RE: FWD: Rat Study Shows Cancer, Aspartame Link (WebMD)

[Guest guest]

> There should be a 'baseline group' (sorry, can't think of the

> proper term right now) that *wasn't* fed aspartame, to compare

> the results to. It sounds like there wasn't. If there wasn't,

> then this was indeed a seriously flawed study, and I wouldn't

> put much stock in it.

That would be a " control group " , and they had one. FWIW, control groups are

NOT always necessary -- it depends on the design of the study.

You can read/download the full article for free in PDF format at

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf if you like. I'm still

sluggin' through it here.

[Guest guest]

--- Noctaire noctaire@...> wrote:

> > There should be a 'baseline group' (sorry,

> can't think of the

> > proper term right now) that *wasn't* fed

> aspartame, to compare

> > the results to. It sounds like there wasn't.

> If there wasn't,

> > then this was indeed a seriously flawed

> study, and I wouldn't

> > put much stock in it.

>

> That would be a " control group " , and they had

> one. FWIW, control groups are

> NOT always necessary -- it depends on the

> design of the study.

>

> You can read/download the full article for free

> in PDF format at

>

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf

> if you like. I'm still

> sluggin' through it here.

>

>

Thanks ! Was having a senior moment here -

and even DH couldn't remember the term.

Thanks also for the link; I will check it out

tomorrow when my brain is working.

CindyB.

[Guest guest]

I haven't been persuaded by previous claims of the carcinogenic

properties of various artificial sweeteners. After reading this

journal article on aspartame, the results got my attention. However, I

see a number of problems. First, as has been noted, there were no data

on age-of-death of the control vs experimental groups, so it's not

possible to evaluate the results presented based on differences due to

longevity. Also, increased incidence of cancer was found at doses at

or above about 10 times the normal daily consumption (though within

the daily recommended amount). A cumulative dose often is not the same

as a concentrated dose. Although the control group didn't receive

aspartame, a more important control would have been to provide a

dietary source of methanol. (The article mentioned tomato juice--if

you could get a rat to drink it. Don't care for it myself. :-) Without

that control, what this study shows at best is the carcinogenic

effects of methanol consumption. (As the authors point out, the other

metabolites of aspartame need to be studied.) So, draw your own

conclusions. Personally, despite these shortcomings, this study gives

me pause enough that I will watch my consumption of aspartame in

future, but not eliminate it. I will, however, give up tomato juice .

Bob

>

> > There should be a 'baseline group' (sorry, can't think of the

> > proper term right now) that *wasn't* fed aspartame, to compare

> > the results to. It sounds like there wasn't. If there wasn't,

> > then this was indeed a seriously flawed study, and I wouldn't

> > put much stock in it.

>

> That would be a " control group " , and they had one. FWIW, control

groups are

> NOT always necessary -- it depends on the design of the study.

>

> You can read/download the full article for free in PDF format at

> http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf if you like.

I'm still

> sluggin' through it here.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> My tomato juice comment was tongue-in-cheek of course. You knew that,

> right?

I figured as much. I was speaking more toward the serious criticisms.

As hard as it is to believe, there are some critics of this study who are

actually using the comparison.

What's truly frightening is that Joe Consumer will fall for it.

> But I guess a little ethanol in diet soda could go a long way

> ;-) I think this rat study was relatively well designed, but few of us

> eat the equivalent of Purina rat chow as our daily diet, even SBDers.

> I would be more interested in epidemiological studies of aspartame

> use. Unfortunately, these would be difficult to conduct because people

> often use more than one kind of artificial sweetener. The link below

> is to a recent survey of the research literature on the health risks

> of artificial sweeteners:

>

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=

pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15367404&query_hl=6

>

> From the abstract:

>

> > Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder

> > cancer-inducing effects of saccharin and cyclamate that

> > had been reported from animal studies in rats. Despite

> > some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence

> > that aspartame is carcinogenic. Case-control studies showed

> > an elevated relative risk of 1.3 for heavy artificial

> > sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of >1.7 g/day.

>

> Hopefully you can access the full article if you want without a Med

> School link.

Human experimentation is a difficult proposition at best. As with most

other experiments, I'm sure they'd find whatever result they were looking

for anyway. I think the end all be all to this debate is simple -- it's too

early to say with any measure of certainty exactly what the long-term

effects of these substances are on the human body. There are clear short

term effects that should cause anyone with even a short measure of common

sense to at least pause and consider. There are a lot of folks out there

desperate to lose weight without sacrifice -- a prime demographic for these

companies -- so I have no doubt we will eventually get to see the long term

effects as there is currently an unorganized, ongoing longitudinal study

underway on a significant population.

The conclusion I've come to, on the whole, is that we simply need to move

away from the lab and back to the garden. There's more here to consider

than just artificial sweeteners when looking at the big picture and

eventually I believe we'll reach a point where we look back and say, " what

were we thinking? " .

Just my two cents.