Aspartame poisoning

[bbchien]

Isn't caffeine in regular coke?

Yup, but amazingly, not quite as much! You never can tell what the h_ll is in it unless you dig....

Splenda can be a bad deal for some- it is 6 fluro glucose, but it interrupts, obviously, sugar metabolism. Hopefully enough so that it doesn't even get transported through the intestinal wall. But if it gets in, it'll compete with regular sugar in the supply of various organs.

Not to divert but to add- Celiac Sprue (Gluten intolerance) was never much more than an academic curiousity, until Dr. Borlaug devised rust-resistant hybrid wheat (nobel prize~1970s). Unfortunately, the gene for the production of that glycoprotein is right next to the gene for wheat rust resistance- so now our food supply is loaded with TONS of Gluten. So now we see a significant percentage of the population that has to have gluten reduced bread, etc.

Everything in the food chain is "custom". At least, unlike in some parts of the planet, the food isn't going to kill you. In China, in the last century, well to do families had someone on staff who did nothing but procure reliable, unspoiled food.

I do recall my Mom saying, in the late 50s, "well, at least the food is good here". The irony was that was just before we sat down in front of Eric Severeid with some Swanson TV dinners....

 

[steingar]

Some of us didn't take organic chem - I took physics, math, english & music.

One would think that you would take the word of those who are steeped in the stuff. Bruce is dead on about everything, these are variants of naturally occurring molecules that have no mechanism of toxicity in most unless taken to an extreme level. At that level the dreaded dihydrogen oxide is similarly toxic, by the way.

Moreover, if you drink things containing sugar, the sweetener that all these substances are trying to replace, you will have profoundly worse health effects. Moderation in all things people.

All this anti-science hysteria is nothing more than that. It is utterly uninformed nonsense. I am no longer surprised that such idiocy wins the day in America. With half the population declaring non-belief in main stream science, the technological future of this nation is questionable at best. And a nation with no technological future has no future.

 

[bbchien]

Some of us didn't take organic chem - I took physics, math, english & music.

That's okay Murph. That's why the rest of us are here.

Thanks to Prof. W. for his backup. Prof. W is a Biology/Molecular genetics professor in the Ohio State system.....

The true demise of our republic is that the vast majority are educated by:

Education majors, who have studied nothing but how kids learn- no basic sciences, math, etc.
Journalism majors, who have absolutely no core knowledge of anything at all. Not even spell check.

I can't believe we allowed this to happen.

 

[steingar]

I can't believe we allowed this to happen.

Agreed. We're the folks that put men on the moon. I hope most of the generation that achieved that is dead, rather than see what we've become. Now, an element of critical thinking for everyone. This is the most important thing I have ever posted or will ever post on this or any other site:

Question the source of your information. If something appears in a web site, ask who wrote it, how do they know what they're claiming to know, and where did they come across the information.

Part of why such disinformation is disseminated so widely is the misinformed have a very good platform to launch it. Thus utterly crackpot things become widely believed and thus believable. And all sorts of anti-scientific propaganda get spread this way. It is truly a shame, for the nation that mistrusts its scientists and engineers is due to lack technological progress.

Lots of people do have adverse reactions to artificial sweeteners, I wouldn't deny that. Then again, lots of people have adverse reactions to food. That doesn't make food toxic.

 

[RJM62]

That's okay Murph. That's why the rest of us are here.

Thanks to Prof. W. for his backup. Prof. W is a Biology/Molecular genetics professor in the Ohio State system.....

The true demise of our republic is that the vast majority are educated by:

Education majors, who have studied nothing but how kids learn- no basic sciences, math, etc.
Journalism majors, who have absolutely no core knowledge of anything at all. Not even spell check.

I can't believe we allowed this to happen.

Doc, I share your dismay at the decline of primary and secondary education (especially in the sciences) in America, and I readily acknowledge that either you or Dr. W have forgotten more about chemistry and physiology than I'll ever know.

I have taken (and largely forgotten) organic chemistry, and I do understand and accept as fact what you said about the metabolism of aspartame. I also know that FDA approval of aspartame was withheld four times before eventually being granted, which indicates unusually thorough review. I also understand that most of the studies have found it to be perfectly safe, and that most of the biology cited by its opponents is lacking, at best.

But I also know that it gives me headaches. I do know that after I was diagnosed with DM2, I stopped using what relatively little sugar I used (mainly in coffee) and substituted aspartame. Bang: Instant headache. And I do know that a majority of the people in the diabetes education classes I attended when I was diagnosed said the exact same thing about aspartame.

I can't speak for the others, but I really had no particular opinion nor expectations about aspartame one way or the other until then, so I doubt it was some sort of self-fulling psychological expectation.

I also know that a few aspartame-sweetened cups of coffee were enough to convince me to throw the rest of the product away -- quite a heart-wrenching decision for a tightwad like me.

Then someone told me that Dr. Atkins recommended Splenda in one of his books, so I tried that. The headache was even worse, and there was the added joy of the worst diarrhea I'd ever experienced. So much for Splenda.

Not having much of a sweet tooth anyway, I simply stopped sweetening my coffee and so forth. Then my younger brother came across Stevia and told me about it. I didn't bother with it at first because my previous experiences with alternative sweeteners had been less-than-wonderful. Eventually, though, it went on sale at Price Chopper, so I bought some.

Long story short, Stevia has no side effects for me, and also may help stabilize my glucose levels a bit. (I say "may" because although my levels have been more stable since I started using Stevia, I've also lost a bit more weight.) I don't use a tremendous amount of Stevia, but I do use it regularly because I use it in cappuccino, which I drink every day.

Anyway, back to aspartame, etc. My opinions about them aren't of the conspiracy variety, and I don't (nor am I qualified to) argue against the science. But I also know that they have side effects for myself and enough other people with no axes to grind that I can't completely dismiss the side effects as some sort of psychological phenomenon.

That leads me not to a belief, per se, but rather to a suspicion, namely, that there may be something subtle going on metabolically that the science is missing. Or maybe not. But there certainly is precedent for that possibility, especially concerning artificial sweeteners (cyclamate and saccharin, specifically). They were once considered safe by science and approved by the FDA, as well.

So in summary, I profoundly respect your input and Michael's, and acknowledge that both or you have far-superior knowledge and understanding of these subjects than I can ever hope for. But the tiny pool of empirical evidence of strikingly similar side effects to which I've been privy contradicts the science, and makes me suspicious that there may be something that science is missing. Or maybe not.

On a practical level, I simply use Stevia, which has no such effects in me (nor most other people, apparently).

Thanks,

-Rich

 

[bbchien]

Doc, I share your dismay at the decline of primary and secondary education (especially in the sciences) in America, and I readily acknowledge that either you or Dr. W have forgotten more about chemistry and physiology than I'll ever know.

I have taken (and largely forgotten) organic chemistry.... .....On a practical level, I simply use Stevia, which has no such effects in me (nor most other people, apparently). Thanks, -Rich

Which just goes to show, "it's always something"

Seriously, Aspartame has a very fascinating history. Dr. Hugo Black ("uncle Hugh" to me) was by all accounts a somewhat sloppy research chemist employed by the then G. D. Searle Company, in Skokie, IL. He had a bunch of this on his bench, resutls of a badly controlled synthesis of something else. A wee little bit ended up on his index finger, and then into his mouth. THEN he did the mass spec and figured out what he had.

We have not done any infusion studies of phenylalanine, asparagine or the component amino acids. I'll bet one of them is vasoactive if given in enough dosage. Unpleasant but nothing more.

We only know about the substance(s) what is required in the pure FDA: Safety (at expected doses), and Efficacy. We know nothing about eating a whole bag of the stuff, which is where we would get infomation about what amount to infusion phenylalanine or infusion asparagine.

The withdrawal prior to reapproval was because a GOVERNMENT statistician made a decimal error and estimated that 1,500 children with PKU would be exposed per year. The true number was 150, few enough that protection under the PKU screening program at birth would have been adequate.

It is not possible to know what we don't know. That's why we have endowed chairs at universities. However, since Reagan, the availability of true research finding without 5 year engineering goal constraints (Hoechst Roussel is an example) is now just about nil.

"Let business determine the value of education" was a grave, grave error.

 

[steingar]

But I also know that it gives me headaches. I do know that after I was diagnosed with DM2, I stopped using what relatively little sugar I used (mainly in coffee) and substituted aspartame. Bang: Instant headache. And I do know that a majority of the people in the diabetes education classes I attended when I was diagnosed said the exact same thing about aspartame.

Mrs. Steingar had to find some alternative sweeteners not too long ago and ran into some trouble herself. Then again, she reacts to all manner of things, lentils come to mind just this instant. Does that mean that lentils are toxic? Some here might say yes, but a billion or so Indians would disagree, as would many others.

Heck, one day I started drinking hot chocolate after my walk into work. I don't even want to discuss the effects on my gastrointestinal system, what happened is not fit for discussion in polite company, or impolite company as the case may be. Doesn't make hot chocolate toxic, just something I shouldn't drink every day.

Sorry you reacted poorly to the stuff, some folks do. Glad you were able to find a substitute that made you happy. Personally, I think the coffee is way worse for you and has far more physiologically active reagents than any sweetener. And Odin only knows what all those alkaloids are doing.

Then again, I drink the occasional energy drink, so what do I know?

 

[RJM62]

Mrs. Steingar had to find some alternative sweeteners not too long ago and ran into some trouble herself. Then again, she reacts to all manner of things, lentils come to mind just this instant. Does that mean that lentils are toxic? Some here might say yes, but a billion or so Indians would disagree, as would many others.

Heck, one day I started drinking hot chocolate after my walk into work. I don't even want to discuss the effects on my gastrointestinal system, what happened is not fit for discussion in polite company, or impolite company as the case may be. Doesn't make hot chocolate toxic, just something I shouldn't drink every day.

Sorry you reacted poorly to the stuff, some folks do. Glad you were able to find a substitute that made you happy. Personally, I think the coffee is way worse for you and has far more physiologically active reagents than any sweetener. And Odin only knows what all those alkaloids are doing.

Then again, I drink the occasional energy drink, so what do I know?

Thanks. I completely understand and respect what you're saying.

I am curious, though, about your opinion of sucralose in particular. Here's why.

When I was in college, I worked for a pest control company. It was the best-paying job I could find that would work around my school schedule and had full benefits; and although the V.A. paid my tuition, I also had a family to support.

Over time, I took a great many courses to become licensed in that field, including, eventually, a "Category 10" license to conduct field research using experimental pesticides. That particular license was difficult to obtain, and the examinations required considerably more understanding of chemistry, biology, toxicology, and so forth than did the other categories. It's been many years since I have been in that line of work, but I haven't quite forgotten everything I learned.

One day, well after my unpleasant experience with sucralose-sweetened iced cream, I learned that it was an organochlorine compound. That surprised me because I knew that almost all of the old organochlorine insecticides had been banned. Chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin... all illegal now. In fact, some of the studies I'd worked on under my Cat 10 license were for products specifically intended to replace the banned organochlorines.

To my knowledge, the only organochlorine insecticide that's still legal is lindane, and its remaining uses are highly restricted and always require a prescription from a physician or veterinarian. All the rest have are long gone, all found to be carcinogens.

Which naturally makes me wonder about sucralose.

Some day when you have nothing better to do, I wonder if you could do me a favor and comment about that. There seems to be something about organochlorines as a group that make them particularly harmful to humans. What is it about sucralose that makes it an exception?

This is purely academic, mind you. I don't use the stuff simply because it makes me sick. I'm just curious for an opinion from an actual, impartial scientist, rather than from people who have a horse in the race one way or the other.

Thanks,

-Rich

 

[douglas393]

Maybe the 80 mgms of caffeine?
I have no idea what's in the diet ice cream...Algin...salt...

Caffeine is actually a useful treatment for headaches, and is used by many headache specialists as such. In fact, some of the over the counter headache medications contain caffeine. Withdrawal from caffeine can cause headaches however. Too much caffeine can cause rebound headaches, though this is not very common. As for headaches from diet soda, it may be the artificial sweetner or some other nasty chemical found in soda. Or are you drinking gallons of the stuff.

 

[Tom-D]

I gave up all that sweet and sugary stuff when I found out beer is better for ya.

It has no sugar, artificial color, and it brings on my nap quicker.

 

[Tom-D]

Caffeine is actually a useful treatment for headaches, and is used by many headache specialists as such. In fact, some of the over the counter headache medications contain caffeine. Withdrawal from caffeine can cause headaches however. Too much caffeine can cause rebound headaches, though this is not very common. As for headaches from diet soda, it may be the artificial sweetner or some other nasty chemical found in soda. Or are you drinking gallons of the stuff.

A half of one 12 ounce bottle will do it for me, That's about the time the head ache hits and I discover that this is the crap that gives me a headache.

 

[douglas393]

One would think that you would take the word of those who are steeped in the stuff. Bruce is dead on about everything, these are variants of naturally occurring molecules that have no mechanism of toxicity in most unless taken to an extreme level. At that level the dreaded dihydrogen oxide is similarly toxic, by the way.

Moreover, if you drink things containing sugar, the sweetener that all these substances are trying to replace, you will have profoundly worse health effects. Moderation in all things people.

All this anti-science hysteria is nothing more than that. It is utterly uninformed nonsense. I am no longer surprised that such idiocy wins the day in America. With half the population declaring non-belief in main stream science, the technological future of this nation is questionable at best. And a nation with no technological future has no future.

Some of these substances do not require high quantities to cause side effects, and the side effects of many of these manmade substitutes for sugar and fat, run the gamet. For example look at the warnings on sugar free chocalates, and the fat substitute potato chips. Some people are more sensitive than others, and for some it could be deadly, such as people with PKU taking aspartame. Furthermore, all because some of these substances are made of naturally occuring amino acids does not mean that they are safe. There are numerous peptides and proteins out there that are poison or deadly such as bee venom, and snake venom. Furthermore, the way the amino acids are arranged can have drastically different effects. For example, the backwards plan of aspartame has no sweet taste at all.

Now do not get me wrong, I think this lady is a wack job. But as with many things in life there are risks and benefits, and we need to weight them out. Being informed is essential. Being ignorant is dangerous.

 

[rpadula]

So, why is it that each time I drink a diet soda I get a head ache? Diet Ice cream will too.

regular coke, regular ice cream doesn't.

But I also know that it gives me headaches. I do know that after I was diagnosed with DM2, I stopped using what relatively little sugar I used (mainly in coffee) and substituted aspartame. Bang: Instant headache. And I do know that a majority of the people in the diabetes education classes I attended when I was diagnosed said the exact same thing about aspartame.

Rich & Tom,

I had read a long time ago about aspartame being composed of the two amino acids Dr. Bruce mentioned. I seem to recall from that people could be allergic to one of the two, but to me that means something different than "toxicity."

 

[douglas393]

Rich & Tom,

I had read a long time ago about aspartame being composed of the two amino acids Dr. Bruce mentioned. I seem to recall from that people could be allergic to one of the two, but to me that means something different than "toxicity."

It is unlikely anyone is "allergic" to either amino acid in aspartame. These are the building blocks of your body. It is sort of like people who are allergic to oxygen, epinephrine, or water. It is not likely as far as human physiology is concerned. Now some people may have a problem with metabolizing some of these amino acids, for example PKU, and thus exogenous sources of them need to be avoided, but that is not an allergy.

 

[douglas393]

A half of one 12 ounce bottle will do it for me, That's about the time the head ache hits and I discover that this is the crap that gives me a headache.

Is it any soda or just diet soda? Most colas unless caffeine free contain caffeine. Many of the non cola sodas also have caffeine.

 

[Tom-D]

Is it any soda or just diet soda? Most colas unless caffeine free contain caffeine. Many of the non cola sodas also have caffeine.

It's just the diet stuff and it doesn't matter who's label is on the bottle.

 

[RJM62]

It's just the diet stuff and it doesn't matter who's label is on the bottle.

That's certainly the case for me, as well. Caffeine? Heh. I consume so much caffeine that it may as well be the fifth food group. I almost never get headaches. But put some Nutra-Sweet or Splenda in there, and here comes the headache.

-Rich

 

[steingar]

Some of these substances do not require high quantities to cause side effects, and the side effects of many of these manmade substitutes for sugar and fat, run the gamet. For example look at the warnings on sugar free chocalates, and the fat substitute potato chips.

Here you actually have a point, since I don't think the fat substitute used in potato chips should be allowed on the market. Then again, one can quite easily avoid potato chips to remedy the problem. Only drinking water can remedy the problem some have with sodas, though such a course seems to me quite onerous.

Some people are more sensitive than others, and for some it could be deadly, such as people with PKU taking aspartame.

You're talking about 150 people a year. And anyone with a food allergy can easily be killed by ingesting the allergen. So what?

Furthermore, all because some of these substances are made of naturally occuring amino acids does not mean that they are safe.

No,t he fact that they were rigorously tested makes them safe.

There are numerous peptides and proteins out there that are poison or deadly such as bee venom, and snake venom. Furthermore, the way the amino acids are arranged can have drastically different effects. For example, the backwards plan of aspartame has no sweet taste at all.

In case no one told you, meat is amino acids with a particular arrangement, with a few lipids thrown in for good measure. Does that mean you're going to become a vegetarian? Oh, that's right, the proteins you get in vegetables are also made from amino acids. The fact that one arrangement does bad things does not in ad of itself damn them all.

Now do not get me wrong, I think this lady is a wack job. But as with many things in life there are risks and benefits, and we need to weight them out. Being informed is essential. Being ignorant is dangerous.

Yes, it is and you are. And what really burns me is we have an experienced MD and a professor of genetics saying the same things and you guys keep arguing based on a bunch of dumb web sites and some high school chemistry. I'm done here.

 

[Tom-D]

No,t he fact that they were rigorously tested makes them safe.

Does "safe" assure you that you will not get a headache?

 

[douglas393]

Here you actually have a point, since I don't think the fat substitute used in potato chips should be allowed on the market. Then again, one can quite easily avoid potato chips to remedy the problem. Only drinking water can remedy the problem some have with sodas, though such a course seems to me quite onerous.



You're talking about 150 people a year. And anyone with a food allergy can easily be killed by ingesting the allergen. So what?



No,t he fact that they were rigorously tested makes them safe.



In case no one told you, meat is amino acids with a particular arrangement, with a few lipids thrown in for good measure. Does that mean you're going to become a vegetarian? Oh, that's right, the proteins you get in vegetables are also made from amino acids. The fact that one arrangement does bad things does not in ad of itself damn them all.



Yes, it is and you are. And what really burns me is we have an experienced MD and a professor of genetics saying the same things and you guys keep arguing based on a bunch of dumb web sites and some high school chemistry. I'm done here.

Sorry but you are way off here. However, if you actually read what I wrote you would see that I am not fully disagreeing with anything that the great and wonderful experienced MD has to say. What I am saying is that all because something is made of amino acids does not mean it is safe. I did not say what you are saying I said. Many amino acid sequences are quite safe, but in the wrong combination and sequence they can be a deadly poison. Dr Chien proposed that because it is made of amino acids it must be safe. That is not true, and any third year college biochemistry major would be able to tell you that. Furthermore two substances made of the same amino acids in a different sequence can have completely different effects. Testing does not mean something is safe. Look at the record of the FDA on that one. However, even if something is safe in testing, and the testing was done legitimately does not mean it is safe for everyone. Allergies, idiosyncratic reactions, inborn errors of metabolism, and the like can cause different substances to have completely different effects in different people. I used PKU as an example, and there are alot more than 150 people in the country with PKU. I could have used other examples as well, because PKU is not the only disease that is out there that can make certain food quite unsafe for the person affected.

The bottom line is if you want to be ignorant that is your choice. If you want to be educated that again is your choice. However, all because you do not understand simple biochemistry, testing procedures, and basic disease processes, does not mean that if someone has an opinion that shatters your illusions that person is a wack job. I have nothing to gain by arguing with you, but if you check out every one of my statements you will find that they are absolutely true. Be a ignorant follower, that is not my problem. I am not saying aspartame is unsafe, though I think it is a relative issue, but what I am saying is that it can have side effects that are undesirable in the right set of circumstances. If that makes me a wack job, well then the truth makes me a wack job. Oh and by the way my information is not from the internet, though it is supported by any department of biological chemistry and medical school in the world.

 

[RJM62]

Good grief... this is devolving into a fistfight betwixt the brainiest.

For the record, I'm not challenging anyone. My question about sucralose compared to other organochlorines represented mere curiosity and the hope that someone more learned than myself might be able to provide an answer.

If my question is going to cause a battle of the brains, however, then I gladly retract it in favor of continued, blissful ignorance.

-Rich

 

[douglas393]

Good grief... this is devolving into a fistfight betwixt the brainiest.

For the record, I'm not challenging anyone. My question about sucralose compared to other organochlorines represented mere curiosity and the hope that someone more learned than myself might be able to provide an answer.

If my question is going to cause a battle of the brains, however, then I gladly retract it in favor of continued, blissful ignorance.

-Rich

Please Rich keep it on, have not had so much fun in days. And since I cannot fly today, work and rain and wind interfere, this is about all I can do from becoming a "wacko." The problem is better living through chemistry is and always be a double edged sword. And unfortunately for some it is like leading the lambs to the slaughter.

 

[douglas393]

Does "safe" assure you that you will not get a headache?

No it does not. Nor does safe mean it is safe for everyone. Nor unfortunately does anyone know or can even predict with any degree of certainty the long term effects of many of these substances.

As for testing assuring something is safe, remember when baby apirin was actually for babies.

As for safe, remember more people die from tylenol every year than from aspartame or any of the other artificial sweetners out there. And talk about a horrible death!

 

[douglas393]

In case no one told you, meat is amino acids with a particular arrangement, with a few lipids thrown in for good measure. Does that mean you're going to become a vegetarian? Oh, that's right, the proteins you get in vegetables are also made from amino acids. The fact that one arrangement does bad things does not in ad of itself damn them all.

Presently, unless I am mistaken meat is made of naturally occuring proteins(amino acids hooked together) whereas aspartame is made in a beaker(a very large beaker but a beaker nonetheless). Your analogy fails to impress me. As for the fact that one arrangement does bad things does not in of itself damn them all is exactly what I am saying. As it also means that all because some arrangements are safe does not mean all arrangements are safe. Using your logic substances made of carbon and oxygen and hydrogen all must be safe as these are the building blocks of life. I am willing to drink ethanol but methanol will kill me.

 

[RJM62]

Please Rich keep it on, have not had so much fun in days. And since I cannot fly today, work and rain and wind interfere, this is about all I can do from becoming a "wacko." The problem is better living through chemistry is and always be a double edged sword. And unfortunately for some it is like leading the lambs to the slaughter.

Maybe later, Doug. I have something important to do right now (which also happens to be peripherally related to the thread's topic):

-Rich

 

[bbchien]

Sorry but you are way off here..... Oh and by the way my information is not from the internet, though it is supported by any department of biological chemistry and medical school in the world.

Dr Chien proposed that because it is made of amino acids it must be safe

Doug, your understanding of physiology is pretty....weak.

Consider the following:
Polypeptides are NOT adsorbed through the bowel. We could give insulin orally if they are. They are hydrolyzed in the stomach by our pH of 1.6-2.0. You have to undertand physiology, Douglas. No polypetide makes it through to the intestine to be asorbed as a polypeptide. Even if it did, a polypeptide is too large and too polar (that ester group is a big deal, as are the amides) to be transported across a cell membrane intact. Again, they get cut up by the acid (again, basic organic chemistry) and there is nothing linked left to adsorb. Just individual (amino acids) get adsorbed, by specifically evolved membrane transport systems for ONE each individual amino acid.. So it does not matter if it was synthesized in a beaker or came from a cow. Nutting gets in until it's broken down.

Now if we were talking injection of 4-long polypeptide chains, your concerns would have merit. But we are not injecting aspartame subcutaneously here. It's a food additive.

You do not speak for my faculty, nor for the F&DA. Kefauver testing is precisely for that toxicity of combination of which you speak. It was pretty exhaustive.

And you have to admit, there has not been a successful string of suits against Monsanto and Ajinomoto (current holders of the patent).

Population wise as a whole, it's pretty harmless stuff. The 30 year record and presence everyplace in the food chain bear that out.

And I am done with this nutso discussion. You, Douglas have fallen prey to "a little knowledge" and are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out in left field.

Are you going to tell me next, "I knew that"?

QED.