How diet soda causes weight gain

[Stefan Molyneux]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpoAtwVyzZI]

[endostate]

Also:Aspartame - Sweet Misery, A Poisoned World! Full Length (1:29:55)[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0UDeydlEDM:400:350]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0UDeydlEDM

[Alan C.]

This article might be of interest to some:

Panic Attacks as a Problem of pH

...a recent study from the laboratory of John Wemmie at the University of Iowa may have revealed an important new clue to the underlying cause of recurring panic attacks: It may, in effect, be a problem of pH -- of acidity at key junctures in the brain.

The amygdala, an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain, has a critical role in the circuits that control the experience of fear, both instinctive fear (like being afraid of snakes or large carnivores) and fear that is learned from life experiences. The Iowa study shows that a very basic metabolic factor, pH -- acidity -- also has an essential role in fear.

In general, the pH of our brain is carefully regulated. A large increase or decrease in brain acidity can seriously disrupt brain functioning. This new study indicates that pH can sometimes rise and fall in synapses, the points of communication between individual neurons in the brain. Some synapses include specialized proteins that "sense" acidity.  These proteins (called "'acid-sensing ion channels", or ASICs) stimulate neurons when increased acid is detected.

. . .

...one of the many beneficial effects of aerobic exercise training (like running or cycling) is that metabolically active tissues (including the brain) become more efficient at consuming -- removing -- lactic acid. There is growing evidence that exercise training has powerful anti-anxiety and anti-panic effects. This invites the speculation that exercise training may reduce anxiety in part by improving the brain's ability to prevent excess acid accumulation in acid-sensitive brain regions involved in fear. If experiments support this idea, then specific exercise training regimens could be designed to take maximum advantage of this anti-anxiety mechanism.

[SimonF]

I've bumped into some videos on the topic of artificial sweetners and weight gain at Dr. Gregers channel:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1fZKT4kUDA]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEdDlFTLcUU]He explains the various theories around the problem, full source disclosure as well. 

[Nathan]

Sorry to be annoyingly skeptical, but these claims about PH and weight loss are not well supported and the aspartame crap was exposed as a hoax many years ago and has several times since been proven incorrect by several university studies.

I feel pretty annoyed by all the constant, unsubstantiated nonsense people repeat continuously across the internet these days.  Pot "cures" cancer, aspartame is bad, all the claims made about the paleo diet, this ph diet, atkins, yada yada yada.  It gets old and it's frustrating that nobody checks into the validity of someone's claims prior to repeating it.

I'm not saying I've not done the same thing at times, but I'm trying to stop.  It doesn't help with credibility which makes spreading the message of freedom all the more difficult.

I do appreciate Allan's efforts to find studies showing that anxiety attacks may be reduced by exercise and *could* be related to PH. That doesn't say anything about the claims made in the video.

[SimonF]

 

I feel pretty annoyed by all the constant, unsubstantiated nonsense people repeat continuously across the internet these days.  Pot "cures" cancer, aspartame is bad...

 

Aspartame-Induced Fibromyalgia

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/aspartame-induced-fibromyalgia/ 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Pot "cures" cancer, aspartame is bad, all the claims made about the paleo diet, this ph diet, atkins, yada yada yada.

Just curious: and what about fluoride?

-Dylan

[Nathan]

 

 

I feel pretty annoyed by all the constant, unsubstantiated nonsense people repeat continuously across the internet these days.  Pot "cures" cancer, aspartame is bad...

 

 

Aspartame-Induced Fibromyalgia

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/aspartame-induced-fibromyalgia/ 

 

 

I'm sorry, but that's not at all scientific. It's pure self-reporting and does not refute the afforementioned studies which got repeated results.  Also, I don't know the degree to which fibromyalgia is not psychosomatic in nature.  It's quite often attributed to or correlated with depression and anxiety disorders.

Also, here is the Wikipedia comment on the hoax:

 

 

A widely circulated email hoax cited aspartame as the cause of numerous diseases.^[58] The Center for Disease Control investigated and was unable to find any significantepidemiological associations to serious risk or harm.^[59]

The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener.^[6] Reviews conducted by regulatory agencies decades after aspartame was first approved have supported its continued availability.^[60]

 

[Nathan]

 

Pot "cures" cancer, aspartame is bad, all the claims made about the paleo diet, this ph diet, atkins, yada yada yada.

Just curious: and what about fluoride?

-Dylan

 

I don't know. Flouride is good for strengthening the enamel on your teeth, that's about it. Wikipedia had this to say on the toxicology:

 

 

Main article: Fluoride toxicity

Reaction of the irreversible inhibitordiisopropylfluorophosphate with a serine protease

Fluoride-containing compounds are so diverse that it is not possible to generalize on their toxicity, which depends on their reactivity and structure, and in the case of salts, their solubility and ability to release fluoride ions.

Soluble fluoride salts, of which sodium fluoride is the most common, are mildly toxic but have resulted in both accidental and suicidal deaths fromacute poisoning.^[3] While the minimum fatal dose in humans is not known, the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).^[24][25][26] However, a case of a fatal poisoning of an adult with 4 grams of sodium fluoride is documented,^[27] while a dose of 120 g sodium fluoride has been survived.^[28] A toxic dose that may lead to adverse health effects is estimated at 3 to 5 mg/kg of elemental fluoride.^[29] For Sodium fluorosilicate (Na₂SiF₆), the median lethal dose (LD₅₀) orally in rats is 0.125 g/kg, corresponding to 12.5 g for a 100 kg adult.^[30] The fatal period ranges from 5 min to 12 hours.^[27] The mechanism of toxicity involves the combination of the fluoride anion with the calcium ions in the blood to form insoluble calcium fluoride, resulting in hypocalcemia; calcium is indispensable for the function of the nervous system, and the condition can be fatal. Treatment may involve oral administration of dilute calcium hydroxide or calcium chloride to prevent further absorption, and injection of calcium gluconate to increase the calcium levels in the blood.^[27]Hydrogen fluoride is more dangerous than salts such as NaF because it is corrosive and volatile, and can result in fatal exposure through inhalation or upon contact with the skin; calcium gluconate gel is the usual antidote.^[31]

In the higher doses used to treat osteoporosis, sodium fluoride can cause pain in the legs and incomplete stress fractures when the doses are too high; it also irritates the stomach, sometimes so severely as to cause ulcers. Slow-release and enteric-coated versions of sodium fluoride do not have gastric side effects in any significant way, and have milder and less frequent complications in the bones.^[32] In the lower doses used for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on aesthetic appearance or on public health.^[33]

The doses in water are far too low to cause any real adverse effects on anyone.  I don't think fluoride would be added to water if it were not a state monopoly.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

 

I don't know. Flouride is good for
strengthening the enamel on your teeth, that's about it. Wikipedia had
this to say on the toxicology:

 

I found this a little more enlightening than the Wikipedia article:

As well as just reading over the general history (and general hellacious fury) of the element fluorine itself. Isaac Asimov wrote a pretty cool article about it in this book. It doesn't prove anything about the uses of fluoride ions (Asimov even mentions how "it's now used to prevent tooth decay"), but it definitely gives one a new outlook on the element.

Also, fluorine's (or for this case, fluoride's) valence electron structure is really similar to iodine. From research and scraping around I did on the internet some years ago, I came to understand that fluoride ions (as well as bromide ions--although I have no idea why chloride doesn't do this) are very effective at blocking iodide-receptors in the thyroid, which can lead to hypothyroidism.

As for aspartame, do you have any of these university studies handy? I don't really understand what argument anyone has for something that readily metabolizes into methanol.

-Dylan

 

[SimonF]

 

A widely circulated email hoax cited aspartame as the cause of numerous diseases.^[58] The Center for Disease Control investigated and was unable to find any significantepidemiological associations to serious risk or harm.^[59]

The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener.^{/emoticons/emotion-14.gif} Reviews conducted by regulatory agencies decades after aspartame was first approved have supported its continued availability.^[60]

When a public health body declares that epidemiology demonstrates that something is harmless, it only destroys their scientific credibility.

Epidemiolgy cannot be used to discredit a hypothesis. To discredit a hypothesis requires experiments to produce negative data.

In the case of aspartame there are already both a plausible biological mechanism for harm and various case studies to suport the hypothesis that harm is occurring. Humans cannot be subjected to dangerous chemical experiments and certainly not in sufficient numbers to prove something is harmless. The existence of a plausible biological mechanism plus negative case studies cannot be dismissed by some population statistics, it is good reasonable evidence.

The vast majority of us would be hospitalised by trying a 500lb bench press, yet a very few men can do so. Population statistics can be useful to identify phenomena for further examination, they cannot be used to demonstrate substance safety.

Trusting your health to government agencies is a foolish gamble. 

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tph_Yz_OHpU]

 

[LovePrevails]

[Nathan]

If a thorough examination by a public body is not credible evidence, and all you have is a weakly supported hypothesis, then the evidence is negligible at best, which leads me to question why anyone bothers. I don't know what the roots of this bias is.

 

Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide,^[12][13] with FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut".^[4] The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe as a non-nutritive sweetener.^[7]

 

Government or no, there is a consensus among agency and university researchers worldwide.  I would say it's even safer than plain old sugar, considering the deleterious effects sugar has on the body, weight gain and insulin sensitivity.  It's a safe sugar alternative for diabetics. It took 4000 g of the stuff and still didn't cause cancer in rats. That's the equivalent of a thousand diet cokes a day.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

 

 

Many studies have looked for health effects in lab animals fed aspartame, often in doses higher than 4,000 mg/kg per day over their lifetimes. These studies have not found any health problems that are consistently linked with aspartame.

Two studies published by a group of Italian researchers suggested that very high doses of aspartame might increase the risk of some blood-related cancers (leukemias and lymphomas) in rats. However, both the FDA and the EFSA have called these results into question, citing a lack of some important data in the published studies and other concerns.

I'm not even sure where all this anti-aspartame crap came from other than the hoax that caused panic, similar to the fraudulent study about vaccines which also caused widespread panic. Ever since these hoaxes, their claims continue to be perpetuated ad-infinitum.  Given the government's attack on sugar years back, I wouldn't be surprised if the sugar lobby had something to do with it.  Now that it's largely been debunked we have this ph imbalance B.S.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

 

If a thorough examination by a public body is not credible evidence, and all you have is a weakly supported hypothesis, then the evidence is negligible at best, which leads me to question why anyone bothers. I don't know what the roots of this bias is.

 

Maybe my last post was missed.

Again raising the question, what is the fundamental argument someone can come up with the claim that a food additive that readily metabolizes into methanol is safe?

-Dylan

[Nathan]

 

 

If a thorough examination by a public body is not credible evidence, and all you have is a weakly supported hypothesis, then the evidence is negligible at best, which leads me to question why anyone bothers. I don't know what the roots of this bias is.

 

Maybe my last post was missed.

Again raising the question, what is the fundamental argument someone can come up with the claim that a food additive that readily metabolizes into methanol is safe?

-Dylan

 

I dunno, but methanol is in most healthy foods: 

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+93

[SimonF]

 

If a thorough examination by a public body is not credible evidence, and all you have is a weakly supported hypothesis, then the evidence is negligible at best, which leads me to question why anyone bothers. I don't know what the roots of this bias is.

 

How thorough was this examination? A number of studies showing harmful effects have been cited in the videos I presented here. What specific responses have there been to these papers to discredit them?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

 

I dunno, but methanol is in most healthy foods: 

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+93

 

Just took a look at the link and found:

 

Toxicity Summary:


Methanol occurs naturally in humans, animals and plants. It is a natural
constituent in blood, urine, saliva and expired air. ... The two most
important sources of background body burdens for methanol and formate
are diet and metabolic processes. Methanol is available in the diet
principally from fresh fruits and vegetables, fruit juices ... fermented
beverages ... and diet foods (principally soft drinks). The artificial sweetner aspartame is widely used and, on hydrolysis, 10%
(by weight) of the molecule is converted to free methanol, which is
available for absorption.

 

There's a radical difference between a bonded methoxy group and a free methanol molecule. A quick stumble around the internet has led me to find that the source of methanol in these "healthy foods" is a methoxy group which is bound to certain galacturonic acids in pectin chains. Pectin molecules can undergo hydrolysis via the enzyme pectinesterase to create pectic acid and methanol. According to Wikipedia, pectinesterase "is found in all higher plants as well as in some bacteria and fungi" (i.e. not humans). Thus when eating pectin, the methoxy groups usually remain bound and pass through before anything has a chance to pop them off into free methanol. Aspartame, on the other hand, readily converts to free methanol via digestion.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by healthy foods, as the primary concern for methanol in foods is from giving fruits and vegetables, which contain pectinesterase, the chance to break down their pectins into pectic acid and methanol. Particularly in things like canned fruits and vegetables or orange juice, which appear to eventually break down their own pectins and let free methanol loose.

So no, methanol is not in most healthy foods. Methoxy groups are in most healthy foods, some of which can become dangerous through hydrolysis into methanol if not stored correctly. And if the danger of methanol at low levels isn't clear enough, I took another piece out of the toxicity summary you provided:

 

The acute and short term toxicity of methanol varies greatly between
different species, toxicity being highest in species with a relatively
poor ability to metabolize formate. In such cases of poor metabolism of
formate, fatal methanol poisoning occurs as a result of metabolic
acidosis and neuronal toxicity, whereas, in animals that readily
metabolize formate, consequences of CNS depression (coma, respiratory
failure, etc.) are usually the cause of death. Sensitive primate species
(humans and monkeys) develop increased blood formate concentrations
following methanol exposure, while resistant rodents, rabbits and dogs
do not. Humans and non-human primates are uniquely sensitive to the
toxic effects of methanol.

 

So to repeat what I said before, I don't really understand what argument anyone has for something that readily metabolizes into methanol. That's like having a child's toy that explodes into firey, sticky goo and people arguing over which studies show that it's safe or not.

-Dylan

[mythness]

I feel pretty annoyed by all the constant, unsubstantiated nonsense people repeat continuously across the internet these days.  Pot "cures" cancer, aspartame is bad, all the claims made about the paleo diet, this ph diet, atkins, yada yada yada.  It gets old and it's frustrating that nobody checks into the validity of someone's claims prior to repeating it.

It's not that complicated, and the onus is one the person (or group) introducing a synthetic food additive to demonstrate its safety; especially longterm safety, which is very hard to establish. Aspartame contains aspartic acid (excitatory) and methanol (easily released into the blood and the cells.) In fruits and alcoholic drinks, methanol is bound with pectin or countered by ethanol. Not so with aspartame. In whole foods, proteins (large and complex) are slowly digested, with steady absorption of individual amino acids into the blood. Not so with aspartame. You get a spike of aspartic acid, unlike with whole foods; especially on an empty stomach (e.g., drinking a Diet Coke at home.) Like glutamic acid, this amino acid is excitatory, causing your neurons to fire with greater frequency. In fact, even whole foods are not that safe, such as when consuming too much muscle meat, since the amino acid profile is unhealthy in of itself. Aspartame is a quick shot of aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and free methanol. One drink isn't going to kill you, but drinking it regularly... well, you get the idea. The same harm applies to longterm consumption of great amounts of muscle meats. The difference is that while muscle meats contain a harmful amino acid profile, they are released together steadily into the blood, unlike aspartame. This doesn't even take into consideration the possible synergestic affect of aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol.

 

No thanks, I won't be drinking any aspartame any time soon. Not missing on much, if you ask me.

[mythness]

 

The doses [of fluoride] in water are far too low to cause any real adverse effects on anyone.

 

 

 

At this point I give up. I don't know if you're being serious or not.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

 

 

In fact, even whole foods are not that safe, such as when consuming too much muscle meat, since the amino acid profile is unhealthy in of itself. Aspartame is a quick shot of aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and free methanol. One drink isn't going to kill you, but drinking it regularly... well, you get the idea. The same harm applies to longterm consumption of great amounts of muscle meats. The difference is that while muscle meats contain a harmful amino acid profile, they are released together steadily into the blood, unlike aspartame. This doesn't even take into consideration the possible synergestic affect of aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol.

 

 

My knowledge of biochemistry is pretty shaky. Would you mind explaining (or providing a decent explanation of another source if you have one on hand) why spikes in amino acids are particularly dangerous? Are the spikes in aspartic acid (or glutamic acid) and phenylalanine particularly bad, or is it bad in general to have any amino acid spike?

From what I understood before, the reason why eating meat isn't dangerous (and this may be the same as what you already said) is that a.) you're getting a well-balanced "mix" of all the amino acids and b.) they're being delivered in chain-form (i.e. proteins), which your body then has to metabolize down into the "raw resource" of the amino acids themselves, which takes some time and prevents the spike. Aspartame, on the other hand, gives you not only the instantaneous amino acid spike, but it does so with only two amino acids. Is this more or less the way you understand the situation or is there something I'm missing/got wrong?

-Dylan

[mythness]

My knowledge of biochemistry is pretty shaky.

 

Not a biochemist myself, either, but I realized (as with many other things) I was either not being told the whole truth or being outright lied to. Reminds me of my conversion to anarchism and voluntarism. What you said above is pretty much on the money. Free amino acids are not the same as proteins. Those in industry and government will repeat the mantra "a protein is a protein is a protein", just like they used to say (and sometimes still say) "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" or "a carb is a carb is a carb." Just ask a diabetic's opinion about carbohydrates and the glycemic index. He won't tell you "it's all the same." In fact, the concept behind a food's GI value, whether you find it important or not, is not about the total amount of carbs, but rather how quickly they are absorbed from the gut.

 

Whole proteins from real food take longer to digest and they almost always contain a mixture of amino acids. (They differ in three-dimensional structure as well.) I've never eaten a cut of meat that was made of only one or two specific amino acids. Much less important than the early "spikes" you get from aspartame or MSG (monosodium glutamate) is the ratio of certain amino acids to each other: Muscle meats have a lower ratio of glycine compared to gelatinous parts, such as gelatin, collagen, skin, and bone broths, which not only have much glycine compared to the other amino acids, but they also contain no tryptophan. So it's a good idea to eat gelatin here and there if you eat a lot of muscle meats. Or take dairy for example. Certain cheeses contain no whey protein, and hence have a lower ratio of tryptophan compared to milk, and especially compared to whey protein powders. Like I said, this is not nearly as important as the more obvious, unnatural spikes you get from aspartame and MSG. Aspartame is an even more interesting case, since it also releases methanol, not bound by fruit pectin. This may even be the darker side of the sweetener.

 

It is also the same reason why certain supplements might want to be avoided, such as amino acid chelates or 5-HTP (5-hydroxytryptophan). In the case of the former, you are essentially ingesting free amino acids. Makers of 5-HTP will even warn that some or most of the 5-HTP will convert to serotonin in the gut before reaching the brain. They may have special "blends" to overcome this. Instead of amino acid chelates, it's probably wiser to just get calcium and other minerals in salt forms, such as calcium carbonate, calcium gluconate, calcium citrate; or even in food-like supplements, like algae. Of course, the best "form"of minerals is... food.

 

Don't forget that a population's tolerance to toxins is usually
in a bell curve. Most people are somewhat tolerant, some people are very
resiliant, and some people are more sensitive. Those on the fart left
of the curve can't be ignored.

 

Here is another angle from an endocrinologist you might enjoy reading: http://raypeat.com/articles/aging/tryptophan-serotonin-aging.shtml

 

His articles can be long and dry, but they are worth reading.

 

Another favorite by food inustry and government is that many food additives are safe because they come from "natural sources" and are "too large to absorb": http://raypeat.com/articles/nutrition/carrageenan.shtml

 

Have fun.

 

[mythness]

As well as just reading over the general history (and general hellacious fury) of the element fluorine itself. Isaac Asimov wrote a pretty cool article about it in this book. It doesn't prove anything about the uses of fluoride ions (Asimov even mentions how "it's now used to prevent tooth decay"), but it definitely gives one a new outlook on the element.

Also, fluorine's (or for this case, fluoride's) valence electron structure is really similar to iodine. From research and scraping around I did on the internet some years ago, I came to understand that fluoride ions (as well as bromide ions--although I have no idea why chloride doesn't do this) are very effective at blocking iodide-receptors in the thyroid, which can lead to hypothyroidism.

 

I'm out after this, but I wanted to throw out another book about fluoride. It was written by the chemist Gerard Judd, who explains that fluoride ruptures the hydrogen bonds of enzymes and proteins, as well as competes with calcium in forming tooth enamel. (Fluoride does "harden" the enamel, at the cost of making it more brittle, due to its size.) Fluoride being put into the water supply does have quite an odd history, which you are probably familiar with. It started with the fertilizer industry (as well as other industries) that needed to find a way to get rid of this toxic byproduct. Dumping it into the sea or local rivers and lakes was not an option (and would have been extremely hazardous).

 

The best part is, this book (PDF) is free and has no copyright: Good Teeth, Birth to Death

 

It's filled with studies and statistics that destroy the myth how fluoride is essential for tooth health.

[mythness]

If you don't want to download the PDF, you can read the entire book in your browser here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52782418/Good-Teeth-Birth-To-Death-How-To-Remineralize-Teeth-Dr-Gerard-Judd-Nc001

[Cody Hall]

 

Pot "cures" cancer, aspartame is bad, all the claims made about the paleo diet, this ph diet, atkins, yada yada yada.

Just curious: and what about fluoride?

-Dylan

 

Great essay by Murray Rothbard concerning compulsory fluoridation in the USA:

"Fluoridation Revisited" http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard85.html