Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

Yeah, it's a frequent target of the naturalistic fallacy. But to me the most honest criticism of it is not liking the taste. Health-wise, almost certainly better than the sugar it's replacing.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#6

Post by misthop » Fri, Apr 24, 2026, 12:52 PM UTC

It might not be bad for you, but it tastes like crap

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#7

Post by hawk_ » Fri, Apr 24, 2026, 12:55 PM UTC

An important missed angle is the effect of artificial sweeteners on gut microbiome. They cause intestinal inflammation which is relevant for IBD sufferers. My take is that I don't miss out on much by being conservative with food, as we still don't understand these complex interactions well enough. What's the harm in sticking to a balanced whole diet of ingredients that were available to our ancestors 200years or more ago.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#8

Post by gadflyinyoureye » Fri, Apr 24, 2026, 12:56 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #4

Sucralose-6-acetate, however, an impurity found in sucralose and produced in vivo from sucralose, is genotoxic. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37246822/ I would avoid sucralose. I have a suspicion it may be responsible for the observed increase in colon cancer in younger age groups.

Did we just start adding this chemical in the ast five years? I can think of any other widespread roll out of a new technology in the same period.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#9

Post by GolfPopper » Fri, Apr 24, 2026, 12:57 PM UTC

It's a reliable migraine trigger for meyself, and my nephew. That makes it bad for us.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#10

Post by bronlund » Fri, Apr 24, 2026, 1:02 PM UTC

It is bad. Don't belive the hype.

Just the simple fact that it has a sweet taste, but contains no sugar, disturbs the body's natural production of insulin.