I will weigh in with what I can since that is not my field.
I went and looked at the paper and the subsequent commentaries on it. I actually remember hearing about this study, since it was a big deal for a little bit. There was a huge push by the European Food Safety Authorities and the UK counterpart to evaluate the study, even so far as to obtain the primary data and look at it over again. The EFSA is much stricter than the FDA in its guidelines, from what I know.
The evaluations have all been that the study has major flaws in it. First, the fact that their lowest dose was already 10 times higher than the average human intake is a gigantic read flag.
Second, there were questions as to the condition of their rat colony, since a number of those lesions and tumors can be caused independently of apartame, for instance the lesions in the pelvic region can be caused by extensive chemical irritation and calcification.
Third, the EFSA also found a lack of a positive dose response relationship, which means that what doses were given to the rats did not correlate with the degree of lesions and tumors. That further indicates that aspartame was not the underlying cause.
Fourth, in some of the cases of tumor the identification of the tumors themselves was called into question.
In the overall, the study had major flaws in it and should be viewed with healthy dose of caution over the findings. I mean the immediate fact that the lowest dose was 10 times the average human daily intake is highly significant. Humans are not rats. Mice are genetically closer to humans than rats, IIRC, and dogs are actually closer to humans than mice are.
Granted, artificial sweeteners still probably aren’t the best for you anyways. Apart from Splenda, I have yet to have one that doesn’t taste like ass anyhow. Splenda for example is billed as being not metabolized by the body. It basically goes in and comes out the same way. Now whether that is exactly true or not is debatable since you can find places where people claim that it is. The fact that a large number of those sites are part of organic food lovers should not be surprising.
So end of the story: Keep drinking your diet soda, but it probably wouldn’t hurt to cut back.
Damn, good response. I was just gonna say “wasn’t this all over the news last year when it was published? wouldn’t the fda or the euro-fda have done something about it by now if there was anything to it?”
I debated lying to Carl just to cause him angst, but misleading data like that is annoying.
Actually there is a great quote from the commentary that basically said the report was crap and had excerpts from the EFSA and UK Authority study:
“The study by Soffritti et al. (2006) has major flaws that bring into question the validity of the findings. Its publication in EHP is not without consequence to the reputation of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences or to the health of the U.S. public. Publication of invalid and misleading research results relating to products such as aspartame, which can be of benefit in the battle against obesity and have a history of safe use, are a disservice to the tax-paying citizens of the United States.”
That is science-speak for “Shit the f*ck up and sit down”
Right, well, regardless of what the FDA would or wouldn’t do, it’s good to hear a genuine scientific perspective. The FDA being the highly politicized board of shitmongers they are right now, I don’t hold a whole lot of trust for them.
Good news though if you happen to get HIV. Drinking Diet Coke actually helps the absorption of one of the more commonly used anti-HIV medications by increasing the level of stomach acid.
I have two friends who have had massive health problems due to drinking excessive amounts of soda.
When I say excessive I mean all the liquids they would drink in a day would be soda. That’s right, a morning Coke with breakfast, maybe a midmorning soda, another can with lunch, one for the afternoon break, maybe two if it’s hot, one for dinner and another to wind down with while watching tv. It didn’t help that the 20oz bottles were now more popular than the 12oz cans.
After a physical the doctor said, “You have the liver of an alcoholic.” He only drank soda, never touched the hooch.
He quit. He’s a different person now.
The other person actually had much worse problems which I won’t get into here.
Personally, I used to drink anywhere from 3-5 cans of diet coke a day. Now I only have it once and awhile with dinner or pizza.
Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159579,00.html)
DIET COKE AND ASPARTAME.
(http://www.lightparty.com/Health/DietCokeAspartame.html)
Diet soda — how healthy is it?
(http://www.womentowomen.com/nutritionandweightloss/dietsoda.asp)
…aaand the list goes on.
Ah tauld ye tae bevvy mair scotch, but did ye listen tae Willie? Nae!
(http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp)
I will weigh in with what I can since that is not my field.
I went and looked at the paper and the subsequent commentaries on it. I actually remember hearing about this study, since it was a big deal for a little bit. There was a huge push by the European Food Safety Authorities and the UK counterpart to evaluate the study, even so far as to obtain the primary data and look at it over again. The EFSA is much stricter than the FDA in its guidelines, from what I know.
The evaluations have all been that the study has major flaws in it. First, the fact that their lowest dose was already 10 times higher than the average human intake is a gigantic read flag.
Second, there were questions as to the condition of their rat colony, since a number of those lesions and tumors can be caused independently of apartame, for instance the lesions in the pelvic region can be caused by extensive chemical irritation and calcification.
Third, the EFSA also found a lack of a positive dose response relationship, which means that what doses were given to the rats did not correlate with the degree of lesions and tumors. That further indicates that aspartame was not the underlying cause.
Fourth, in some of the cases of tumor the identification of the tumors themselves was called into question.
In the overall, the study had major flaws in it and should be viewed with healthy dose of caution over the findings. I mean the immediate fact that the lowest dose was 10 times the average human daily intake is highly significant. Humans are not rats. Mice are genetically closer to humans than rats, IIRC, and dogs are actually closer to humans than mice are.
Granted, artificial sweeteners still probably aren’t the best for you anyways. Apart from Splenda, I have yet to have one that doesn’t taste like ass anyhow. Splenda for example is billed as being not metabolized by the body. It basically goes in and comes out the same way. Now whether that is exactly true or not is debatable since you can find places where people claim that it is. The fact that a large number of those sites are part of organic food lovers should not be surprising.
So end of the story: Keep drinking your diet soda, but it probably wouldn’t hurt to cut back.
Damn, good response. I was just gonna say “wasn’t this all over the news last year when it was published? wouldn’t the fda or the euro-fda have done something about it by now if there was anything to it?”
Also, I believe the study that links consumption of carbonated beverages to esophogeal cancer has been refuted as well.
Also, can I say that I love having a scientist on staff?
I debated lying to Carl just to cause him angst, but misleading data like that is annoying.
Actually there is a great quote from the commentary that basically said the report was crap and had excerpts from the EFSA and UK Authority study:
“The study by Soffritti et al. (2006) has major flaws that bring into question the validity of the findings. Its publication in EHP is not without consequence to the reputation of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences or to the health of the U.S. public. Publication of invalid and misleading research results relating to products such as aspartame, which can be of benefit in the battle against obesity and have a history of safe use, are a disservice to the tax-paying citizens of the United States.”
That is science-speak for “Shit the f*ck up and sit down”
Right, well, regardless of what the FDA would or wouldn’t do, it’s good to hear a genuine scientific perspective. The FDA being the highly politicized board of shitmongers they are right now, I don’t hold a whole lot of trust for them.
Come to me, my tasty soda….
Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight.
DIET COKE AND ASPARTAME.
Diet soda — how healthy is it?
…aaand the list goes on.
Ah tauld ye tae bevvy mair scotch, but did ye listen tae Willie? Nae!/a>
Good news though if you happen to get HIV. Drinking Diet Coke actually helps the absorption of one of the more commonly used anti-HIV medications by increasing the level of stomach acid.
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/step/1993/STEP5112.html
Wow.
I have two friends who have had massive health problems due to drinking excessive amounts of soda.
When I say excessive I mean all the liquids they would drink in a day would be soda. That’s right, a morning Coke with breakfast, maybe a midmorning soda, another can with lunch, one for the afternoon break, maybe two if it’s hot, one for dinner and another to wind down with while watching tv. It didn’t help that the 20oz bottles were now more popular than the 12oz cans.
After a physical the doctor said, “You have the liver of an alcoholic.” He only drank soda, never touched the hooch.
He quit. He’s a different person now.
The other person actually had much worse problems which I won’t get into here.
Personally, I used to drink anywhere from 3-5 cans of diet coke a day. Now I only have it once and awhile with dinner or pizza.
My solution to soda addiction?
Switch to coffee.
I’m up to 3 to 5 cups a day.
WOOT!