Talk:Aspartame/Archive1
Comment[edit]
I love stumbling upon pretty solid articles that are a perfect RW mission fit that I never knew existed. It is like we are "real" wiki :). tmtoulouse harass 02:09, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
- And you accuse me of only looking at my watchlist... I'll have you know, it is still over half the articles on the site... hehe... "black packets"... RW at its best. ħuman
02:13, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
When I came to this country in '69, cyclamates were just on the verge of being banned (totally screwing up those tiny kool-ade packets!) for killing more rats than the average neurobiology student. Later came saccharine, which also got the boot for killing rats that drank 6 bottles a day (I knoew people who did that...) but was still allowed for diabetics and stupid people. Now we have "aspartame". Personally, I prefer sugar. Good old C6H12O6. ħuman 02:16, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
- You put glucose in your tea? EVDebs 19:18, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Sucrose is C12H22O11. You lose a water molcule when you put the two together. Glucose is the sugar in smarties and sweet tarts that is C6H12O6.... Chemist to the rescue. Sterilesnore! 21:05, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Methanol[edit]
This section was added by User:Counteraction:
Concerns have been raised about the high levels of methanol found in beverages containing aspartame. It is estimated that the mean total dietary intake of methanol from foods (not aspartame-derived) is around 11 milligram per day. By comparison, a content of 56 mg/L methanol is often reported for diet soft drinks.[1] It should also be noted that the methanol commonly found in food is found together with ethanol. The presence of ethanol in food works as an antidote to methanol toxicity, because it prevents the body from metabolizing the methanol, a process which produces formaldehyde, a potent carcinogen. Evidence of a potential risk of harm so far consists of a number of animal studies, and studies done in humans. One study done in rats found kidney damage in the offspring of pregnant rats at a level of exposure of 14mg/kg on day 9, 10 and 11 of pregnancy.[2] Another study found an increased risk of preterm delivery in pregnant women who drank moderately high amounts of artificially sweetened beverages. No increased risk was found in women who drank beverages containing sugar.[3] A recent study found an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in people who drink diet soda.[4] This study also looked at a link between regular soda and cardiovascular disease, but no such link could be found. The link of cardiovascular disease with diet soda persisted after adjustment for metabolic syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, and cardiac disease history.
However, wikipedia says:
Hypotheses of adverse health effects have focused on the three metabolites of aspartame, which are methanol, phenylalanine and aspartic acid. Aspartame is rapidly hydrolyzed in the small intestines. Even with ingestion of very high doses of aspartame (over 200 mg/kg), no aspartame is found in the blood due to the rapid breakdown.[6] These metabolites have been studied in a wide range of populations including infants, children, adolescents, and healthy adults. In healthy adults and children, even enormous doses of aspartame do not lead to plasma levels of metabolites that are a concern for safety. People with the genetic disorder phenylketonuria are advised to avoid aspartame as they have a decreased ability to metabolize phenylalanine. Common foods such as milk, meat, and fruits provide far greater amounts of these metabolites in a diet than aspartame.[51] The methanol produced by the metabolism of aspartame is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde and then completely converted to formic acid.[51] The methanol from aspartame is unlikely to be a safety concern for several reasons. The amount of methanol in aspartame is less than that found in fruit juices and citrus fruits, and there are other dietary sources for methanol such as fermented beverages. Therefore, the amount of methanol produced from aspartame is likely to be less than that from natural sources. With regards to formaldehyde, it is rapidly converted in the body, and the amounts of formaldehyde from the metabolism of aspartame is trivial when compared to the amounts produced routinely by the human body and from other foods and drugs.[6] Ingesting aspartame at the 90th percentile of intake would produce 25 times less methanol than would be considered toxic.[51]
So I'm going to remove at leas the methanol section for now. ThunderkatzHo! 20:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to cut all of it to talk. It's certainly not wrong, exactly, but from the point of view of making an RW article it needs some work and some clarification, rather than being a copy/paste/rehash of some obscure abstracts.
postate 19:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
?[edit]
Two contradicting statements next to each other The link of cardiovascular disease with diet soda persisted after adjustment for metabolic syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, and cardiac disease history.
Due to a lack of reproducible evidence either way, aspartame remains on the market, much to the relief of diabetics everywhere.
Somebody smarter than me wanna have a look at that?--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Rambling weirdness about tomatoes and methanol cut[edit]
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame&diff=894880&oldid=869995
I'm not convinced that section is necessary, or says anything useful, or indeed does anything at all but make people feel weird about eating aspartame without tomatoes. It's poorly-written enough that I'm only 90% sure of what it says to begin with, and it seems to suffer from some undue weight issues (i.e. in all the years people have been writing about aspartame fears, I've never heard lycopene come up). I'm not averse to someone reverting, but is this something we actually need here? EVDebs (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's something we need here, because it disputes the claim by the Aspartame industry that methanol exposure from Aspartame products is no danger to our health by comparing the exposure to exposure from tomatoes.
- Some rephrasing may be useful, but this is indeed important in the debate.
- Counteraction (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Toxin or supplement?[edit]
Which Cat does this fit best in?
GodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 16:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)