Exactly! Saccharin, though it caused bladder cancer in lab rats, was not reproducable in primates, and I LOVE that you know that! :D

Right? Jesus H. Christ. Even if you do have phenylketonuria, you'd find out waaay before you tried some piddling diet soda, like the first time you ate meat.

*hugs you close and whispers in your ear* You're one of the smart ones~

also MSG occurs naturally (well, stuff-basically-it) and sensitivities to it are ultra-rare and basically don't happen in people who consume even "relatively" normal amounts.

Yes! Another pointless food controversy! :3 Sensitivity to MSG causing migraines is quite rare, but because of the whole furor over it, people still think that "MSG is bad for you," even if they don't know why they think it.

What. xD

Mm, I want to do some glutamating... >:3

The real concern with aspartame seems to be it's effects on the brain and liver over the course of long term exposure. It's certainly an on going area of study, so I'd say the jury is still out on that one.

Regardless, I'd still stick to consuming low quantities if any at all of it. Then again I also just personally can't stand the taste of diet sodas sooo, meh! XD

Nope nope nope. Don't know where you heard that, but it's not true. Aspartame has an extremely short half-life and actually spends very little time in the body as aspartame. It doesn't stay in your body long enough to reach your liver or cross the blood-brain barrier, it's broken down into its three primary metabolites in your digestive tract: Phenylalanine, aspartic acid, and methanol. Phenylalanine you need to live, but that's probably where you heard about brain problems, because too much phenylalanine circulating in the blood for too long will damage neurotransmitters. Aspartic acid is a non-essential amino acid, which means that your body breaks it down into individual molecules to build necessary nutrients via de novo synthesis, and it's quite benign. The only entirely "bad" component is methanol, which is necessary as a catalyst in creating aspartame, which is a methyl ester. Methanol, a.k.a. wood alcohol, is bad for you, plain and simple, but is present in miniscule quantities in aspartame, more than enough for your liver to deal with.

The bottom line is that while phenylalanine can cause brain damage, and methanol can cause liver damage, the amounts present in an entire 12-pack of diet coke are microscopic compared to the amounts of phenylalanine and methanol in other foods that we eat. Phenylalanine is in quantities tens of times higher in meat and dairy products, and methanol is present in higher quantities in basically every food we eat. It's not a pollution or pesticide thing... food just naturally has methanol in it, which is why humans have livers. But a banana has more methanol in it than a can of diet coke.

Bottom line, there's no long-term exposure to speak of that could be studied... aspartame breaks down in stomach acid into three very well-known food components that we've been eating ever since we were human.

sorry for the long delay. I'm bad at keeping up with FA as it is and school just started back up again too.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not well versed in the topic of aspartame as I tend to avoid it personally simply due to the sheer dislike of its taste. So the metabolic break down I was not aware of. I'm assuming you're citing articles similar to this one? http://care.diabetesjournals.org/co...../1/67.full.pdf
Pretty cool stuff honestly.

The stuff I was citing is more recent research. There's a lot out there and of course a lot of it is locked behind paywalls (you're not a student are you? we might be able to get around that if you are). At least abstracts are available.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22385158
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17976663

Both studies are using high dosages of aspartame and so there is certainly something to be said about that and such doses compared to "nominal" values but it's still something I wouldn't completely dismiss as a result. I would agree that it's quite likely that one or more of the metabolites are the actual causes to the results in these studies but I have not dug far enough to see if that's already been proven or if it's currently something under study. It certainly seems like there are a number of things going on as a result of high dosage, long term exposure. Whether those things are realistically achievable, certainly questionable. Kind of like saying "driving at 180mph isn't likely to be good for you" either, but most of us never will come close to those speeds such as most of us will never come close to these exposure rates. Still, I certainly believe the findings merit further study to see if anything else interesting is going on with such a widely spread and used chemical. If nothing else it'll further understandings of cellular pathways. (plus it's not every day I get to plug one of my old professor's research, but that's not what we're here about).

I also have to ask, please forgive me if it sounds rude, are you a student in some form of biology or just very well read on this topic? Either way I'm quite impressed with your knowledge of the topic.

Oh, awesome! That's really fascinating. You know, in my previous reply I was going to add the one unknown detriment to aspartame, but I forgot to and didn't want to add another comment: All zero-calorie sweeteners have shown some potential evidence for "tricking" your metabolism and possibly causing parodoxical weight gain; this is believed to be because the vast majority of sweetness eaten by humans is from sugar substances that have calories and the properties of glucose. The body may produce extra insulin when the tongue tastes something sweet, but if you aren't actually getting sugar in your bloodsteram, you'll have an imbalance. The studies have shown inconsistent results in rats, but these studies sound like they're directly related... or it may be that rats don't metabolically process aspartame as quickly as humans do, and then the aspartame itself causes unusual side effects. I would say it's most likely vanishingly unlikely that it's any of the metabolites, though. But that's some awesome information, thanks for sharing it! :3

Haha, oh? It was a study from someone you know? That's cool~

No no, not rude at all. But no, I'm just a hobbyist, same as with medicine. ^^; But I've certainly given some thought into taking some formal education regarding it, and others have encouraged me... not sure if I'd do it or not though.

BLOODSTERAM



*bloodstream

yup. I'm still bad at keeping up with FA. Drama doesn't help that either. anywho...moving on...

yeah that would make since in the physiological perspective (the weight gain thing). We've been talking out similar things in my physiology class my favourite one being that of testosterone abuse seen a lot in athletics or "sexual enhancement" ads. Because external and/or high dosage addition of testosterone in males will tell the body "you have too much of this now. stop making it". The catch there is...where is testosterone made in males? the testes...so in an amusing and in some ways ironic sense, abuse of testosterone and mimicking steroids will actually make the balls shrink, sometimes to the size of mere peanuts...literally.

as for the papers I'm not sure if similar pathways are at play here. It is possible. but it's honestly impossible to tell with only their abstracts. At the very least we need the methods they used as well. As for what's directly causing it regarding the aspartame itself or what metabolite or even perhaps a secondary action as a result of a signal cascade from one of the above...only future studies are likely to tell.

Glad to share! and yes, the second paper, the first author. He's my neurobio professor and moonlights as our department chair sometimes too! Great guy, certainly knows his stuff!

ha. well you certainly seem to know a good bit about at least aspartame. If you like the literature enough you'd probably do alright in formal studies. Might be a good option for you in the future if you're looking for something to do :D

Aw, sorry if you've been the victim of any drama. *hugs*

Hehe, yeah, that's really interesting. It's a well-known effect of steroid use too if you ever peek at certain extreme bodybuilding forums (creepy stuff).

Methodology is one of the most important facets of studies that people often overlook... I mean, and it's partially not even the studiers' faults. Studies are generally only published in peer-reviewed journals, and for the longest time, were only read by peers. If a group's conclusions were off in the past, it wasn't seen as much of a problem because the methodology was laid bare. Nowadays though, anybody can get the abstract conclusion, but the full papers are often purchase-only, and newspapers will report on conclusions without taking into account methodology. I know I've tracked down several stories that didn't even correctly report the studiers' own conclusions. Ugh, the one I remember distinctly was "Eggs just as dangerous as cigarettes in causing stroke or heart failure!" Which is technically true... for people who have already had at least one heart attack. Which makes a big freaking difference, because those people are significantly more likely to have sensitivity to ingested cholesterol, not to mention a more fragile cardiovascular system overall. x_x

Anyways, thanks again. x3 And oh? You think so? I'd never really thought of that before. ^^