No more aspartame in Diet Pepsi

[RecoveringJournalist]

I guess. But I'm not some 21-year-old who feels invulnerable. I'm a 54-year-old who never gets ill. I've never even had the flu. Blood chemistry/kidneys/liver are all normal (as of most recent checkup). Whatever 35 years of diet soda drinking has done to my body . . . where is it supposed to manifest itself?

I wonder about that too... I'm bigger than I should be, and I'm working on that, but I don't drink or smoke and my cholesterol and blood pressure are really good, but I drank a ton of soda, regular and diet, for about 30 years and I wonder if I'll be paying for that later...

 

[The Big Ragu]

I know you're not being literal, but the whole "gambling with your health" is a bit far afield, don't you think?

It's one thing to say, hey, this is a brand new substance about which we know nothing and with which we have no experience.

The use of artificial sweeteners is not remotely in that class.

I don't see it that way at all. The incidences of all kinds of health issues that we now spend ridiculous amounts of money combating have increased dramatically over my lifetime. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but there is a correlation with how our eating habits have dramatically changed -- after the typical diet remained relatively stable for a long, long time.

I can't pin any specific thing, such as Parkinson's disease or onset of Type II diabetes to any one thing -- for example, an artificial sweetener or a chemical preservative or some genetic modication of some food. We'ved forked around with too many things, too quickly. What I can surmise, though, is that we have thrown a lot of strange -- and unnatural -- variables into the mix, and at the same exact time we have seen various health problems become more prevalent.

I do see it as gambling when you ingest all of those chemicals while blissfully trying to convince yourself that you are not gambling. Gambling, by definition, is taking a chance.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I wonder about that too... I'm bigger than I should be, and I'm working on that, but I don't drink or smoke and my cholesterol and blood pressure are really good, but I drank a ton of soda, regular and diet, for about 30 years and I wonder if I'll be paying for that later...

You won't be paying for the diet soda.

 

[RecoveringJournalist]

You won't be paying for the diet soda.

I hope not.

 

[doctorquant]

I don't see it that way at all. The incidences of all kinds of health issues that we now spend ridiculous amounts of money combating have increased dramatically over my lifetime. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but there is a correlation with how our eating habits have dramatically changed -- after the typical diet remained relatively stable for a long, long time.

I can't pin any specific thing, such as Parkinson's disease or onset of Type II diabetes to any one thing -- for example, an artificial sweetener or a chemical preservative or some genetic modication of some food. We'ved forked around with too many things, too quickly. What I can surmise, though, is that we have thrown a lot of strange -- and unnatural -- variables into the mix, and at the same exact time we have seen various health problems become more prevalent.

I do see it as gambling when you ingest all of those chemicals while blissfully trying to convince yourself that you are not gambling. Gambling, by definition, is taking a chance.

Stylistically, I wish you'd quit referring to "those chemicals" ... I know what you mean, but it sounds baaaaaaaaaaaad.

The health issues to which you refer reflect the fact that: A) we live way the heck longer than we used to; and B) our lives are far more sedentary than they used to be. Both of those are manifestations of this being absolutely the best time in human history to be alive.

Think of it this way: Suppose we didn't know that basic sanitation improves our health. We'd have thus and such a rate of diseases and a life expectancy of, say 35. Now suppose that we figure sanitation out and we start cleaning up our act. We start living longer, but diseases that affect middle- and older-age people begin occurring at a higher rate (incidences per 100K). This is nothing other than a numbers game ... more people start living into those years in which those diseases occur. Yet it is not that much of a stretch to imagine someone arguing that we've taken a gamble with our health by introducing all "those chemicals" into our lives, when for millennia we (well, the survivors) got along without them.

 

[da man]

Stylistically, I wish you'd quit referring to "those chemicals" ... I know what you mean, but it sounds baaaaaaaaaaaad.

The health issues to which you refer reflect the fact that: A) we live way the heck longer than we used to; and B) our lives are far more sedentary than they used to be. Both of those are manifestations of this being absolutely the best time in human history to be alive.

Think of it this way: Suppose we didn't know that basic sanitation improves our health. We'd have thus and such a rate of diseases and a life expectancy of, say 35. Now suppose that we figure sanitation out and we start cleaning up our act. We start living longer, but diseases that affect middle- and older-age people begin occurring at a higher rate (incidences per 100K). This is nothing other than a numbers game ... more people start living into those years in which those diseases occur. Yet it is not that much of a stretch to imagine someone arguing that we've taken a gamble with our health by introducing all "those chemicals" into our lives, when for millennia we (well, the survivors) got along without them.

Just one point about average life expectancy: That number was skewed in the past by a much higher infant mortality rate. Way, way more people survive infancy/early childhood than used to, say, 100 or more years ago, which significantly altered the average life expectancy. For those who made it to adulthood, the life expectancy was quite a bit closer to the current number than the average suggests.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Appears that life expectancy for an 18-year-old female in that time period has gone from 44 to 62:

http://life-span.healthgrove.com/l/19/18

 

[The Big Ragu]

Stylistically, I wish you'd quit referring to "those chemicals" ... I know what you mean, but it sounds baaaaaaaaaaaad.

What should I call them? This thread started out talking about aspartame and Acesulfame K (what is still in Diet Pepsi). Aspartame is a methylester of apsartic acid and phenlalnanidipeptide. It was first sythensized by a chemists in 1965. It occurs nowhere in nature. Acesulfame K has a similar story -- except that it was discovered (again, by a chemist) by accident in 1967, not intentionally.

The health issues to which you refer reflect the fact that: A) we live way the heck longer than we used to; and B) our lives are far more sedentary than they used to be. Both of those are manifestations of this being absolutely the best time in human history to be alive.

Think of it this way: Suppose we didn't know that basic sanitation improves our health. We'd have thus and such a rate of diseases and a life expectancy of, say 35. Now suppose that we figure sanitation out and we start cleaning up our act. We start living longer, but diseases that affect middle- and older-age people begin occurring at a higher rate (incidences per 100K). This is nothing other than a numbers game ... more people start living into those years in which those diseases occur. Yet it is not that much of a stretch to imagine someone arguing that we've taken a gamble with our health by introducing all "those chemicals" into our lives, when for millennia we (well, the survivors) got along without them.

The prevalence of heart disease and Type II diabetes (just two things that get a lot of focus -- there is so much noise surrounding this, which is exactly my point) are not the result of people living longer. We have children, young adults, relatively young people seeing incidence of those things at levels we didn't used to. I would guess that sedentary lifestyles have contributed to it, as you suggest, but that is just ONE thing -- including our diets -- that has changed significantly and correlates with those things.

I'd suggest you may be getting the chicken and the egg confused. It seems likely that people are living longer due to technological advances that treat diseases -- and it seems likely that is happening despite the harm we have done to ourselves (with technological changes) that may be working to our detriment. If we have afflicted ourselves with a diabetes problem and at the same time we have come up with more ways to treat diabetes, it doesn't negate the fact that we would devote much fewer resources on dealing with the diabetes epidemic (freeing up things for better uses) if we weren't causing the epidemic at the same time.

Again, though, I am not even making those causal relationships, the way others are so eager to to tell us that "it causes cancer" or that it is "safe, safe, safe!" I'm saying that in the absence of knowing to what extent the introduction to our food supply of artificial ingredients synthesized in labs (Is that better?) is or isn't harmful, or has or hasn't contributed to a bunch of health problems that cropped up at the same time they appeared, I'll personally choose to sit on the sidelines and stick with natural foods. It seems like the safer bet to me.

 

[doctorquant]

Just one point about average life expectancy: That number was skewed in the past by a much higher infant mortality rate. Way, way more people survive infancy/early childhood than used to, say, 100 or more years ago, which significantly altered the average left expectancy. For those who made it to adulthood, the life expectancy was quite a bit closer to the current number than the average suggests.

That's correct about the skew, but, to me, that increase for those surviving to adulthood seems pretty substantial. A 50-year-old white male in 1900 would be expected to live another 20.7 years. By 2000, that 50-year-old would be expected to live another 28 years. A similar 33% increase would be in play for a 30YO in 1900 as compared to a 30YO in 2000.

 

[Songbird]

Now we have to worry about ... the bees!

» The Globalists Are Killing You With Food Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[Dick Whitman]

Diabetes has gone up since people started eating kale.

 

[BTExpress]

Aspartame is a methylester of apsartic acid and phenlalnanidipeptide. It was first sythensized by a chemists in 1965. It occurs nowhere in nature.

There are a lot of toxic plants and foods that do appear in nature, too.