.
But basically, IARC is only looking at if the substance can be carcinogenic, regardless of the quantity it takes for it to be harmful to humans.
There is another organization, called JECFA that is specifically for advice for individuals. This is where “food regulations” would come from.
The JECFA is set to show off their findings at the same time as IARC is gonna make their announcement. I feel like some of you guys are jumping the gun here due to the title of the articles coming out.
Click bait works, unfortunately.
Obesity is like the second biggest risk factor for cancers. This post reads like a non-medical professional’s interpretation of medical advice. I don’t mean to offend, because that is very common. But the information presented here is devoid of context in a way that makes it potentially misleading.
I sort of cringe (more of a nose wrinkle really) at OP’s “it’s known in some circles to be bad” You see beliefs and correlative evidence constantly misrepresented as proof and truth in food and medical science (reporting and discussion).
I get it. The body is a hugely complicated system, it’s hard to figure these things out. What does even figuring them out mean with the amount of complicating factors of this affects that which affects this which causes this.
I’m open to the idea that lobbying and such means Aspartame (and other industrial food products) has really been pushed through.
It’s also obviously been studied quite a bit and it’s hard to believe all the studies saying it’s safe at recommended levels are bunk or fraudulent.
This news was on another instance where the discussion included that the IARC carcinogen classifications do not take into account exposure/dosage. A whole bunch of things can be carcinogenic depending on exposure. Haven’t we all read how the rats that got cancer from saccharine had epic doses? It was just magnitudes more than a human would consume.
If an observational study won’t cut it (I see you, @xthedeerlordx, and appreciate your comment and explanation), how does one prove the causation? Don’t you need randomized controlled trials which would be extremely onerous controlling for various factors and basically making the (ideally large number of) participants live in a lab for whatever amount of time the study takes to really prove causation? I’d genuinely like to know. It seems like for a lot of things correlation after correlation after correlation is the best we’re going to get.
It’s going to be difficult to fund a large enough RCT to find a stat signif effect - it would be very expensive to follow people for 20-40 years and keep them in a study (10 000 people?). Similar to supplement studies - they may be effective, however big pharma won’t pay for RCTs for products that are already on the market and with little profit margin.
Unfortuantely, it’s not all 100% science - politics has a large hand to play here.
As I wrote elsewhere, there was one review showing potential biochemical and physiological mechanisms. It doesn’t prove anything, however due to the amount consumed, it is worth investigating further and keeping an open mind:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28938797/ https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/75/9/718/4101228
CONCLUSION
Current scientific knowledge about the safety of aspartame, as reviewed here, is based mostly on animal studies. These studies suggest that aspartame, even at recommended safe dosages, might not be safe. Several of these studies (in vitro as well as in vivo) that investigated both higher and safe dosages indicate that aspartame or its metabolites cause an oxidant/antioxidant imbalance, induce oxidative stress, and damage membrane integrity (lipid, protein, and nucleic acid), possibly affecting most cells and tissues. Aspartame is directly involved in the development of oxidative stress, which is a hallmark of systemic inflammation (Figure 3). Several animal studies have also reported a deleterious effect of aspartame exposure on body weight, adiposity, and/or glucose tolerance and insulin levels. These are summarized in a 2016 review by Fowler.125 Thus, there is a need for additional detailed human studies and comprehensive characterizations of the physiological processes affected by aspartame. This is of particular importance, as diabetic and other individuals with gut dysbiosis may already be at increased risk of systemic inflammation because of the inflammatory nature of their conditions. Data reviewed in this paper suggest that aspartame use could not only exacerbate existing systemic inflammation but also cause inflammation if healthy individuals ingest it on a regular basis.
If anyone’s seen aspartame’s wikipedia article, it’s like the most corporate compromised entry I’ve seen. In fact this very report is already being covered up there.
It was controversial from day one. When it was approved in Canada in 1981, my parents wouldn’t let us touch the stuff.
But it’s shadier than I thought: Donald Rumsfeld (yeah, Iraq invasion Donald Rumsfeld) was the CEO of the company that produced it and immediately after being sworn in, Ronald Reagan cleared the way for approval.
I am curious whether this will actually impact what is considered safe to consume on a daily basis.
Again, many things are unhealthy and carcinogenic in large quantities. The infamos study showed that Aspartame was causing cancer in mice but the amounts they were given would be like humans eating bags of it every day.
