Just about the only deodorant that I will purchase is Adidas, specifically because it does not contain aluminum as an ingredient (there are a couple of other brands that also do not, but they are rare, and more expensive). Diet Rite and Diet RC are just about the only brands of soft drink that do not contain aspartame. These observations led me to formulate the following opinions and questions:
Are they actually marketing to a segment of the population that has health concerns about these substances? Personally, I believe that there is only a small chance that either aluminum or Aspartame is harmful (if you forced me to quantify my opinion I would say less than five percent). However, I prefer to avoid that possible, small, undefined risk if feasible, and economical (in this case it is). Our son’s pediatrician did make a point of telling me that Pedialyte had replaced Aspartame with Sucralose specifically because of health concerns and comments expressed to them from parents and physicians ( despite Sucralose being more expensive).
If this is actually the case and if it is, does it represent and underserviced sector of the “food” market? People with “alternative” health concerns, but who are to cheap, unconvinced, and or lazy to shop at health food stores?
Because the market is so hard to identify. For every person like yourself who believes Splenda (sucralose) is safer than Nutrasweet (aspartame), there is another who thinks sucralose is responsible for a host of negative side effects:
How can manufacturers target a market that can’t even agree on what products they are afraid of? The best they can do is rely on scientific evidence from clinical trials, rather than anecdotal evidence that produces conflicting results.
Good point, but I believe that Aspartame is in a class by itself among people who subscribe to an “alternative” perspective. One of the quotes (I think that I saw in on a sixty minutes interview about ten years ago, but might be wrong on that point) on Aspartame that caused me to ponder it’s safety basically said “that off the approximately two hundred studies conducted on the safety of Aspartame approximately half showed negative effects. Furthermore, the half that were not sponsored by Monsanto were the ones which showed problems.” The other point often made by Aspartame critics is that the FDA commissioner who voted to approve Aspartame then went to work for the company (I think Monsanto, but could be wrong) shortly afterwards. Futhermore, Equal critics also point out that there was supposedly, an FDA group of scientists who urged the board not to approve the drug, but they did anyway. These are all arguments (IF TRUE!) that cause one to at least consider the possibility that Aspartame might be harmful (even my Nutrition text mentioned that Aspartame causes a formaldehyde type break down product in the Liver, it just said that the amounts were to small to likely be harmful).
On the other hand the only solid tangible arguments that I’ve heard against Splenda is that it caused the thyroid in some rats to shrink which the manufacturer says was due to the fact that the rats ate less because they didn’t like the taste of the product (an ironic argument to be sure). Honestly, I think the safest, most widely tested artifical sweetner is good old saccarin, they even had to take the warning label off since the orginal studies were shown to be questionable. Furthermore, we have decades of epidemilogical evidence in people showing that it doen’t increase the risk of bladder cancer.
I hate to burst your bubble, dude… no, actually, I really enjoy it. Read on.
Adidas anti-perspirant contains aluminum. Adidas deodorant, JUST LIKE ALL OTHER DEODORANTS, does not contain aluminum. If it did, it would be an anti-perspirant.
Summing up for the impaired:
All antiperspirants contain aluminum.
Adidas anti-perspirant contains aluminum.
Adidas deodorant does not contain aluminum.
Deodorants never contain aluminum as an activei ngredient.
In fact, deodorants do not have active ingredients.
And also, if your concern about aspartame is based on the fact that one of its metabolites is methanol (which is metabolized further into formaldehyde, then into formic acid), here:
Each milligram of aspartame (molecular weight 294.3) will yield 0.11 mg of methanol (molecular weight 32.04) when metabolized. A can of Diet Coke contains about, let’s say, 80 to 100 mg of aspartame. (I couldn’t find the exact amount. Google found nothing but site after site of anti-aspartame insanity including articles about President Bush being a possible ‘aspartame victim’.) Thus, the can contains at most 8 to 10 mg of methanol. Eight ounces of tomato juice contains about 50 mg; many other foods also contain methanol. The FDA’s acceptable daily intake for aspartame is 50 mg/kg (see here). Thus, a 70 kg (150 lbs) person could consume about 17 cans of Diet Coke per day, every day, without risk. The other components of aspartame, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, are almost certainly safe since they are amino acids and components of all proteins and nearly all foods, except for individuals with the rare genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU). (This is why aspartame-sweetened products have the ‘contains phenylalanine’ warning.)
I think the reason for the aspartame-related insanity is that the supposed risks are very easy to understand – ‘it breaks down into methanol’ or ‘it breaks down into formaldehyde’. Since most people know that methanol and formaldehyde are toxic, aspartame must be dangerous. Aspartame has been blamed for all kinds of diseases, including arguably non-existent or overdiagnosed ones (e.g. fibromyalgia).
All this being said, a calorie-reduced cola without aspartame would be marketed to people that believe in the danger of aspartame (a phenomenon much better documented by anectodal evidence on websites than in the scientific literature). I wouldn’t be surprised if drink manufacturers deliberately designed aspartameless beverages specifically to cater to this demographic.
Your answer had caused me to think of several additional questions:
a. What I found to be most persuasive concerning the dangers of Aspartame was the statment (made by the “expert” being interviewed about ten years ago on sixty minutes or 20/20 or Dateline, I can no longer remember) that "approximately half of the studies conducted on Aspartame prior to FDA approval showed problems in the animals, and it just so happened they were the studies not sponsored by Monsanto. Now, I’m not saying that a major US coorporation would try to influence the sceintific process just to earn many billions of dollars… but it makes me wonder. Also, my son’s pediatrician indicated that she has seen enough data that she advises that her patients avoid the product just to “be on the safe side.” So did a large number of the pre FDA approval show “problems” or not? Perhaps, I would feel more secure if I could evaluate summaries of the raw data collected from those studies. As I indicated if you asked me to “quantify” what I believed the odds are that Aspartame really posed a danger I would respond somewhere less than five percent. Also is there a database that would allow someone to review the data of all or most studies submitted to the FDA for varioius drugs, and food additives? My concern about quackwatch is that I feel that they might exhibit a “bias” in the opposite direction. Last night I watched one of my favorite shows “Diagnosis Unknown” on Discovery Health that examined a rare disorder caused by Pfiesteria piscicida. The Dr. who “broke” the story and eventually found an effective treatment intervention (using a cholesterol lowering drug that is also sometimes used for heavy metal poisoning, I cannot recall its name) said that he was virtually “mocked” by his associates at the time. Indeed, the Maryland State Board of Health conducted a public health investigation which according to one of the investigators was initially just trying to convince the public that there was nothing to worry about.
b. Both my Anatomy, and my advanced Physiology professors. along with the A&P professors for my wife strongly contended that Aspartame caused your blood sugar, and or insulin levels to fluxuate, just like actual sugar. I was floored by these assertions in class since I have never seen any “mainstream” sort of evidence for these contentions (and these were the sort of people who would balk at my avoidance of Aspartame and Aluminum as being sheer quackery). I challenged them to cite their sources, but they were highly offended saying that this was common knowledge, most of the class thought I was way off base for even questioning this “fact” (I still earned my A’s). IS there actual evidence accepted by the “mainstream” scientific community that Aspartame causes these types of blood insulin changes (Dr. Tucker even maintained that Saccarin and Sucralose also did this)?
My guess is that RC Cola is marketing their sucralose-sweetened soda to people who dislike the bitter aftertaste of other artificial sweeteners, rather than to people who are concerned with the possible dangers of aspartame.
You may be correct, but I talk to many people who avoid Aspartame or at least have reservations about the product. In fact, I would say that at least 30% of the nurses and maybe twenty percent of the Dr’s I’ve spoken to on the issue express concerns. Thus, even if they are not conciously marketing to an “Aspartame” avoidance market they are still benefitting from it such a market.
I usually, buy Diet Rite/ or RC in Two Liter containers. Actually, I try to drink distilled water or unsweetened green tea, blended with raspberry and blueberry tea (sometimes with Sweet&Low). Hey, whatever I’m doing is NOT working I’m still hypertensive (averaging around 145/90) despite all my supplements, exercise ect. The bottom line is that I need to get some weight off (probably even twenty pounds would bring down the BP) and strictly follow a DASH type diet. Failing, that I need to start on ACE inhibitors, diurectics, and or Beta blockers (things which I am loath to do at 35). However, I already have persistent, microscopic hematuria of unknown etiology (althought my BUN/Creatine levels are normal). In other words I have I’m more concerned about “pulling a Ritter” than suffering some obscure effects due to Aspartame.
Any product containing caffeine is going to cause blood sugar spikes – that’s what caffeine does (among other things). I strongly suspect (but do not have data) that anything that tastes sweet will cause fluctuations in blood sugar. The idea is that taste, like all senses, is a biochemical event, so the taste of sugar should trigger a cascade of sugar-controlling chemicals.
Perhaps, but they were not referring to the caffein they were specifically talking about the Aspartame. Also, I would think that if Aspartame had this effect that diabetic would be warned not to consume the beverage from mainstream sources. I think this is an example of a mini “urban myth” that has even found it’s way into certain academic circles ( I blaim Atkins).
I’m sorry; I don’t want to step on your toes here. You can fear aspartame and aluminum all you want. But a ten-year old “remembered” quote in General Questions?? Could you please find a *respected * scientific cite for this? And I’m not even going to talk about using Dateline, 20/20, or Discovery Channel for real science education.
:smack: I’m an idiot - just ignore me. This is what I get for posting before I fully wake up and before I finish reading the thread.
I’m sorry, RD. Crap I didn’t mean to sound so snarky and I should have waited to read the entire post. My comments were unneccessary and I hate that I did it.
This is a false statement. I check my blood sugar regularly – during both of my pregnancies I was checking it 8-10 times per day. I assure you that if caffeine had any effect whatsoever on my blood sugar, I would have noticed it. It does not. And I consume quite a bit of caffeine (more now than when I was pregnant, but I didn’t give it up entirely then either).
For all of those who don’t understand, read the Gunslinger novels.
I’m sorry; I don’t want to step on your toes here. You can fear aspartame and aluminum all you want. But a ten-year old “remembered” quote in General Questions?? Could you please find a *respected * scientific cite for this? And I’m not even going to talk about using Dateline, 20/20, or Discovery Channel for real science education.