Hi,
First, I am certainly not anti-aspartame because I believe that even
if there is a slight risk from it, the risk from sugar, or more
accurately excess/empty calories is much greater, but I'm wondering
whether the study commonly cited by the anti-aspartame crowd about
formaldehyde adducts binding proteins is accurate, whether there are
other studies that have not shown this, etc. My understanding is that
formaldehyde really never builds up even in severe cases of methanol
poisoning because the conversion to formate, which is only dangerous
when it accumulates to high enough amounts to cause acidosis, is very
efficient. Were the people who did this study quacks, was it not a
real study, was there more to the study than the scare-mongerers are
reporting, or what?
Ignoramus25780 - 12 Jul 2004 02:20 GMT
sci.med.nutrition would be a better outlet for your question. I know
that some anti-aspartame studies focused on its neurotoxicity, via
aspartic acid. I refer you to "the taste that kills" book, and I can
look up some references for you.
i
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> real study, was there more to the study than the scare-mongerers are
> reporting, or what?
KittenLove99 - 12 Jul 2004 06:34 GMT
from my own experience, I found my body tolerated sacchrin a lot better than
aspartame - too much aspartame and I gain weight - YES REALLY. :-)
Cynthia Perry - 12 Jul 2004 17:00 GMT
>Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>real study, was there more to the study than the scare-mongerers are
>reporting, or what?
Well, all I can tell you is that because of overexposure to
formaldehyde while I was doing color photography (it is in the
stabilizer), I became VERY allergic to it.
But I have been drinking aspartame sweetened diet sodas (various
brands) for years and years and years, both before and after
discovering my allergy to formaldehyde.
So my guess is that there is no *real* problem.
Cynthia