3 ms·

"...aspartame – was associated with a 17% increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were linked to increased risk of co

"...aspartame – was associated with a 17% increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were linked to increased risk of coronary heart disease." Here we go again! Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives ever with respect to safety and the general consensus from ~40 years of research and dozens of research teams is that it's safe–that is, up until now. If this chemical is dangerous then why hasn't any of the copious research demonstrated any causal effects up until now? Moreover, aspartame is a relatively simple molecule and its breakdown metabolites are also simple and that the elimination of them from the body is well understood. Like millions, I've a vested interest in these sweeteners. I'm not diabetic but I try to avoid sugar as much as I can so I'm a consumer of them. Stories like this aren't very helpful if science repeatedly hits dead ends in its attempts to show why these sweeteners are dangerous and always concludes they're not. If the sweeteners themselves aren't dangerous per se then perhaps there's some other factor involved such as the way we actually consume sweetened food.

SpikeDad 4y ago
It demonstrates over and over that nutrition and human physiology is difficult to analyze because of the widely varied operation of individuals as well as all the comorbidities that are impossible to account for.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  Yeah, reckon you're right. Trouble is with the obesity epidemic and the huge increase in diabetes in recent years which one has the worse outcome? Do we switch back to sugar or continue to promote and use artificial sweeteners? In the grand scheme of things perhaps artificial sweeteners are the lesser evil but it seems to me we've still no reasonable - let alone definitive - handle on the facts. Determining that ought to be a top priority. Another worrying aspect of this study is that media hype and scaremongering could likely be the result thus frighten off many who'd actually derive a net benefit from continuing to use artificial sweeteners. Given the past and ongoing controversy they generate, this would not come as unexpected. It is why it's imperative that this study be either replicated or debunked by others ASAP. The current controversy has gone on long enough without it being made worse by this study. Incidentally, I say that as a somewhat independent observer with few personal issues to grind. For example neither the consumption of sugar nor artificial sweeteners has been a large issue for me personally (and I hope it remains that way). The reason is that I find the typical amount of sweetener (of any type but especially so artificial varieties) that is added to many commercial food products (especially drinks, colas, etc.) makes them far too sweet for my liking which means it's easy for me to consume much less of them. This puts me well below what food technologists call the sweetness bliss point which is the optimal or preferred sweetness level of a majority of consumers. Whilst that fact is of no help to others, it seems to me that decreasing the bliss point ought to be an integral if not essential part of the effort to reduce the incidents of these health problems. Over many years food manufacturers have deliberately increased the sweetness of their products to increase sales, ipso facto, this has increased the average bliss point. This is serious as lowering this satisfaction threshold will be very difficult to achieve in practice. That the bliss point has increased over recent decades is in no doubt. For example, chocolate from a well-known manufacturer that's been around for well over a hundred years and that I once found enjoyable is now too sweet for me to eat. Moreover, this is an actual increase in the level of sweetness of the product and not just my perception of it having changed, as others have noticed the fact whether they like the increased sweetness or not.

SpikeDad 4y ago

It demonstrates over and over that nutrition and human physiology is difficult to analyze because of the widely varied operation of individuals as well as all the comorbidities that are impossible to account for.

hilbert42 4y ago
Yeah, reckon you're right. Trouble is with the obesity epidemic and the huge increase in diabetes in recent years which one has the worse outcome? Do we switch back to sugar or continue to promote and use artificial sweeteners? In the grand scheme of things perhaps artificial sweeteners are the lesser evil but it seems to me we've still no reasonable - let alone definitive - handle on the facts. Determining that ought to be a top priority. Another worrying aspect of this study is that media hype and scaremongering could likely be the result thus frighten off many who'd actually derive a net benefit from continuing to use artificial sweeteners. Given the past and ongoing controversy they generate, this would not come as unexpected. It is why it's imperative that this study be either replicated or debunked by others ASAP. The current controversy has gone on long enough without it being made worse by this study. Incidentally, I say that as a somewhat independent observer with few personal issues to grind. For example neither the consumption of sugar nor artificial sweeteners has been a large issue for me personally (and I hope it remains that way). The reason is that I find the typical amount of sweetener (of any type but especially so artificial varieties) that is added to many commercial food products (especially drinks, colas, etc.) makes them far too sweet for my liking which means it's easy for me to consume much less of them. This puts me well below what food technologists call the sweetness bliss point which is the optimal or preferred sweetness level of a majority of consumers. Whilst that fact is of no help to others, it seems to me that decreasing the bliss point ought to be an integral if not essential part of the effort to reduce the incidents of these health problems. Over many years food manufacturers have deliberately increased the sweetness of their products to increase sales, ipso facto, this has increased the average bliss point. This is serious as lowering this satisfaction threshold will be very difficult to achieve in practice. That the bliss point has increased over recent decades is in no doubt. For example, chocolate from a well-known manufacturer that's been around for well over a hundred years and that I once found enjoyable is now too sweet for me to eat. Moreover, this is an actual increase in the level of sweetness of the product and not just my perception of it having changed, as others have noticed the fact whether they like the increased sweetness or not.