Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Dec-17-19, 10:41
LCer4Life's Avatar
LCer4Life LCer4Life is offline
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 155/128/125 Female 63
BF:33.2/28.7%/24%
Progress: 90%
Default Aspartame Study

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Dec-17-19, 12:26
jessdamess's Avatar
jessdamess jessdamess is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,333
 
Plan: JUDDD, 100g
Stats: 252/168.8/160 Female 69.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Northeast TN
Default

This is the study they are referencing in the article, I believe.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/96/6/1419/4571485

If that is so, the study's and the article's conclusions don't match.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Dec-17-19, 12:42
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,767
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

here it is, hopefully got it all.....

Quote:
It’s time to play Kick the Can—of soda, that is.

In a 22-year landmark study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition involving over 125,000 people, significant links were found between daily intake of aspartame and the development of leukemia and lymphoma. (1) These findings are consistent with previous studies in animal models:



“A recent megaexperiment in 1800 rats tested at aspartame doses much lower than the currently acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans reported a dose-dependent increase in lymphomas, leukemias, and transitional renal cell tumors.” (2, 3)



Broken down, here are the primary results of this mega-study.
9

Consuming only one 12-ounce can of diet soda per day increased risk of lymphoma and myeloma (cancer of blood plasma), the incidence increasing in correlation with aspartame intake. The risk was much higher in men (it hasn’t been identified why that is the case).
There is an elevated risk of lymphoma with higher consumption of non-diet soda in men than women.
Annual consumption of aspartame in the United States is estimated at 5000-5500 tons and the most common product in which it is used is diet soda.
Aspartame (especially in liquids) breaks down into asparitic acid, methanol, and phenylalanine; when ingested, methanol turns into formaldehyde—a known carcinogen.
Previous studies that didn’t support a link between aspartame and cancer were limited in time and scope. This study included a large sample size and scientifically-viable time period and tested subjects at intervals throughout the study.
Subjects' measured aspartame intake included that added from packets (e.g., NutraSweet and Equal) and contributed to the weighting of the results.
Subjects with a higher intake of diet soda had a higher body mass index and animal protein intake and were less likely to smoke. (This is highly significant: it is known that aspartame contributes to obesity and metabolic syndrome; the result noted here corroborates that finding. Additionally, this group of diet soda drinkers didn’t smoke cigarettes, discounting smoking as a contributing factor to the development of cancer in the study.)


This research begs the question: what will we find about the effects of aspartame on human health twenty years from now, when the generation that grew up with it is at middle age?

If this isn’t enough to get you to kick the can to the curb for good (and then recycle it!), other studies show a direct connection between the methanol in aspartame and neurological disease.



Is anyone surprised?
Thirty years ago, a toxicologist from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) testified before the U.S. Congress on the subject of the safety of aspartame in the food supply:

“...the cancer-causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established way beyond any reasonable doubt… Given the cancer-causing potential of aspartame, how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame as constituting an allowable daily intake or safe level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a tolerance for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?” Congressional Record SID835:131 (8/1/85)

Yet aspartame is not only legal, it’s consumed at thousands of tons per year.
Aspartame poisoning, while not on most doctors’ diagnosis chart, is disturbingly real. It can manifest in symptoms similar to multiple sclerosis, digestive problems, severe muscle pain, headaches, dizziness, and blurred vision. These symptoms will subside if the artificial sweetener is discontinued. The research here discussed shows that sustained exposure has a cumulative effect and there is a point at which it becomes life-threatening.


Oh, and by the way: regular soda is just as bad as diet.
High-fructose corn syrup (the primary sweetener in most non-diet sodas) causes cancer, heart disease, obesity, and dementia, too.

If you need a sweet drink, try fruit-infused water and mixing honey or maple syrup with water or club soda (real club soda that contains only water and bicarbonate of soda). If it’s the push of caffeine you want, drink coffee, black tea, matcha, or yerba maté. But by all means, kick the killer soda habit.






Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Dec-17-19, 14:58
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is online now
Posts: 11,635
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/188/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: Texas
Default

Years ago I had a neighbor with 4 children. Her diet to stay slim was drinking Coke all day long. She kept telling me to do it even though I was 130lbs. I hated Coke so it was a no go for me. She moved but I found out that she died of cancer 2 years after that leaving behind 4 children with no mother.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Dec-17-19, 15:21
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is online now
Posts: 8,463
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/170/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 110%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

I switched from regular soda to diet soda many years ago. Almost all the information I found showed no problem with aspartame. A few years ago I read a report of the aspartame/methanol/formaldehyde link and switched to water, unsweetened tea, and black coffee.
I don't have a family history of cancer, so I'm not terribly concered about my past consumption of diet sodas.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Dec-17-19, 22:49
LCer4Life's Avatar
LCer4Life LCer4Life is offline
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 155/128/125 Female 63
BF:33.2/28.7%/24%
Progress: 90%
Default

I found the article interesting. I used to drink diet soda, maybe 2/day. I don’t think I ever really over indulged but quit it all about 3-4 years ago. Now just water and 2 cups if black coffee. Even quit wine, as it started giving me headaches.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Dec-18-19, 03:21
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 12,252
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

I got DH off aspartame when we met two decades ago. Based on neurotoxicity. It's hard to find breath mints without it now. THEY PUT IT IN BABY FOOD.

There's plenty of flavored seltzers. Low carbing will eliminate that need for sweet. Soda is like drinking straight maple syrup to me now. Never was big on them anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Dec-18-19, 07:53
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,803
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessdamess
This is the study they are referencing in the article, I believe.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/96/6/1419/4571485

If that is so, the study's and the article's conclusions don't match.


Quote:
Conclusion: Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects and occurrence of an apparent cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.


I'm underwhelmed.


Quote:
We observed no increased risks of NHL and multiple myeloma in women. We also observed an unexpected elevated risk of NHL (RR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.10, 2.51) with a higher consumption of regular, sugar-sweetened soda in men but not in women. In contrast, when sexes were analyzed separately with limited power, neither regular nor diet soda increased risk of leukemia but were associated with increased leukemia risk when data for men and women were combined (RR for consumption of ≥1 serving of diet soda/d when the 2 cohorts were pooled: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.02).


They found squat in women. But where WereBear quoted the article on the study they say this;

Quote:
The risk was much higher in men (it hasn’t been identified why that is the case).


Frankly dishonest--implies that there was some risk shown in women, the risk was higher in men. No, the risk was only in men. And, make risk "correlation." I hate this use of the word "risk" it's not really appropriate without established causation.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Dec-18-19, 08:23
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,803
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Looking at the animal studies--they should have just talked about the animal studies. That's where the evidence is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/
This in the first study they cited,

Quote:
First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats

QUOTE]The decision to use experimental data to protect public health is important because the time span of widespread APM use is still too brief to have produced solid epidemiologic data. Moreover, it is unlikely that sufficient epidemiologic data will be available in the near future, given the difficulty of finding a control group that has not been exposed to this widely diffused compound.[/QUOTE]

Whether aspartame sucks, and whether weak epidemiological links suck, are two different issues.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Wed, Dec-18-19, 16:56
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,186
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

"Solid epidemiologic data" is an oxymoron in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Dec-19-19, 04:26
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 12,252
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
"Solid epidemiologic data" is an oxymoron in this case.


I first became aware of it through pilot associations which circulated warnings about seizures triggered by as little as one diet soda.

Since they wouldn't suspect something "which is everywhere" the pilot would lose their livelihood and be labeled with "idiopathic epilepsy."
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Dec-19-19, 06:23
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,803
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

That wouldn't be an "association" though, if repeatable in an individual, it would be a case study. That I'd take seriously.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:14.


Copyright © 2000-2020 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.