New Study on Aspartame

FOB said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12sweet.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Heard about this study. Guess Atkins was right about aspartame. I still
think he was off the mark with his anti-caffeine stance.

Yeah, I've seen a number of recent studies that say coffee in moderation is
good for you. I know I'm not willing to give up that morning cup!

In news:[email hidden],
Ernst Primer <[email hidden]> stated
| FOB wrote:
||
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12sweet.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
|
| Heard about this study. Guess Atkins was right about aspartame. I
| still
| think he was off the mark with his anti-caffeine stance.

"Ernst Primer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

FOB said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12sweet.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Heard about this study. Guess Atkins was right about aspartame. I still
think he was off the mark with his anti-caffeine stance.

- - -

I consumed caffeine all through the 6 months I was on Atkins and lost 50
lbs. I took a few months off and am about ready to start again. I have 40
lbs to go.

FOB <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| Yeah, I've seen a number of recent studies that say coffee in
|| moderation is
|| good for you. I know I'm not willing to give up that morning
|| cup!
||

Or the one after that... :-)

--
"People who want to share their religious views with you almost
never want you to share your views with them."

Ernst Primer said:

FOB said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12sweet.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Heard about this study. Guess Atkins was right about aspartame. I still
think he was off the mark with his anti-caffeine stance.

I think Dr A had completely separate reasons for his aspartame and
caffeine stances. He objected to aspartame because of how often it
is associated with health problems and how often (maybe a percent
of people?) get loss blockage from it. He objected to caffeine because
it's addictive and his program is supposed to clear out addictions
other than just insulin swing carb addictions.

Once he got into discussing insulin swings from caffeine, uhmm, I'd
like to see the data on that before I accept that it's anything but
clearing out addictions to give the At-kid more self control.

Cuz said:

FOB <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| Yeah, I've seen a number of recent studies that say coffee in
|| moderation is
|| good for you. I know I'm not willing to give up that morning
|| cup!
||

Or the one after that... :-)

Right. I'm not willing to give up the morning pot.

Quoted message said:

--
"People who want to share their religious views with you almost
never want you to share your views with them."

Doug Freyburger said:

Ernst Primer said:

FOB said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12sweet.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Heard about this study. Guess Atkins was right about aspartame. I still
think he was off the mark with his anti-caffeine stance.

I think Dr A had completely separate reasons for his aspartame and
caffeine stances. He objected to aspartame because of how often it
is associated with health problems and how often (maybe a percent
of people?) get loss blockage from it. He objected to caffeine because
it's addictive and his program is supposed to clear out addictions
other than just insulin swing carb addictions.

As I recall, Dr Atkins didn't object to aspartame because of how often
it was associated with health problems. All I ever recall seeing him
say was to avoid it because from his clinical experience it inhibited
weight loss in some people. I've used it without noticing any apparent
weight loss issues.

And I also recall Dr. Atkins issue with caffeine was that he said it
could cause wide swings in blood sugar levels, leading to cravings, not
that it was addictive, which is the opposite of your assertion. A lot
of us have continued to enjoy coffee without any problems either.

Quoted message said:

Once he got into discussing insulin swings from caffeine, uhmm, I'd
like to see the data on that before I accept that it's anything but
clearing out addictions to give the At-kid more self control.

Quoted message said:

Doug Freyburger said:

I think Dr A had completely separate reasons for his aspartame and
caffeine stances. He objected to aspartame because of how often it
is associated with health problems and how often (maybe a percent
of people?) get loss blockage from it. He objected to caffeine because
it's addictive and his program is supposed to clear out addictions
other than just insulin swing carb addictions.

As I recall, Dr Atkins didn't object to aspartame because of how often
it was associated with health problems. All I ever recall seeing him
say was to avoid it because from his clinical experience it inhibited
weight loss in some people. I've used it without noticing any apparent
weight loss issues.

And I also recall Dr. Atkins issue with caffeine was that he said it
could cause wide swings in blood sugar levels, leading to cravings, not
that it was addictive, which is the opposite of your assertion. A lot
of us have continued to enjoy coffee without any problems either.

Dr A wrote a bunch of books. Read enough of them and you'll find all
of the stances discussed here.

Interesting point in why aspartame got banned during Induction in the
1999 edition on: The Atkins process starts conservative during
Induction
and then gets progressively more open as you move through the steps.
So if Dr A found something that caused problems in a percent of the
population, he banned it during Induction as a conservative move. Then
moving on through OWL you'd try it at some point.

Aspartame doesn't block me, but it does block my wife. When we first
started Atkins together just before the 1999 edition came out we didn't
know to avoid aspartame. My weight plummented - 8 during Induction,
2 in week 4 and so on. In her first 4 weeks she was down 1. Then we
learned about aspartame blocking some and switched from Diet Coke
caffeine free to Diet Rite. She dropped 4 pounds in 4 days but it had
no impact on my progress. Too late, she was so frustrated she
switched to low fat.

So banning aspartame early on isn't forever. It's to get as many as
possible to lose during Induction. And for a lot of people it doesn't
matter at all. But how can you know in advance if you're a member of
the lot-of-people or of the few-with-aspartame-problems? You can't
know in advance so the process teaches you the answer.

Doug Freyburger said:

Quoted message said:

Doug Freyburger said:

I think Dr A had completely separate reasons for his aspartame and
caffeine stances. He objected to aspartame because of how often it
is associated with health problems and how often (maybe a percent
of people?) get loss blockage from it. He objected to caffeine because
it's addictive and his program is supposed to clear out addictions
other than just insulin swing carb addictions.

As I recall, Dr Atkins didn't object to aspartame because of how often
it was associated with health problems. All I ever recall seeing him
say was to avoid it because from his clinical experience it inhibited
weight loss in some people. I've used it without noticing any apparent
weight loss issues.

And I also recall Dr. Atkins issue with caffeine was that he said it
could cause wide swings in blood sugar levels, leading to cravings, not
that it was addictive, which is the opposite of your assertion. A lot
of us have continued to enjoy coffee without any problems either.

Dr A wrote a bunch of books. Read enough of them and you'll find all
of the stances discussed here.

Then perhaps you can give us the book and page reference where Atkins
stated aspartame should be avoided because of how often it was
associated with health problems, rather than that it inhibits weight
loss is some people. Or where he said addiction rather than blood
sugar swings is the potential problem with caffeine?

Quoted message said:

Interesting point in why aspartame got banned during Induction in the
1999 edition on: The Atkins process starts conservative during
Induction
and then gets progressively more open as you move through the steps.
So if Dr A found something that caused problems in a percent of the
population, he banned it during Induction as a conservative move. Then
moving on through OWL you'd try it at some point.

Aspartame doesn't block me, but it does block my wife. When we first
started Atkins together just before the 1999 edition came out we didn't
know to avoid aspartame. My weight plummented - 8 during Induction,
2 in week 4 and so on. In her first 4 weeks she was down 1. Then we
learned about aspartame blocking some and switched from Diet Coke
caffeine free to Diet Rite. She dropped 4 pounds in 4 days but it had
no impact on my progress. Too late, she was so frustrated she
switched to low fat.

So banning aspartame early on isn't forever. It's to get as many as
possible to lose during Induction. And for a lot of people it doesn't
matter at all. But how can you know in advance if you're a member of
the lot-of-people or of the few-with-aspartame-problems? You can't
know in advance so the process teaches you the answer.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:34:06 GMT, "FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote:

=>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12sweet.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
=>

Quote on
The research found that the sweetener was associated with unusually high rates
of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats that had been given doses of
it starting at what would be equivalent to four to five 20-ounce bottles of

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
diet soda a day for a 150-pound person. The study, which involved 1,900
laboratory rats and cost $1 million, was conducted at the European Ramazzini
Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, a nonprofit organization
that studies cancer-causing substances; Dr. Soffritti is its scientific
director.
Quote off

4*20=80
5*20=100

1 can of diet pepsi = 12oz
80/12= 6.6 can
100/12=8.3can
And this is for 150lb person.

Now, how many people drink Diet Pepsi(or anything else) 7 to 9 cans per day
every day.

IMHO, your teeth will fall off, before you get cancer from Aspartame.

Still, water is the best drink.

Star Shooter said:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:34:06 GMT, "FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote:

=>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12sweet.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
=>

Quote on
The research found that the sweetener was associated with unusually high rates
of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats that had been given doses of
it starting at what would be equivalent to four to five 20-ounce bottles of

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
diet soda a day for a 150-pound person. The study, which involved 1,900
laboratory rats and cost $1 million, was conducted at the European Ramazzini
Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, a nonprofit organization
that studies cancer-causing substances; Dr. Soffritti is its scientific
director.
Quote off

4*20=80
5*20=100

1 can of diet pepsi = 12oz
80/12= 6.6 can
100/12=8.3can
And this is for 150lb person.

Now, how many people drink Diet Pepsi(or anything else) 7 to 9 cans per day
every day.

I'm not an alarmist by any means. But I wouldn't just dismiss a study
that found that daily intake of the equivalent of 7 cans of soda caused
a significant increase in cancer. That level is quite low, especially
considering many products besides soda now contain aspartame, meaning
it's not that hard to achieve that level of consumption.

Quoted message said:

IMHO, your teeth will fall off, before you get cancer from Aspartame.

Still, water is the best drink.

On 14 Feb 2006 15:47:42 -0800, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

=>I'm not an alarmist by any means. But I wouldn't just dismiss a study
=>that found that daily intake of the equivalent of 7 cans of soda caused
=>a significant increase in cancer. That level is quite low, especially
=>considering many products besides soda now contain aspartame, meaning
=>it's not that hard to achieve that level of consumption.

That's the whole point. There are natural form of Aspartame in the protein
foods. The problem is the experiment isn't testing it in the normal way. They
probably have to feed the mice with couple ton of protein in order to gain the
level of Aspartame they are doing. If you feed mice with couple tons of
protein, you know what they will die of.

Star Shooter said:

On 14 Feb 2006 15:47:42 -0800, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

=>I'm not an alarmist by any means. But I wouldn't just dismiss a study
=>that found that daily intake of the equivalent of 7 cans of soda caused
=>a significant increase in cancer. That level is quite low, especially
=>considering many products besides soda now contain aspartame, meaning
=>it's not that hard to achieve that level of consumption.

That's the whole point. There are natural form of Aspartame in the protein
foods. The problem is the experiment isn't testing it in the normal way. They
probably have to feed the mice with couple ton of protein in order to gain the
level of Aspartame they are doing. If you feed mice with couple tons of
protein, you know what they will die of.

What exactly are you talking about? On what basis do you claim that
the researchers fed the mice a couple tons of protein to give them the
aspartame or that the food contained natural aspartame? BTW, if you
read the study, they used rats, not mice.