290
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] echo64@lemmy.world 110 points 2 years ago

1, it's aspartame

2, Mice aren't humans, and routinely, things that happen in mice do not happen in humans. It is not at all indicative of anything and can really only be used as a hint better than nothing for looking into similar effects in humans.

You don't need to change your diet, and you certainly don't need to replace it with sugar.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Comment paid for Big Aspartame.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago
[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I see the Nutrasweet Lobbyists Association is here too!

[-] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

How much is Big Sugar paying you?

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago
[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Big aspertame made that account 6 months ago, posted 1300 unrelated comments, just for this one moment...

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Holymoly@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 2 years ago

Removing all forms of added sugar would probably make everyone feel better. Even minimizing natural sugar intake.

Sugar is terrible, there’s no doubt about it. Artificial or otherwise.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

There's no research that indicates the currently used artificial sweeteners are bad for you.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Theres mixed analysis over the decades, actually, and different groups have different conclusions.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/sweet-n-low-dangers-still-exist/

Overall, id say limiting added sugars (natural or artificial) is rpobably better for your health long term

[-] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Artificial sugars and sweeteners are, by and large, very different things. Aspartame isn't a sugar of any sort.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I want to be super clear if anyone finds this and thinks maybe...

No, there is no evidence of artificial sweeteners causing harm. There is no conspiracy, and after many many studies over decades, nothing has been found. If there had been, then the artificial sweeteners would have been banned like the ones you've never heard of because we all banned them for causing problems.

If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar. From everything we have learned over decades, it's absolutely safe.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

A few people are replying with links (of various relevance) but you are just saying "no" and claiming you're being "super clear". Some of the replies are directly contraindications of the claim:

If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar.

Your counterpoint is saying they are "absolutely safe". I don't know whether you are right or wrong. It's not anywhere near my field, but I can say I don't find your rhetoric convincing.

Edit: I fucked up and pasted the wrong quote. I changed the quote to the one I meant.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] sock@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

there's little research to show sugar dangers to be more than correlation

fat people eat a lot of sugar. fat people also eat a lot. eating a lot is how you get fat, drinking calories just happens to be a fast track to getting fat. diet soda happens to be physiologically like drinking water. fat people drink diet instead of sugar coke thats already 200-1000 calories of their day GONE with very very minimal change.

then those fat people supplement the lost sugars with more food and they gain weight. then you get studies showing GUYS DIET SODA CAUSES WEIGHT GAIN (in fat people)

but no its not the sugar its not the macros its YOU eating too much and you can eat less to lose weight that's just simple science. body types, "nuance", "bad metabolism". none of that shits real it all stems from shitty dietary choices and lack of muscle.

all of this to say unless theres medical issues or medical intervention your weight and body type is 100% in your control should you choose to take control

[-] cocobean@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

How about all the research that shows sugar is addictive AF

[-] sock@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

self control is a thing everything is addictive in some facet refined sugars just happens to trigger a stronger dopamine response than other things.

but in the end of the day self control is necessary nobody can control you except you. so dont blame sugars addicitiveness for being overweight if you are. its solely an overeating issue.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Not to mention that the gene pool of these lab mice is super small. Source: my brother is a PhD biochemist and lectured me often on this shit when I said, "hey, look at this study!"

[-] Bohurt@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Such a small groups are fine for initial investigation, they have enough of a size to be acceptable statistically for most of the performed studies. I don't think they'd get approval from ethical committee overseeing animal experiments without initial study like this to conduct something on very high groups.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

The small gene pool is done on purpose. The mice are supposed to be as close to clones as possible so that you can have control populations and be confident that the results weren't affected by certain genes and mutations in the test population.

The size of the gene pool isn't really an issue though because they can be bred however it's required for tests. They have quite a lot of control over the genetics of those lab mice.

Testing for a cure for diabetes? They can produce mice that are almost guaranteed to develop diabetes that you can then try to cure.

[-] AkaBobHoward@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I am a relatively recent transplant from the red place, I can tell I ain't in Kansas anymore, actual good information being up voted so cool.

Aspartame is, because of all the claims against it, the single most studied food substance known, and it seems to somehow keep coming okay. There are a lot of studies with really bad methods that were a smear job attempt but science doing what it does they were labeled for what they are and disregarded. Is it possible to be allergic and a reaction to be anxiety sure, but that is not on the food.

[-] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Guarantee the study also states that you have to consume an ungodly amount of it too...

News reports grab on to stuff like this all the time. Like what they did with safrole.

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

The article actually states how much. 15% of the daily recommended amount.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

There's a daily recommended amount for mice? Or was that 15% of the recommended amount for humans, which would be massive for mice?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I stand corrected! That's a ridiculously small amount!

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Just in case you missed it, we discussed below that that's the 15% daily recommended amount for a human. That they gave to the mice. A creature several hundred times smaller.

So you were right in the first place.

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

No, it's the equivalent dose.

When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.

[-] papertowels@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

Can you cite your sources? This excerpt from the published article suggests you're wrong:

The FDA recommended maximum DIV for aspartame for humans is 50 mg/kg (33). Based on allometric conversion utilizing pharmacokinetic and body surface area parameters (43), the mouse equivalent of the human DIV is 615 mg/kg/d. Therefore, the male mice received a daily aspartame dose equivalent to 14.0%, 7.0%, and 3.5% of the FDA recommended human DIV, and the females received a dose equivalent to 15.5%, 7.7%, and 3.9% of the human DIV.

this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
290 points (89.6% liked)

News

36569 readers
395 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS