222291 Bullies, 4421 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 51 to 59 of 59
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Neildo is offline
    Neildo's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    6,045

    Posted On:
    7/30/2008 11:09am

    Join us... or die
     Style: FBSD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    dude you quit smoking?!?! AWESOME.
    Last edited by Neildo; 7/30/2008 11:15am at .
    :new_all_c
  2. muddy is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    164

    Posted On:
    7/30/2008 7:06pm


     Style: boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss
    I figured that would come up.

    The problem with aspartame is twofold:

    -There is so much unfettered hysteria about them that any actual health drawbacks are lost in the noise
    -Because aspartame can be tasted (duh), it makes it more difficult to design studies that will be sensitive to potential harms but exclude placebo effects

    That said, if you are aware of any good-quality research that indicates that aspartame 1) has a significant effect on health and/or 2) it affects blood glucose/insulin levels (say, through a connection between taste and the endocrine system), I would very much like to see it.
    There is a lot of controversy regarding how aspartame keeps its approval and how it got approved in the first place. There are plenty of studies making the cancer link.


    Here's a study that references several studies.
    this is the conclusion section from the same.
    Conclusions
    Our study shows that APM is a multipotential
    carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic
    effects are evident even at a daily
    dose of 20 mg/kg bw, much less than the current
    ADI for humans in Europe (40 mg/kg
    bw) and in the United States (50 mg/kg bw).
    The results of carcinogenicity bioassays in
    rodents are consistent predictors of human
    cancer risks (Huff 1999; Rall 1995; Tomatis
    et al. 1989). The results of our study therefore
    call for an urgent reexamination of the present
    guidelines on the use and consumption
    Aspartame carcinogenicity
    Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 114 | NUMBER 3 | March 2006 385
    of APM. The decision to use experimental
    data to protect public health is important
    because the time span of widespread APM use
    is still too brief to have produced solid epidemiologic
    data. Moreover, it is unlikely that
    sufficient epidemiologic data will be available
    in the near future, given the difficulty of finding
    a control group that has not been exposed
    to this widely diffused compound.
  3. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    7/30/2008 7:35pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Two issues with that study:

    1) The rats eating the aspartame ate more food - "a dose-related difference in feed consumption was observed between the various treated groups and the control group in both males and females"

    I think they should be controlling for the amount eaten - not only because if they don't control for that, it adds a competing mechanism (aspartame -> different eating patterns -> different mortality patterns), but because I'm not sure how they can precisely control dosing of aspartame if they don't control how much of the feed the rats eat in a sitting. But this isn't the main problem:

    2) They let the study run until natural death, and the rats eating the aspartame didn't die any sooner than the ones that didn't - "No substantial difference in survival was observed among the groups".

    Think that one over for a while. If aspartame is inducing cancer in these rats, why are they surviving about as long as the ones who didn't get fed any aspartame?

    "But Russ," you would ask, "why would they show more incidences of particular cancers?"
    To which I would reply: "Because the study ran until natural death, and all the rats have to die of something."

    For me to buy into this study, I'd be looking for at least one of:
    1) Earlier mortality for the aspartame groups
    2) Statement of other causes of mortality (for the dosed groups to die more often of cancer, they have to die less often of something else - remember, "natural death")
    3) Trends increasing with dose in significant quantities (in either cancers or deaths)
  4. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    7/30/2008 7:47pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    After I made this post, I found the European Food Safety Authority's response to this study - you can read it here. I got a kick out of seeing that a lot of their concerns were the same as mine.
  5. muddy is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    164

    Posted On:
    7/30/2008 8:20pm


     Style: boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRuss
    After I made this post, I found the European Food Safety Authority's response to this study - you can read it here. I got a kick out of seeing that a lot of their concerns were the same as mine.
    yes there has been a lot of "back and forth" ... Ramazzini actually responded to the EFSA statement with the results of a second longer term study that they contended supported their orginal conclusions .... others have suggested that EFSA was biased using scientists who had recieved funding from apartame industry.

    the way the approval was suddenly given in the US when the new administration took over (after being considered potentially unsafe for the previous 25 years) makes me doubtful ...
    Last edited by muddy; 7/30/2008 8:23pm at .
  6. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    7/30/2008 11:23pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by muddy
    others have suggested that EFSA was biased using scientists who had recieved funding from apartame industry.
    That may be, but (and you'll have to take my word on this one) I haven't, and for that study to convince me, they need to demonstrate at least one of the three effects I highlighted. Anything less is just not convincing.
  7. Sun Wukong is offline
    Sun Wukong's Avatar

    ˇViva los Muertos!

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,790

    Posted On:
    8/02/2008 7:21am


     Style: Boxing/Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Neildo
    dude you quit smoking?!?! AWESOME.
    yeah, i'm doing the patch and whenever I start freaking out for a cigarette i chew the gum on top of the patch.

    i think my lungs are shedding since i don't have the constant pollution going in. I've been coughing up extremely horrible brown mucus to the tune of about half a cup a day.

    jesus christ my lungs are fucked.
    A lie gets half-way around the world before the truth has time to get it's pants on. - Winston Churchhill
  8. Neildo is offline
    Neildo's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    6,045

    Posted On:
    8/02/2008 12:53pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: FBSD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    yummy. try a glass of whiskey or two, that loosened up some lung crud for me.
    :new_all_c
  9. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    8/03/2008 6:13pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bang!
    Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. 1994 Jul; 43(7):814-8.
    I got to take a look at this today, and it seemed quite well done. It appears that when there was a methodology question, they chose the ones that would bias the experiment against HIIT, and it still came out fairly significantly ahead.
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.