1000mg per kg would mean, in a human with, let’s say 80kg, we’d need 80000mg to replicate the study case.
Since we - usually - don’t eat pure aspartame, that would mean you’d need to chug 333.33 liters of diet coke per day to replicate the aspartame intake of the rats in the study.
These studies are so far off of reality that I barely know where to begin.
I usually don’t bother answering a Gish Gallop, but…
1 - They didn’t complete the study, it was only 13 people with an existing history of mental disorders
2 - They basically said it’s so within the tolerances that it’s probably just chance, and that regular soda did as bad or worse
3 - Could only get the abstract, and it says nothing about their findings
4 - Combines aspartame and acesulfame-K, so it’s hard to tell from the abstract. The methodology doesn’t fill me with a lot of hope for it though.
5 - Seems to be the same study as 4 (same group of French people, same author), but for cardiovascular disease instead of cancer? Which, yeah, fat people drink diet soda, have heart disease, and get cancer more than thin people. I’m not sold on their methodology
6 - It’s a rat study. Again, I can’t see anything but the abstract, so it’s hard to say. But any study that doesn’t do a comparative analysis against regular sugar is suspect in my book
7 - Like 2, this one says that it’s probably just chance in the conclusion.
And look, if this was some new chemical on the block, maybe I’d agree that it should have some more testing. But it’s aspartame. It’s been being actively studied since 1965. It’s had a lot of negative PR backed by Domino (et al), which has created a huge amount of public concern. And will all of that, the studies still come out a hundred to one that there’s not really any link to anything.
Yes, you can find studies that say “aspartame scary.” But they’re basically like all the ones you linked above. Dubious. Most even admit they’re dubious (as seen above). And almost none of the ones that push the “scary” rhetoric compare the effects against regular table sugar, which is also heavily linked to increased cancer/heart disease risk. So it’s not even intellectually honest, even when their numbers happen to random out to slightly agreeing with them.
Are you just going to ignore the original argument that not once we have found something bad with aspartame, while there are many things we found? Sure, the data is incomplete, sometimes it’s in mix with something else, sometimes it’s high dose, sometimes it’s during pregnancy, but to claim it’s 100% consequence free under any circumstances and amounts is fucking idiotic and very unscientific.
EDIT: Fuck, I thought I’m on a science-related subreddit, not a circle jerk. Now everything makes sense.
Was my initial stance of “never found anything” a hyperbole? Sure. Not much of one though.
But your stance of “there are a hundred studies saying X for every one saying Y, but because there are a small handful saying Y we shouldn’t rule Y out” probably isn’t the hard scientific truth you think it is. It’s basically the same logic as being anti-vax.
And much like being anti-vax, it’s examining aspartame in a vacuum, ignoring the fact that it’s an alternative product to something that is factually shown to be more harmful, even in the best case scenario.
E.g.: Are vapes bad for you? Sure. Are they worse than cigarettes? Absolutely not. So even though the ideal is to probably use neither, I’d much rather somebody vape.
So this idea that “aspartame has, in a handful of studies (that go against the grain of the majority of studies) sometimes been shown to have negative effects, therefore artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar,” is a braindead take.
So this idea that “aspartame has, in a handful of studies (that go against the grain of the majority of studies) sometimes been shown to have negative effects, therefore artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar,” is a braindead take.
…?
I think you should scroll up and read my original comment.
Your original comment is, “Artificial sweeteners are arguibly often worse than sugar.” Literal copy and paste.
I suppose you could be pedantic and say “arguably” is doing a ton of heavy lifting (the same way that it would be in “vaccines arguably cause autism”), but I hope you’ll forgive me for reiterating that it’s a braindead take.
And a word often. Your comment re-frames as if I said all are worse, without an argument. That is VERY different from my original point, which was essentially “I understand why governments wants us to intake less random artificial sweeteners along with sugar, so this does not feel very onion-y”
If this is true, wasn’t testfactor’s initial reply agreeing with you? Why did you spend so much time attacking aspartame, the most studied food additive ever?
Because I disagreed with the claim “we have never found anything negative”. Literally anything can have negative consequences, even drinking too much water. I never denied it’s likely the safest one, along with stevia, but saying there is zero risk, zero negative findings, ectera is just factually, scientifically wrong.
Again, dangerous comment. Please actually spend a minute looking around before making such bizzare claims.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8373935/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23097267/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24700203/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35324894/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36638072/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39547074/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41765137/
There are like 30 other studies showing negative effects in mice and rats.
EDIT: Accidentally gave one bad study (see comment below), removed it. Rest seem valid.
I just opened up the last link and it took me 5 seconds to find this:
One liter of coke zero has 240mg of aspartame.
https://juiceradvices.com/how-much-aspartame-is-in-coke-zero/
1000mg per kg would mean, in a human with, let’s say 80kg, we’d need 80000mg to replicate the study case.
Since we - usually - don’t eat pure aspartame, that would mean you’d need to chug 333.33 liters of diet coke per day to replicate the aspartame intake of the rats in the study.
These studies are so far off of reality that I barely know where to begin.
Challenge accepted.
And here I thought that, if anyone knew, it would be you!
I usually don’t bother answering a Gish Gallop, but…
1 - They didn’t complete the study, it was only 13 people with an existing history of mental disorders
2 - They basically said it’s so within the tolerances that it’s probably just chance, and that regular soda did as bad or worse
3 - Could only get the abstract, and it says nothing about their findings
4 - Combines aspartame and acesulfame-K, so it’s hard to tell from the abstract. The methodology doesn’t fill me with a lot of hope for it though.
5 - Seems to be the same study as 4 (same group of French people, same author), but for cardiovascular disease instead of cancer? Which, yeah, fat people drink diet soda, have heart disease, and get cancer more than thin people. I’m not sold on their methodology
6 - It’s a rat study. Again, I can’t see anything but the abstract, so it’s hard to say. But any study that doesn’t do a comparative analysis against regular sugar is suspect in my book
7 - Like 2, this one says that it’s probably just chance in the conclusion.
And look, if this was some new chemical on the block, maybe I’d agree that it should have some more testing. But it’s aspartame. It’s been being actively studied since 1965. It’s had a lot of negative PR backed by Domino (et al), which has created a huge amount of public concern. And will all of that, the studies still come out a hundred to one that there’s not really any link to anything.
Yes, you can find studies that say “aspartame scary.” But they’re basically like all the ones you linked above. Dubious. Most even admit they’re dubious (as seen above). And almost none of the ones that push the “scary” rhetoric compare the effects against regular table sugar, which is also heavily linked to increased cancer/heart disease risk. So it’s not even intellectually honest, even when their numbers happen to random out to slightly agreeing with them.
Are you just going to ignore the original argument that not once we have found something bad with aspartame, while there are many things we found? Sure, the data is incomplete, sometimes it’s in mix with something else, sometimes it’s high dose, sometimes it’s during pregnancy, but to claim it’s 100% consequence free under any circumstances and amounts is fucking idiotic and very unscientific.
EDIT: Fuck, I thought I’m on a science-related subreddit, not a circle jerk. Now everything makes sense.
Was my initial stance of “never found anything” a hyperbole? Sure. Not much of one though.
But your stance of “there are a hundred studies saying X for every one saying Y, but because there are a small handful saying Y we shouldn’t rule Y out” probably isn’t the hard scientific truth you think it is. It’s basically the same logic as being anti-vax.
And much like being anti-vax, it’s examining aspartame in a vacuum, ignoring the fact that it’s an alternative product to something that is factually shown to be more harmful, even in the best case scenario.
E.g.: Are vapes bad for you? Sure. Are they worse than cigarettes? Absolutely not. So even though the ideal is to probably use neither, I’d much rather somebody vape.
So this idea that “aspartame has, in a handful of studies (that go against the grain of the majority of studies) sometimes been shown to have negative effects, therefore artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar,” is a braindead take.
…?
I think you should scroll up and read my original comment.
Your original comment is, “Artificial sweeteners are arguibly often worse than sugar.” Literal copy and paste.
I suppose you could be pedantic and say “arguably” is doing a ton of heavy lifting (the same way that it would be in “vaccines arguably cause autism”), but I hope you’ll forgive me for reiterating that it’s a braindead take.
And a word often. Your comment re-frames as if I said all are worse, without an argument. That is VERY different from my original point, which was essentially “I understand why governments wants us to intake less random artificial sweeteners along with sugar, so this does not feel very onion-y”
If this is true, wasn’t testfactor’s initial reply agreeing with you? Why did you spend so much time attacking aspartame, the most studied food additive ever?
Because I disagreed with the claim “we have never found anything negative”. Literally anything can have negative consequences, even drinking too much water. I never denied it’s likely the safest one, along with stevia, but saying there is zero risk, zero negative findings, ectera is just factually, scientifically wrong.
Sorry, I tend to be pedantic.
I asked chatGPT and it said not to believe you because your links won’t even open
The links open, champ.
Nope I just tried again, chatGPT said they won’t open
Why would ChatGPT even enter into the picture?
I’m not using it to make pictures I was using it to fact check
Why would my comment lead you to believe I was accusing you of using it to “make photos”?
Why would you use ChatGPT to fact check?
Are you using it to make these comments too?
It’s a shame TherapyGary decided therapy wasn’t working and went for the lobotomy.
If only they’d been able to open a PubMed link to see it doesn’t work.
Um I did actually I had chatGPT try all of them and I can tell you for a fact none of them open
You’re the one who brought up entering pictures buddy
I always use chatGPT to fact check. It’s for my health…
Nope I type perfectly good so I don’t need it for that
Good ragebait attempt, I’ll give you that.
Nobody that’s serious would treat ChatGPT for a fact like this
Or you’re in a big AI delusion in which case:
IT’S TIME TO STOP NOW!
CHATGPT IS A RANDOM WORD GENERATOR, THAT JUST WAS MODIFIED LONG ENOUGH TO WRITE CORRECT SOUNDING SENTENCES.
¡¡IT ABSOLUTELY CAN’T BE TRUSTED WITH PROVIDING FACTUALLY TRUE STATEMENTS!!