RE: FWD: Rat Study Shows Cancer, Aspartame Link (WebMD)

[Guest guest]

--- Noctaire noctaire@...> wrote:

> Rat Study Shows Cancer, Aspartame Link

>

http://aolsvc.health.webmd.aol.com/content/article/115/111805.htm

>

> ...One hundred male rats and 100 female rats

were

> followed from 8 weeks of age

> until their deaths from natural causes. The

> rats were fed aspartame at doses

> approximating a wide range of human consumption

> levels, from very low levels to very high....

There should be a 'baseline group' (sorry, can't

think of the proper term right now) that *wasn't*

fed aspartame, to compare the results to. It

sounds like there wasn't. If there wasn't, then

this was indeed a seriously flawed study, and I

wouldn't put much stock in it.

CindyB.

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Good to see you hanging around here again.

I didn't see and couldn't find a specific statement about life span

equivalence between groups. What page was that on? The curves in fig 1

eclipse each other at the extremes, so it's not possible to evaluate

longevity from that presentation, although I agree it's unlikely there

was a serious difference in longevity between groups that would favor

the treatment group. Yes, of course the authors mention that methanol

has been studied. But I think ingestion of methanol from a natural

dietary source is a much better control for this kind of study in

order to clarify the potential relative hazards of natural vs

artificial sweetener sources. The tomato juice comment was in

critiques of the study summary you provided in your original post.

Bob

>

> According to the report, there were no observed, statistically

significant,

> differences in life span. In diagrams 1D & 1E, they've plotted a

curve of

> the lifespans of male and female groups. Although the raw data would be

> interesting to review, that's enough to satisfy the question of the

affect

> on lifespan. So, based on this study, it looks as though increased

> consumption of aspartame very well may bring on health complications

but it

> won't necessarily end one's life any sooner. Hmmmm....

>

> What's most interesting about this study, and what makes it so

unique, is

> that it is a longitudinal study following the population from start to

> natural end -- not a terribly common thing when dealing with things like

> artificial sweeteners.

>

> FWIW, there HAVE been studies that isolate methanol as the

experimental. At

> least one is cited in this study. The reference to methanol is

speculation

> that the increased incidence of lymphomas-leukemias in APM treated

females

> was caused by APM's metabolite methanol and then subsequently by the

> metabolite of methanol, namely formaldehyde. Metabolic byproducts

are one

> of the reasons some products are so heavily marketed as passing through

> intact. Take Splenda, for example. One of the claims that the

makers of

> Splenda throw out there is that it passes right through the body.

Even the

> FDA has data that contradicts that statement.

>

> In the end, I've no doubt the proponents of aspartame will cry foul,

claim

> the study is flawed, and that it shows nothing other than how far

opponents

> of aspartame will go to try to derail the product's success. This

is the

> way the food industry works. After all is said and done, those that

use the

> products will regrettably pay the price.

>

> BTW, I didn't catch the reference to tomato juice in there and I

even did a

> search on the document to try and find it. Where was it?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Good to see you hanging around here again.

I didn't see and couldn't find a specific statement about life span

equivalence between groups. What page was that on? The curves in fig 1

eclipse each other at the extremes, so it's not possible to evaluate

longevity from that presentation, although I agree it's unlikely there

was a serious difference in longevity between groups that would favor

the treatment group. Yes, of course the authors mention that methanol

has been studied. But I think ingestion of methanol from a natural

dietary source is a much better control for this kind of study in

order to clarify the potential relative hazards of natural vs

artificial sweetener sources. The tomato juice comment was in

critiques of the study summary you provided in your original post.

Bob

>

> According to the report, there were no observed, statistically

significant,

> differences in life span. In diagrams 1D & 1E, they've plotted a

curve of

> the lifespans of male and female groups. Although the raw data would be

> interesting to review, that's enough to satisfy the question of the

affect

> on lifespan. So, based on this study, it looks as though increased

> consumption of aspartame very well may bring on health complications

but it

> won't necessarily end one's life any sooner. Hmmmm....

>

> What's most interesting about this study, and what makes it so

unique, is

> that it is a longitudinal study following the population from start to

> natural end -- not a terribly common thing when dealing with things like

> artificial sweeteners.

>

> FWIW, there HAVE been studies that isolate methanol as the

experimental. At

> least one is cited in this study. The reference to methanol is

speculation

> that the increased incidence of lymphomas-leukemias in APM treated

females

> was caused by APM's metabolite methanol and then subsequently by the

> metabolite of methanol, namely formaldehyde. Metabolic byproducts

are one

> of the reasons some products are so heavily marketed as passing through

> intact. Take Splenda, for example. One of the claims that the

makers of

> Splenda throw out there is that it passes right through the body.

Even the

> FDA has data that contradicts that statement.

>

> In the end, I've no doubt the proponents of aspartame will cry foul,

claim

> the study is flawed, and that it shows nothing other than how far

opponents

> of aspartame will go to try to derail the product's success. This

is the

> way the food industry works. After all is said and done, those that

use the

> products will regrettably pay the price.

>

> BTW, I didn't catch the reference to tomato juice in there and I

even did a

> search on the document to try and find it. Where was it?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Good to see you hanging around here again.

I didn't see and couldn't find a specific statement about life span

equivalence between groups. What page was that on? The curves in fig 1

eclipse each other at the extremes, so it's not possible to evaluate

longevity from that presentation, although I agree it's unlikely there

was a serious difference in longevity between groups that would favor

the treatment group. Yes, of course the authors mention that methanol

has been studied. But I think ingestion of methanol from a natural

dietary source is a much better control for this kind of study in

order to clarify the potential relative hazards of natural vs

artificial sweetener sources. The tomato juice comment was in

critiques of the study summary you provided in your original post.

Bob

>

> According to the report, there were no observed, statistically

significant,

> differences in life span. In diagrams 1D & 1E, they've plotted a

curve of

> the lifespans of male and female groups. Although the raw data would be

> interesting to review, that's enough to satisfy the question of the

affect

> on lifespan. So, based on this study, it looks as though increased

> consumption of aspartame very well may bring on health complications

but it

> won't necessarily end one's life any sooner. Hmmmm....

>

> What's most interesting about this study, and what makes it so

unique, is

> that it is a longitudinal study following the population from start to

> natural end -- not a terribly common thing when dealing with things like

> artificial sweeteners.

>

> FWIW, there HAVE been studies that isolate methanol as the

experimental. At

> least one is cited in this study. The reference to methanol is

speculation

> that the increased incidence of lymphomas-leukemias in APM treated

females

> was caused by APM's metabolite methanol and then subsequently by the

> metabolite of methanol, namely formaldehyde. Metabolic byproducts

are one

> of the reasons some products are so heavily marketed as passing through

> intact. Take Splenda, for example. One of the claims that the

makers of

> Splenda throw out there is that it passes right through the body.

Even the

> FDA has data that contradicts that statement.

>

> In the end, I've no doubt the proponents of aspartame will cry foul,

claim

> the study is flawed, and that it shows nothing other than how far

opponents

> of aspartame will go to try to derail the product's success. This

is the

> way the food industry works. After all is said and done, those that

use the

> products will regrettably pay the price.

>

> BTW, I didn't catch the reference to tomato juice in there and I

even did a

> search on the document to try and find it. Where was it?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I didn't see and couldn't find a specific statement about life

> span equivalence between groups. What page was that on? The

> curves in fig 1 eclipse each other at the extremes, so it's

> not possible to evaluate longevity from that presentation,

> although I agree it's unlikely there was a serious difference

> in longevity between groups that would favor the treatment group.

Somewhere in there they specifically state there was no substantial

difference in mortality between groups.... There it is, p14, under results:

" No substantial difference in survival was observed among the groups (Figure

1D, E). "

The nearly superimposed curves on the graphs suggest the same.

> The tomato juice comment was in critiques of the study summary

> you provided in your original post.

Ah, ok -- I see where this one goes. Those criticisms tend to ignore the

difference in the overall effects and the source. Tomato juice contains

more methanol but it isn't free methanol -- other compounds " counter " it.

Interesting thing about aspartame, when it's heated it actually releases

free methanol.

> Yes, of course the authors mention that methanol has been studied. But

> I think ingestion of methanol from a natural dietary source is a much

> better control for this kind of study in order to clarify the potential

> relative hazards of natural vs artificial sweetener sources.

Ingestion of methanol, and subsequent manufacture of its metabolite

formaldehyde, wouldn't come close to levels ingested/metabolized when using

aspartame. I don't know that there COULD be a comparison, let alone a

control. I suppose one could use something like tomato juice but the issue

would be what comes along with the methanol contained in these other foods.

As with many other substances we ingest through " natural " sources, the full

package makes the difference. (For example, ethanol and pectin prevent

methanol from being metabolized into formaldehyde/formic acid; those ain't

in aspartame.)

I wouldn't get hung up solely on the methanol either -- that's not the only

problem caused by aspartame.

The history of aspartame is an interesting one. The FDA refused to approve

it for years until finally a certain president replaced the head of the FDA

with someone who was a bit friendlier to it.

Even though no study is perfect, I do hope this one will cause a few folks

to pause for a few moments and reconsider their use of the product.

Aspartame has become an additive in SO many products with a total disregard

for its potential health risks, even among our most fragile populations

(children, pregnant/nursing mothers). Its use as a sweetener among dieters

is of concern when consider the gross amounts that some dieters consume.

A single 8oz glass of Diet Coke contains 125mg of aspartame. Dieters,

especially those that frequent these groups, seem to drink a LOT of Diet

Coke. I've seen some folks here talk about drinking a whole 2 liter in a

single sitting, let alone on the day. A 2 liter is 64 ounces -- in other

words, 8 servings or 1,000mg of aspartame. Some folks talk about how they

can't drink water and end up drinking their 64oz+ of water in the form of

some other artificially sweetened drink. The amounts these individuals

consume are well and far above the " average " levels consumed. Even if the

amounts are below the FDA's ADIs, it's still scary just how much of this

stuff people are taking in. Something else to consider -- the body stores

chemicals such as these in fat cells. When we lose weight, those chemicals

are released back into the body. More bad news.

[Guest guest]

These analyses are interesting, . So, by what avenue do you come to your

scientific expertise? What is your background? What you say sounds impressive

to me...

-- In South-Beach-Diet-Getting-It-Right , " Noctaire "

wrote:

>

> According to the report, there were no observed, statistically significant,

> differences in life span. In diagrams 1D & 1E, they've plotted a curve of

> the lifespans of male and female groups. Although the raw data would be

> interesting to review, that's enough to satisfy the question of the affect

> on lifespan. So, based on this study, it looks as though increased

> consumption of aspartame very well may bring on health complications but it

> won't necessarily end one's life any sooner. Hmmmm....

>

> What's most interesting about this study, and what makes it so unique, is

> that it is a longitudinal study following the population from start to

> natural end -- not a terribly common thing when dealing with things like

> artificial sweeteners.

>

> FWIW, there HAVE been studies that isolate methanol as the experimental. At

> least one is cited in this study. The reference to methanol is speculation

> that the increased incidence of lymphomas-leukemias in APM treated females

> was caused by APM's metabolite methanol and then subsequently by the

> metabolite of methanol, namely formaldehyde. Metabolic byproducts are one

> of the reasons some products are so heavily marketed as passing through

> intact. Take Splenda, for example. One of the claims that the makers of

> Splenda throw out there is that it passes right through the body. Even the

> FDA has data that contradicts that statement.

>

> In the end, I've no doubt the proponents of aspartame will cry foul, claim

> the study is flawed, and that it shows nothing other than how far opponents

> of aspartame will go to try to derail the product's success. This is the

> way the food industry works. After all is said and done, those that use the

> products will regrettably pay the price.

>

> BTW, I didn't catch the reference to tomato juice in there and I even did a

> search on the document to try and find it. Where was it?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> These analyses are interesting, . So, by what avenue

> do you come to your scientific expertise? What is your background?

> What you say sounds impressive to me...

Well, I appreciate the compliment but I don't aim to impress.

I have a degree in Psychology. During my time in undergrad, I was a

teaching assistant to the undergrad stats courses and attended graduate

stats. The prof took me under his wing and it became more than something of

an interest. During my experimental psych courses I was deeply immersed to

say the least. I learned a great deal about statistics and experiments in

that time (do enough of 'em and you kinda get a feel for it LOL).

Additionally, I've spent quite a bit of time reading various medical studies

in an effort to keep abreast of developments in the cardiac research (I have

congestive heart failure).

[Guest guest]

Ohmagosh. So so sorry to hear about your heart condition!

But it IS interesting to hear about your training, So, did you end up as a

shrink, or a

teacher? Or a corporate human relations guy?

And no -- I didn't get that you were " trying to impress. "

>

> > These analyses are interesting, . So, by what avenue

> > do you come to your scientific expertise? What is your background?

> > What you say sounds impressive to me...

>

> Well, I appreciate the compliment but I don't aim to impress.

>

> I have a degree in Psychology. During my time in undergrad, I was a

> teaching assistant to the undergrad stats courses and attended graduate

> stats. The prof took me under his wing and it became more than something of

> an interest. During my experimental psych courses I was deeply immersed to

> say the least. I learned a great deal about statistics and experiments in

> that time (do enough of 'em and you kinda get a feel for it LOL).

> Additionally, I've spent quite a bit of time reading various medical studies

> in an effort to keep abreast of developments in the cardiac research (I have

> congestive heart failure).

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Ohmagosh. So so sorry to hear about your heart condition!

So was I. I am very fortunate -- after trying several treatments, we

decided to take one last step before being put on the transplant list. This

step involved a new kind of pacemaker, called a BiVentricular pacer, and a

therapy called cardiac resynchronization therapy. Luckily, it worked.

> But it IS interesting to hear about your training, So, did

> you end up as a shrink, or a teacher? Or a corporate human

> relations guy?

Police officer, computer geek, SaHD. I left the department several years

ago to form my own company and now I manage my small computer business while

taking care of my kids (SaHD).

[Guest guest]

> ...

> > The tomato juice comment was in critiques of the study summary

> > you provided in your original post.

>

> Ah, ok -- I see where this one goes. Those criticisms tend to

ignore the

> difference in the overall effects and the source. Tomato juice

contains

> more methanol but it isn't free methanol -- other compounds

" counter " it.

> Interesting thing about aspartame, when it's heated it actually releases

> free methanol.

>

My tomato juice comment was tongue-in-cheek of course. You knew that,

right? But I guess a little ethanol in diet soda could go a long way

;-) I think this rat study was relatively well designed, but few of us

eat the equivalent of Purina rat chow as our daily diet, even SBDers.

I would be more interested in epidemiological studies of aspartame

use. Unfortunately, these would be difficult to conduct because people

often use more than one kind of artificial sweetener. The link below

is to a recent survey of the research literature on the health risks

of artificial sweeteners:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra\

ct&list_uids=15367404&query_hl=6

From the abstract:

> Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder

> cancer-inducing effects of saccharin and cyclamate that

> had been reported from animal studies in rats. Despite

> some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence

> that aspartame is carcinogenic. Case-control studies showed

> an elevated relative risk of 1.3 for heavy artificial

> sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of >1.7 g/day.

Hopefully you can access the full article if you want without a Med

School link.

Bob