My fault, not good at science. I know that body temp is 98.4 F and aspartame changes at 86 F. Just got my F's and C's (and my numbers apparently) mixed up but the effect is the same.

Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a "food" product such as Jello).

Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol "is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic." They recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.

I'm fairly certain that not all the aspartame is converted to free methanol, probably only one mole of methanol for one mole of aspartame. And I also doubt that it is completely ceonverted, since no chemical reactions tend to go to completion. So you take consumption of milligram quantities, and then take the small percentage of methanol per amount of aspartame, and then also reduce that since the reactionisn't complete, and viola! Not a problem.

Add to that, the fact that EPA can set limits based on no good scientific evidence. They are a VERY politically oriented organization. And once they set a limit, they often reduce it ten-fold in a few years just to say they did it. Makes a good sound bite. If their limits were meaningful, we'd all be dead.

on that site there is statements from the FDA, ADA, Health Canada, Danish Food Institute, CDA, European Comissions's Scientific Committee on Food, Finnish National Board on Foodstuff, FDA, American Academy of Pediatrics, Canadian Health Protection Branch, UK Cot, AMA, Chemistry and Industry magazine, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, Epilepsy Institute, Kids Health, and more. some statements are newer, some older, all interesting i thought. i can't find the page i was on now, but it had information on how much methanol is iin certain foods.

So you're saying its a really big conspiracy?

LOL! Someone stop him!

P.128 DANDR
"We discourage the use of aspartame because of questions about its safety."

It states they fed the rats the equivalent amount of aspartame to what a human would ingest. I wont say I know what this is because I haven't read through their exact procedure but I wouldn't think it would be a huge amount if humans don't consume a huge amount.


I have never had a reaction to caramel colouring so I wouldn't think it's that and the drinks I've tried haven't always been cola. It could very well be this phosphoric acid in the drink, but I haven't heard of that so don't know anything about it. I understand my experiences and that of my friend's is nowhere near purely scientific and without variables, however it is still interesting to note. I think personal experiences count for a lot. You can pull apart anything, really. If you want to.


I had soreness around my tissue where the kidneys are. My friend had swelling of the joints in the hands and the MS-like symptoms are that of hearsay. From my end anyway. I don't know anyone that has personally had these MS-like symptoms, I've just heard a bucket-load of other people talk about it.


If there were allergies to the feeding, the control group would also be affected by this diet. And, did you read the section in the article where it states they have had these rats and been doing tests on them for decades?


I was mentioning this to my mum and she said even in the 70s when it was being spoken about (or whichever decade, I'm going from memory here), they were talking about it causing cancer then too.
Besides that, in my reading on the MS-like symptoms mentioned previously, they state that because the symptoms mimic MS often these people are misdiagnosed. Who is going to think it's the diet soft drink? Not after many tests and many cases. Are you aware the rates of MS have risen astronomically in recent times?

And money is a very powerful thing.

As for being cantankerous, yeah don't worry, I'm not taking it to heart either I just find this stuff fascinating.

e

D'oh! Didn't see there were three pages! lol


I don't know who it was funded by. I guess I just assume studies that are non-commercially based are funded by the University they are conducted in. For education purposes.

I agree that no matter how healthy you keep yourself, you will die anyway. However there are many different ways to die. Personally I'd like to stay as healthy and mobile as possible and pass away in my sleep. I don't want to develop cancer, undergo treatment including loss of hair, energy and ability to do much else in your life. Then still you may die or may recover. You could also have parts of your body removed. Including parts of your brain. I don't want to end up in a nursing home having someone feed me and wipe my bottom. I don't want to be in agony wishing euthanasia were legal.

I know there are other ways of ending up in bad situations but I don't think it's simply "a big no-no" to take some personal responsibility and be a little cautious while you have the option.


e

You can't die healthy and mobile! Death necesarily comes only after a period of being unhealthy. Heart attack being a possible exception, I know some people who died of this when they were otherwise apparently healthy. But your point about being cautious is valid, I guess it is safer to avoid all sweeteners. But if you feel you must use them, artifical sweeteners are the less bad choice in my opinion.

As for who funded the study, this was some private institute so it was not necessarily government-funded. And even public institutions get plenty of private grant money. In fact, who do you think would be likely to contribute to a study loooking for problems with aspartame? Their competitors.

And yes I did read the part where they say they have lots of historical data on thier rat colony. That is a good thing. However, I disagree that the diet they are on, cvould not make them prone to sensitivities. When we eat carbs, they cause us to be in a constant state of inflammation. It makes us more prone to have reactions to all sorts of allergens and sensitizers. Myself, I had exercise-induced and allergen-induced asthma bad enough that I used a rescue inhaler almost daily. After being on low carb for a couple of years, I almot never have symptoms and haven't used an inhaler for over a year. I attirbute this not just to weight loss, but to the fact that I am no longer in a constant state of irritation from my diet. My immune system is no longer constantly on high alert if you will.

So, it is possible that because of their base diet, these rats might be similarly sensitive when it comes to additives they are fed. Maybe their reaction is more severe than would otherwise occur. And it remains to be seen just how much more disease was found than the control group. Obviously it is higher, but how much? And how does this translate to humans? That is a big unknown. I can believe that aspartame might have negative consequences at some very low frequency. So does crossing the street, or driving a car, or riding a rollercoaster, or swimming, or drinking booze, or smoking. Everything we do involves risk. It is up to us to personally assess the relative risk and decide if we want to take that risk to enjoy the reward.

We know that aspartame is not a high risk substance. The question is, then, how low of a risk is it? I'm not sure there is anything that has no risk. Doing nothing, even has its risks.

And thanks for arguing amiably in the face of my cantankerosity!

I wonder if Stevia has been studied as much as aspartame has?

Course you can, it's called dying from old age. Any kind of sudden, painless death would fit my idea of how I'd like to go ... morbid topic lol

Also I haven't told anyone I low carb - don't want all the lectures etc. How I get around eating my "fatty" foods without copping too much "oh how can you eat that?!" is by saying I know what fat does. I don't know what maltodextrin or whatever else they put in low-fat foods does. I think I'll stick with the fat. ... I guess I have the same opinion of sweeteners. Better to use one that's been around for donkey's years and side affects are known, than one that was produced in a lab some 30-40 years ago.



Yeah that occured to me too. Maybe we could do some looking into of the insitution that conducted these experiments. That doesn't discredit their findings though.

Congratulations on the improvement in your asthma!

I'd never thought about the idea that these rats could be fed a high carb diet which may put them in a 'constant state of inflammation' which makes them more sensitive to cancers etc etc. I would assume the rats would be fed rat food, not low-fat or any other dietary plan. I don't own rats ... some kind of meal or salad?


Course we don't know it's not high risk lol that's what we're discussing. These rats developed cancers just during their lifetime which was up to a measly three years. How long do you think it would take for a human to develop the same leukaemias etc?


Hmmm I'll do a net search and see if I can turn anything up. I know it's banned in some countries, but so is chewing gum. I'll take a look anyway.

e

Ok, I've done some net-searching and have found sites that claim to have done research and have glowing reports. Can't find any negative side effects (although I'm sure someone would have made them, true or untrue)...

Study on hamsters:
http://www.sandracabot.com/xbook-stevia.shtml

General Stevia info:
http://www.transformation2012.com.a...html&lang=en-us

e