324
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] echo64@lemmy.world 139 points 2 years ago

1, it's aspartame

2, Mice aren't humans, and routinely, things that happen in mice do not happen in humans. It is not at all indicative of anything and can really only be used as a hint better than nothing for looking into similar effects in humans.

You don't need to change your diet, and you certainly don't need to replace it with sugar.

[-] LetterboxPancake@sh.itjust.works 75 points 2 years ago

*But drinking a glass of water from time to time won't kill you either.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago

Comment paid for Big Aspartame.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago
[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I see the Nutrasweet Lobbyists Association is here too!

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Big aspertame made that account 6 months ago, posted 1300 unrelated comments, just for this one moment...

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago
[-] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

How much is Big Sugar paying you?

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago
[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 2 years ago

Considering the patent was held by Monsanto, and all the decades of concerns have been raised by independent researchers but shut down by lobbying...

Well, I mean, who can you trust to not hide that they're making poison if not Monsanto?

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Not to mention that the gene pool of these lab mice is super small. Source: my brother is a PhD biochemist and lectured me often on this shit when I said, "hey, look at this study!"

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

The small gene pool is done on purpose. The mice are supposed to be as close to clones as possible so that you can have control populations and be confident that the results weren't affected by certain genes and mutations in the test population.

The size of the gene pool isn't really an issue though because they can be bred however it's required for tests. They have quite a lot of control over the genetics of those lab mice.

Testing for a cure for diabetes? They can produce mice that are almost guaranteed to develop diabetes that you can then try to cure.

[-] Bohurt@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Such a small groups are fine for initial investigation, they have enough of a size to be acceptable statistically for most of the performed studies. I don't think they'd get approval from ethical committee overseeing animal experiments without initial study like this to conduct something on very high groups.

[-] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Guarantee the study also states that you have to consume an ungodly amount of it too...

News reports grab on to stuff like this all the time. Like what they did with safrole.

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

The article actually states how much. 15% of the daily recommended amount.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago

There's a daily recommended amount for mice? Or was that 15% of the recommended amount for humans, which would be massive for mice?

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

15% of humans recommended amount. It's in the article.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

So 15% for a 60 kilogram human, on the lower end, would be the daily recommended amount for a 9 kilogram creature. A mouse weighs around 0.025 kilograms. So, that amount for the mice is for something 360 times larger.

Obviously it's more complicated than that with differing metabolisms and the like, but as a rough estimate, wow. That's a lot.

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I'm baffled by your willingness to elaborate at length about this, but not read the article where this is explained. Misinforming everyone in the process.

When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Actually no, the keyword is equivalent, so adjusted for body weight.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

Ah I think you're right.

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

It's the equivalent of the human daily dose. So adjusted for body weight. Loosely translated, it would be 15% of the daily recommended dose for mice.

[-] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I stand corrected! That's a ridiculously small amount!

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

Just in case you missed it, we discussed below that that's the 15% daily recommended amount for a human. That they gave to the mice. A creature several hundred times smaller.

So you were right in the first place.

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

No, it's the equivalent dose.

When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.

[-] papertowels@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

Can you cite your sources? This excerpt from the published article suggests you're wrong:

The FDA recommended maximum DIV for aspartame for humans is 50 mg/kg (33). Based on allometric conversion utilizing pharmacokinetic and body surface area parameters (43), the mouse equivalent of the human DIV is 615 mg/kg/d. Therefore, the male mice received a daily aspartame dose equivalent to 14.0%, 7.0%, and 3.5% of the FDA recommended human DIV, and the females received a dose equivalent to 15.5%, 7.7%, and 3.9% of the human DIV.

[-] AkaBobHoward@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

I am a relatively recent transplant from the red place, I can tell I ain't in Kansas anymore, actual good information being up voted so cool.

Aspartame is, because of all the claims against it, the single most studied food substance known, and it seems to somehow keep coming okay. There are a lot of studies with really bad methods that were a smear job attempt but science doing what it does they were labeled for what they are and disregarded. Is it possible to be allergic and a reaction to be anxiety sure, but that is not on the food.

this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
324 points (100.0% liked)

News

36063 readers
2931 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS