Toxicity of Aspartame

[Desdinova]

Another post mentioned the dangers of using aspartame, so I figured I'd make a new post on it. The debate on the toxicity of aspartame has been going on for quite a while, and I believe that many diet soft drinks in the US use artificial sweeteners other than aspartame.

I personally don't drink diet pop and never have, but my gf does (whom I've tried to convince giving it up). The effects, both short and long term are pretty damn scary.

There's a shipload of information at this site:

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/

====================================

Toxicity Effects of Aspartame Use
Selection of adverse effects from short-term and/or long-Term use
Note: It often takes at least sixty days without *any* aspartame or nutrasweet to see a significant improvement. Improvement in health is also often accompanied by weight loss. Check all labels very carefully (including vitamins and pharmaceuticals). Look for the word "aspartame" on the label and avoid it. (Also, it is a good idea to avoid "acesulfame-k" or "sunette.") Finally, avoid getting nutrition information from junk food industry PR organizations such as IFIC or organizations that accept large sums of money from the junk and chemical food industry such as the American Dietetic Association.

seizures and convulsions
dizziness
tremors
migraines and severe headaches (Trigger or Cause From Chronic Intake)
memory loss (common toxicity effects)
slurring of speech
confusion
numbness or tingling of extremities
chronic fatigue
depression
insomnia
irritability
panic attacks (common aspartame toxicity reaction)
marked personality changes
phobias
rapid heart beat, tachycardia (another frequent reaction)
asthma
chest pains
hypertension (high blood pressure)
nausea or vomitting
diarrhea
abdominal pain
swallowing pain
itching
hives / urticaria
other allergic reactions
blood sugar control problems (e.g., hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia)
menstrual cramps and other menstraul problems or changes
impotency and sexual problems
food cravings
weight gain
hair loss / baldness or thinning of hair
burning urination & other urination problems
excessive thirst or excessive hunger
bloating, edema (fluid retention)
infection susceptibility
joint pain
brain cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals)
death


Aspartame Disease Mimmicks Symptoms or Worsens the Following Diseases:

fibromyalgia
arthritis
multiple sclerosis (MS)
parkinson's disease
lupus
multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS)
diabetes and diabetic Complications
epilepsy
alzheimer's disease
birth defects
chronic fatigue syndrome
lymphoma
lyme disease
attention deficit disorder (ADD and ADHD)
panic disorder
depression and other psychological disorders

 

[Skilla_Staz]

I think diet pop is 100% pointless. It's still pop. Drink water you dumb broads.

That is a huge list of effects though. God damn.

 

[Desdinova]

Here's a horribly huge pile of experiences from people who have experienced health problems from using aspartame:

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/adverse.txt

This thing is a friggin' novel!

 

[Bible_Belt]

This was out yesterday:
http://www.wndu.com/news/mommo/052006/mommo_49759.php
"Study concludes aspartame does not raise risk of cancer"

I agree that the stuff is not healthy, though. af has consumed no liquid other than Diet RC for at least the past five years, but he is still ok. Maybe it varies with the individual.

What irritates me most is how people buy diet soda with food stamps. What possible good purpose can that serve? Welfare money is supposed to keep people from starving to death. If they need to lose weight, they should go off the welfare.

 

[KontrollerX]

http://www.bugsbest.com/aspartme.htm

Aspartme is harmless except to a very few rare individuals who can't break it down.

 

[Desdinova]

Aspartme is harmless except to a very few rare individuals who can't break it down.

The more I'm reading about aspartame, the more I'm starting to detest it. Aspartame contains methanol (without the antidote ethanol) which is also used in antifreeze and paint remover.

Oh yeah, and I love the history of the approval:

http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html

Aspartame was not approved until 1981, in dry foods. For over eight years the FDA refused to approve it because of the seizures and brain tumors this drug produced in lab animals. The FDA continued to refuse to approve it until President Reagan took office (a friend of Searle) and fired the FDA Commissioner who wouldn't approve it. Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes was appointed as commissioner. Even then there was so much opposition to approval that a Board of Inquiry was set up. The Board said: "Do not approve aspartame". Dr. Hayes OVERRULED his own Board of Inquiry.
Shortly after Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages, he left for a position with G.D. Searle's Public Relations firm.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Information provided by the FDA:

After reviewing scientific studies, FDA determined in 1981 that aspartame was safe for use in foods. In 1987, the General Accounting Office investigated the process surrounding FDA's approval of aspartame and confirmed the agency had acted properly. However, FDA has continued to review complaints alleging adverse reactions to products containing aspartame. To date, FDA has not determined any consistent pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame, nor is the agency aware of any recent studies that clearly show safety problems.

Carefully controlled clinical studies show that aspartame is not an allergen. However, certain people with the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU), and pregnant women with hyperphenylalanine (high levels of phenylalanine in blood) have a problem with aspartame because they do not effectively metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine, one of aspartame's components. High levels of this amino acid in body fluids can cause brain damage. Therefore, FDA has ruled that all products containing aspartame must include a warning to phenylketonurics that the sweetener contains phenylalanine.

​

 

[Lifeforce]

And we are going to believe a ****ty site called holisticmed? That's pathetic.

 

[Lifeforce]

The more I'm reading about aspartame, the more I'm starting to detest it. Aspartame contains methanol (without the antidote ethanol) which is also used in antifreeze and paint remover.

Oh yeah, and I love the history of the approval:

http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html

Ethanol is not an "antidote" of methanol. It is not the methanol which is damaging, it's the breakdown products which are created. Small quantities of methanol can be handled, it's when you start to drink moonshine with large amount of methanole it becomes dangerous. The amount of methanole you get from eating aspartame is neglicable. Feel free to do research on this yourself. Take the atomic weight of the entire aspartame molecule and then calculate how much atomic mass the methanole part of it has. The result will be there are perhaps 2 or 3 hundred parts of a gram in a bottle of diet soda.

 

[Friendly Otter]

"Alternative." Always long lists of disasters - I always look for where it says studies have been performed, how they have been performed, etc. Takes longer, but otherwise a list like this one is of no use to me, since I don't know what it is based on.

Now, this is similar to environmentalists, who have claimed the world would be devastated by things like

acid rain
the imminent exhaustion of all metals in the 70s and 80s (which we have only scratched the surface of)
exploding nuclear facilities
global cooling (in the 80s)
global warming (today)

One thing the eco-orgs have in common is that they will always, always, exaggerate. The media willingly cable out what they say (and they still pretend to be the underdogs - how come it's always the underdogs who have media access?), and everybody is suitably scared. Damn good-for-nothing Western technology.

When their hoaxes are revealed to be rubbish, you never hear of it. (Felt any effects of global cooling lately?)

I saw one of these eco-guys on television once, slipping up: he said that unless you exaggerate negative effects ten times you won't make anyone listen. So he actually admitted that their theories are exaggerated to sound ten times worse than what even they believe.

In short: aspartame may have some negative effects, who knows. It's no vegetable, so it has no health use, obviously. But if that long list were true, a lot of people would be a lot more miserable, people I know, who drink lots of soda.

You would still do well in staying away from soft drinks, of course: bad for your teeth and your weight.

 

[Desdinova]

Well, I'll tell you guys I'm no fvcking environmentalist, and I'm not into holistic medicine, herbs, and all that other stuff, but that's a pretty goddam long list of testimonials. I doubt some a55hole would sit down and write every one of those.

I would be a dumbass to listen to how the media exposes things. If that were the case, I'd abandon sosuave because it's "evil". I'm here because there are testimonials (Field Reports) that show this stuff works. I've also put up my own successful FRs in the past. I quit smoking using Allen Carr's book because I read testimonials of other people who quit from reading his book.

Now, my mother was diagnosed with Diabetes about a year ago and has been using tons of artificial sweetener. Her short-term memory is also going for 5hit. I'd be a friggin' dumbass to say all these testimonials are bull5hit when I'm seeing something similar with my own eyes.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

You guys, I KNOW, are smarter than this!

Aspartame! MSG?! You'd put this in your body figuring you could still lose weight and get the taste of soda? Or, figure it might be OK? Or just like the bubbly substance? It's engineered by man, and we think it's ok?

Moreover, you think the FDA REALLY has a vested interested in protecting the consumer? Right...

To me it's already a conflict of interest to have the most powerful corporations lobbying OUR government, comprised of our leaders, to pass certain laws, to lower the threshhold on what is ACCEPTABLE and what is NOT ACCEPTABLE levels of chemicals, hormones, pesticides, and other components in food. If the companies REALLY wanted it ok'd, they should just hit the source...namely, us. Tell us WHY aspartame, msg, and all the other "unnameable" sources and ingredients are OK on the side of such things.

Just because it doesn't cause immediate death DOES not mean these ingredients, fake, engineered, and man-made DO NOT screw with your hormone, adrenal glands, thyroid, liver, and kidneys. Quite the contrary, whenever you stuff yourself with impurities on a regular basis, these little suckers hideaway in fat cells, so they can constantly depress your immune system. Moreover, they tax your liver processes, so instead of burning fat, it's working to purify your body from the UN-natural food and drink you put in it. The body doesn't necessarily recognize these things, so hormones go out of whack, and can displace fat burning, muscle building, or any type of immunity improvement.

The FDA isn't on our side, they arbitrate, and intermediate so that the food and drink don't kill us now, but they have no control over what it does over a long-term time frame, such as 30+ years, since many of these components are just coming out and being fully studied as to their direct effect and non-direct effects.

I've seen the list Des posted, and then some, and of COURSE companies want you to want aspartame and msg! DUH. It's cheap, it tastes like sugar, has a similar response in the body as sugar, though it lacks calorie content, and it's in virtually EVERYTHING. How do you think preserved food has any taste, even after it has been engineered, laced with herbicides and pesticides, then left on the shelves for days, AFTER being transported by people who think of it not as food, but as some block of wood?? (I worked in the food industry, and have relatives in it). Such CHEAP chemicals, which apparently don't have immediate consequences are critical to the health and viability of the food industry, AND, to the drug/pharma industry since you need drugs to reactivate hormones in the body, get errections, lose weight, gain muscle, and fight off disease, all things the body should AND can do naturally.

The FDA just figures people are "smart" enough to know if it's not from the ground, or hasn't been engineered, laced in pesticides/herbicides, that we should know NOT to eat too much of it, or surround our diet in it. But most don't. They figure in a big brother-type of way, that we can rely on them for our health, wealth, drugs, future, retirement, education, and pretty much anything else.

------------------

You gentlemen can eat however you want, but the facts, the logic cannot be avoided. The biggest reason people are obese, sick, gaining too much fat, is the fact that man has been creating, engineering food, when food was FINE for years as pure, natural, and from the earth. It might seem impossible these days, either unaffordable, or difficult to find food to eat, but this isn't the case when you learn where to go. Not to mention, when you realize the quantities sold at regular supermarkets are one reason people are fat, you realize that getting the quantity/quality ratio at a trader joe's or whole foods market is well worth it, because you don't spend money on needless food, especially low quality food.

Another reason people are sick and fat is chemicals. Chemicals throw off the thyroid, liver, and adrenal glands. Chucking those components off course puts the body in a state of IN-efficient fat-burning, and general well being. So instead of burning calories naturally, or ridding the body of toxins, they're stored in fat cells, which will reek havoc UNTIL they're exorcised from the body through a more pure diet, toxin fasting, exercise, etc. The chemicals stored in fat cells, suppress and confuse the immune system. Instead of building muscle, or repairing the core body, it's wasting time on trying to rid it of things it can't easily and normally rid itself of. The body can handle it, but like a car, if you keep putting crap in it, eventually you get crap production, and over time it wears down quicker, especially if you don't do tune-ups.

If you lead bad oil in a car, and never change it, eventually the engine seizes, fuel consumption and efficiency goes hay-wire, and you can cause a host of other complications. Again, the FDA only has to say TODAY it won't kill you, the fact that constant consumption of man-made chemicals COULD cause obesity, sickness, and eventually death isn't of concern, because it can't be directly linked (YET).

It's already self-evident to a host of guys here that women at 17 aren't what they were when WE were 17. That's for sure. Oh yeah, there'd be a few cute girls, maybe 1 or 2 SUPER HOTTIES, girls who looked like they were much older. But now, peruse ANY school in highschool, and even younger, it's not the clothes so much as WHAT the girls consume. The clothes only HIDE or ACCENTUATE what's UNDERNEATH. For my cousin this is true. Girls are MUCH MORE well developed, not only because they take the pill more often these days, but because girls normally have a fair amount of dairy, esp. in their youth, on top of having lots of fruits, veggies, etc, which totally fvcks with their hormones. I'd really like to see what women were like BEFORE the pill, BEFORE all the hormones on food and in them, and see if Feminism, if their PIGGISH ways would be so prominent. But, alas, you can't. I do know my girl dumped the pill because it was pointless. I'm safe as heck, and she's happier, less moody, more upbeat, less susceptible to emotions up and down, and even able to get in to more toned shape faster.

Guys are smarter than this; it's like everyone is still an agent of the system and wants to promote negative information. I'll post links when I can.


A-Unit

 

[Shiftkey]

A-Unit, just because something in engineered by man, does not make it inherantly unhealthy. People are sick and fat because they eat too many calories and too much saturated fat, without enough exercise. It's that simple.

I used to think aspartame was unhealthy too, but after I took a food/nutrition class in college I'm not so sure. There haven't been any repeated studies that show aspartame is harmful in anything but megadoses. And I don't trust a source called "holistic medicine" on its authority alone. I stay away from aspartame just because I'm paranoid like that (and I think it tastes gross), but I just don't see the evidence to support any claims that it's unhealthy while there is mountains of evidence to the contrary.

 

[KontrollerX]

"I doubt some a55hole would sit down and write every one of those."

LOL, you should check out the John Titor hoax.

Certain people online will go to any great lengths for a gag.

The more believable its made, the more people will be fooled and the more people continually fooled rewards all of the hoax creator's hard work cuz they can just sit back and laugh at new people being conned to believe their b.s over the years.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

Followup...

For those not "believing" in a conspiracy around such ingredients, the FDA, FTC, pharmas, learn about the little known herb "stevia" which is growing in popularity. It can be found at Trader Joe's and Whole Foods, amongst other all-natural, alternative stores. It's making waves because it's an herb, adds no calories, 100% natural, is healthy, doesn't impact diabetes, doesn't raise the insulin to the stratosphere, and a host of OTHER benefits. YET, it's not added to foods. Sure, it might be a wee-bit more expensive (if that's even the case, I don't know, it could be cheaper), but it's HEALTHY. It doesn't cause the host of problems sugar and refined sugar do.

Again, I'll preface it by saying, I don't care what you guys do, or eat, and as I tell most people, I don't care what other people think, because so few people are about they themselves think, why should care about someone so careless? So...agree or disagree, post, comment, whatever. I'm not trying to make PERFECT dj's, but I am adding to the fire of commentary, what is considered against the grain. And yes, whether it's a conspiracy, or just the fact that the FDA and FTC, and the lobbyists that have more dough at their fingertips to push certain drugs and chemicals, the fact remains, big pharma and other units DO NOT see it a problem in the short-run and hasn't any directly links.

If smoking still exists, do you honestly think that the organizations that produce such products REALLY care about you...or is perhaps a case of, costs have not EXCEEDED profits, so people figure, "why rock the boat?" Most of America isn't aware, doesn't care, and isn't as intelligent as the guys trying to come here and man-up. That's point one. Or they might be, and just play dumb. I do know a cousin of my mine stumbled on 9-11 stuff, and she was shocked to know, I knew the "truth" 2 years ago, or better yet, THAT day when I saw 3 towers fall in their footprints, yet only 2 planes hit them, and in the history of engineering, never has a building fallen from fire, nor so quickly, nor so perfectly. Which led me to the point that, many guys don't care here. Maybe someday, but since Warboss left since he had a higher opinion/standard, it's evident, that not everybody wants the same thing. That's ok. But that doesn't negate the truth of the matter that such products like a Stevia in coffee (though caffeine is tough on the liver for processing), oatmeal, green tea, and alot of other places where you throw sugar right would be better.

Sugar in low moderation is ok, but it has the effect of "dumbing" down your tastebuds, resulting in an aversion to GOOD tasty foods like vegetables, salad, eggs, low sugar fruits, whole grains, etc. Even soups. I know, because I used to down TONS of sugar as a kid. Fvck, I'd have sugar on APPLES, with Cinnamon and spend more time eating the sugar than the apple. I was a sugarholic, and HATED good foods. That was until I was 17 and tired of being tired, of being chubby, of being not looked at by girls, of not being a good athlete on the field. Of all those things. I realized eating bad was just a habit, so eating good would be a habit, too. I dropped about 20-30lbs fast, my first GF actually approached me at a senior dance and asked me out, saying she "noticed" me. And from then on I was on a mission for health, to discover what works and doesn't. I know from having a father who smokes, people don't change until forced to in 1 way or the other, but the point is, eating bad and ignoring the truth is a SLOW death to the grave. I already watched 3 elderly grandparents die hard deaths, most of them gave no hoots about health, which led to complications later on in life; none of them genetically based.

The truth is truly out there, but the cost-to-benefit ratio of companies putting it out there, isn't there. A company won't make it it's business to promote health products and be socially conscious UNLESS it brings profits. Which is fine, to an extent, but be honest with yourself and realize nobody cares about you, but you, and just because the product has passed the FDA standards, does not make it 100% nutritious or healthy to consume.


A-Unit

 

[Desdinova]

LOL, you should check out the John Titor hoax.

Funny you mentioned that. I already have. Funny stuff!

If smoking still exists, do you honestly think that the organizations that produce such products REALLY care about you

That was the same argument that I was going to use.

When I was trying to find my way out of smoking, I completely rejected the patch and nicotine gum. How in the hell is feeding niccotine into my system supposed to help me break away from it? Yet doctors will recommend it. I personally don't know one person who quit smoking using either of those methods. The government (who is supposed to be working for us) loves smokers because of the tax they are willing to pay on cigarettes.

The only time people (not organizations) are wrong is when they're brainwashed by organizations and society, and we've all been there.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

True people are sick and fat because they eat too much. But that's a loaded statement worth deeper review.

First, because food itself isn't BULKY. People naturally ABHOR decent foods because of the feeling they won't be full. However, an apple, which might be sugar (fructose) and water and fiber, fills you up, MORE than the apple juice. Not to mention a natural apple contains the enzymes necessary for digestion, foods jacked with preservatives, packaged, and laying on shelves, QUICKLY lose those natural qualities which enable it to slide through our long digestive tracts.

People go for fatty foods because fats naturally release a chemical in the brain signaling 'FULL'. That's why only protein or only carb diets, or diets devoid of fats in anyway result in obesity more than diets that include fats. So people are given to EAT more because much of store-bought food isn't filling because they lack good fats, enzymes, and generally people are programmed to buy crap.

Second, once you've had sugar for so long, or salt, and other man-gineered foods, your tongue craves it. It dumbs it down, so what was once good food, tastes bad. How many people LATHER their food in topical dressings? Many! But food itself has a GOOD taste, especially if you went without it for so long! Yet, conditioning, esp. in youth with sugary cereals, sugary drinks, soda, and salty, fatty, mini meals, has people's tongue senses dumbed down, so they require ever higher amounts of sugar and salt to feel like they're eating food, and MORE and MORE food to feel satiated.

I never got that until I began cutting back foods with excess sugar. Of course I love chocolate, and the occasional ice cream, but I have almost no cravings. You don't have to be a genetic wonder to enjoy vegetables or meats that are grass fed. But you do have to ween down from all the crap sugar found in nearly anything at supermarket and allowed to sit on shelves and still be good. Then, you'll find fresh vegetables, fruits, grains, eggs, meats, nuts, berries, to be very, very enjoyable, energizing, and wholesome.

----------------

ShiftKey, I have to disagree. I can't think of one food man-gineered that's actually GOOD for the body. Really. I mean, maybe I'm drawing a blank, but I can't. Even milk, which is pasteurized, isn't entirely good. It takes out the actual GOODNESS of it through pasteurization and homogenization, just so it won't go bad in a few days. Do we see the tradeoffs?

So that companies can cheapen prices, or sell stuff which we otherwise wouldn't buy in a grocery store, they rape food of its nutrients?! Isn't that crazy? Why sell it all if its not good?

Cows, which are perhaps the staple of the American diet through milk, cheese, burgers, steaks, filet minon, and other products, are JACKED to the roof more than Barry Bonds with roids. Of course, Cattle are their product. Any business would alter a product to get the maximum out of it. It's called economies of scale. Wal-mart has fantastic economies of scale, along with their sweatshops around the world, enabling Americans to buy cheap goods through questionable ethical methods.

A cattle farmer can...

-fit more regular cattle per farm
-birth more cattle (really can't alter this, unless you get more cattle)
-squish more milk and meat and use from the cattle
-charge more for natural cattle

OR, the biggie, beef them up with BEEF roids, like Barry Freaking Bonds, and hope that the hormones don't negatively impact people "too bad." Well, only look around at the girls who have huge tits at 11, and the boys who are big, but emasculated, and the old timers developing cancer early on because of the huge, widespread presence of hormones in almost anything we have unnaturally to confirm that man-made things mostly suck.

It's a BIG BIG trade off, like a debt, and now it's coming due. Payment date has arrived. Such innovations allowed millions to be fed cheaply, but at what price? The sacrifice of our health, which is the main reason we eat anyways?

I'm just shocked people are OK with unknown chemicals and hormones being thrown into food UNKNOWINGLY without disclosure at the entry source, and having the FDA tell us "if it were bad, we'd let you know." I haven't seen the FDA go after anybody BIG, but I have seen small companies get shut down or lose their product license, mostly because they lack the lobbyists to keep it going, and whisper in the GOV's ear, that it's not too bad. Please.

------------

And with respect to Des and smoking, exactly. If it can be taxed, it won't kill you on the spot, then they ultimately nod it off. Even booze can be taxed so it's made, though it results in more deaths and problems and costs than all other drugs combined. Pot, which is on the fence, or more appropriately hemp, hasn't killed anyone, but you also don't buy pot in mass quantity that can't be grown in your backyard properly. Being a resilient plant, most anyone, anywhere could have it. But then it couldn't be taxed properly, so what's the purpose of legalizing?

Porn is legalized because it's taxed, but those girls on film are not different than a hooker picking up a john, just that it's "tax evasion" and seen as detrimental to society in the areas it occurs. Funny thing is, porn is more widespread, does more damage through human trafficing and human kidnapping, and really isn't an art form, but is highly public, very much taxed, and the girls are often the slvts of top corporate ceo's, government officials, or strippers at clubs that are prominent and frequented by the top dogs, so all stays as is. You want porn, fine, I watch it, too, with my girl, but I won't bat an eye and NOT say it's the same hookers. Heck, hookers ARE amateur pornstars, they're just trying to catch a buck and won't anymore than ONE MAN.

Money runs the bottom line so much so that, until cost to benefit ratios are altered, nobody is stepping forward to blow any whistles.




A-Unit

 

[Shiftkey]

Funny how you're both directing attention away from the topic. What does any of this have to do with aspartame? I'd still like to see some facts that show aspartame is bad for you.

A-Unit,

I agree that processed foods filled with trans/saturated fat and loads of sugar are a major problem (or more accurately, high fructose corn syrup, which BTW is also linked to the oil problems of late). Man-made food isn't perfect, but I'll reitterate that this doesn't make all man-made food processes bad or unhealthy. Since you brought up milk I'll use that as an example. Have you heard of the disease called rickets? It's caused by vitamin D deficiency and causes childrens' bones to soften and be more prone to breaking. It was a major problem until the government required fortification of milk and formula with vitamin D.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000344.htm

And if the milk wasn't pasturized, people would get sick from food poisoning. What do you suggest? That everyone keeps a cow in their backyard?

Desdinova,

Please. The cost of healthcare far outweighs any revenue from cigarette taxation. The government would LOVE for cigarette companies to be put out of business. Why do you think they're so heavily regulated? The only reason they're still around is because cigarette companies have been around for so long - too many people are addicted to completely outlaw smoking.

I highly recommend that you both take a food/nutrition class at your local JC. The knowledge I've gained from the class I took has been invaluable.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

http://www.herbalhealer.com/aspartame.html

http://www.rense.com/general24/sugarfreemichael.htm

http://www.rense.com/general2/braint.htm

There's plenty of links, and there's links on top of links embedded in THOSE links to swing the scales to the other side and provide a modicum of evidence to the contrary that it's not healthy. In fact, Aspartame is one of the first ingredients to be researched under the new field of Excitotoxicity, which tests how toxic nutrients/ingredients are to the body.

That said, we'll message later.

--------------

As far as taking a nutrition class, I'm self taught. Sure, no professor, but I have purchased the same books on Amazon for $50 and $100 that are required in classrooms, for myself at my place. Why? So I knew what the same certified personal trainers and nutritionists know about the body.

First thing is first, the food pyramid is WAAAAY off. Anybody with any knowledge of nutrition knows that much. They also know it was in the best interests of sugar manufacturers, doctors, BIG PHARMA, food companies, farms, and food manufacturers that it be reversed. Since it was made NOT TOO LONG ago, to think there wasn't a big of "self interest" in it, is entirely wrong, even from the basis of HOW the body works.

So that alone begins to discredit basic class room study of topics.

Second, having gone through and acquired my BS for now, I know that forced, classroom study is slow, overly technical, time consuming, and a controlled form of disseminating information that limits the students creativity and appears to push science and education as God. I have the utmost respect for people who realize what they are, but reading 1 book or 2, or having a degree does not confer intelligence, expertise, or even replace experience.

I'll consider taking advanced "textbook" classes, but I have gotten more from non-traditional methods of instruction, education, and information dissemination than I have from regular "classroom" study. I'm not attempting to disrespect your taking of such classes, but I do not think that changes the debate/post on Aspartame as an excitoxin, or the fact that man-gineered food is unhealthy in a large % of the diet.

On the topic of Milk. You are aware calcium isn't absorbed unless there's an equivalent amount of magnesium, correct? Yet, milk, standing on the shelves, has such a low level of calcium that a low% of it ever is absorbed, but it is still BELIEVED to be a great source of calcium. THAT is true! It is, but it doesn't get absorbed to the point where people can actually assimilate the calcium. Moreover, milk is MOSTLY water, cholesterol, hormones, and fat (unless it's stripped of fat). So yes, they added Vitamin D, great, its' like a protein powder, which you're better off having since it is engineered (and engineered as the ONLY decent source, but it is still suspect, because some protein powders have aspartame, too).

Quite honestly, I don't drink milk, and there's widespread debate that we don't need to nor, should, we're just conditioned to do so, since so many people have cereal, or milk, or icecream, or coffee. Questioning that is like questioning dunkin donuts, WHO DRIVES AMERICA, in the new commercials. Milk , if it's true we should consume milk from cows, then I'm going to start sucking on mother's tits, now too, since that's near the same thing, yet contains MORE of the components we need as humans.



A-Unit

 

[Shiftkey]

While I can appreciate a good conspiracy theory, when I was asking for evidence, I meant credible evidence. Anything can be published on the Internet; it doesn't make it a fact.

As for the food pyramid, maybe my professor is just enlightened, but she knows the food pyramid isn't perfect. That's not its purpose - it's just supposed to give general guidelines for healthy diet.