11–20 of 156 posts
My understanding is that the WHO has maintained its recommended max. daily intake, which is the equivalent of about 10 cans of soft drinks a day... make of that what you will.
I've worked with folks who sit at their desk and drink diet soda from those giant reusable 64oz cups, all day. When it's all zero calories, I guess I can see how you get there.
> An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda daily to exceed the limit and potentially face health risks. Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? It's a ludicrous amount of aspartame/soda to be sure, but there -is- something potentially an issue with aspartame somewhere in there…
> Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. > Something's there, even if it's negligible. Then what is the point of wasting everyone’s time with publicizing it? Just last weekend, I was with a parent who would not let her kids have sugar free popsicles, but was okay with them regularly eating sugary popsicles. For some…
> An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda daily to exceed the limit and potentially face health risks. Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? It's a ludicrous amount of aspartame/soda to be sure, but there -is- something potentially an issue with aspartame somewhere in there…
> Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. > Something's there, even if it's negligible. Then what is the point of wasting everyone’s time with publicizing it? Just last weekend, I was with a parent who would not let her kids have sugar free popsicles, but was okay with them regularly eating sugary popsicles. For some…
Cancer isn't the only risk associated with aspartame.
> “Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply. FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions,” an agency spokesperson said late Thursday shortly after the WHO released its findings.
I'm going to side with the FDA on this one. Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most scrutinized chemical in history. So for the WHO to give such a limp wristed statement calling for more research is unbelievably pandering.
It's also vaguely un-scientific. Even with a 99% confidence interval, we know that 1 out of every 100 analysis studies is going to reach a false conclusion. So just based on the sheer number of studies conducted on Aspartame, we know there are going to be links that turn out inconclusive. Latching onto a small number of niche cases and ignoring the preponderance of evidence is essentially calling for infinite research.
The WHO has a tendency to lean overly-cautious. And if we are being fully honest, maybe even a bit Euro-centric and elitist. And given the alternative is sugar which has obvious and known health side effects it's hard not to see this as some bored staff playing games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. > Something's there, even if it's negligible. Then what is the point of wasting everyone’s time with publicizing it? Just last weekend, I was with a parent who would not let her kids have sugar free popsicles, but was okay with them regularly eating sugary popsicles. For some…
> For some reason, she thinks that a tiny bit of aspartame has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm than a ton of refined sugar. Cancer isn't the only risk associated with aspartame.
Especially since the alternative seems to be people consuming a ton of excess carbohydrates, which have near guaranteed risks.
My understanding is that the WHO has maintained its recommended max. daily intake, which is the equivalent of about 10 cans of soft drinks a day... make of that what you will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. > Something's there, even if it's negligible. Then what is the point of wasting everyone’s time with publicizing it? Just last weekend, I was with a parent who would not let her kids have sugar free popsicles, but was okay with them regularly eating sugary popsicles. For some…
Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. > Something's there, even if it's negligible. Then what is the point of wasting everyone’s time with publicizing it? Just last weekend, I was with a parent who would not let her kids have sugar free popsicles, but was okay with them regularly eating sugary popsicles. For some…
Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar
> An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda daily to exceed the limit and potentially face health risks. Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? It's a ludicrous amount of aspartame/soda to be sure, but there -is- something potentially an issue with aspartame somewhere in there…
It would be great if they had some sort of time-frame.