Revision as of 13:15, 2 October 2021 editClaustro123 (talk | contribs)57 edits →death: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:19, 2 October 2021 edit undoValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,508 edits →death: not really usable hereNext edit → | ||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
] (]) 13:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | ] (]) 13:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
: That is hardly usable here. Let's look at the title and a few sentences from the article. They tell us that this is a very general study not applicable to Aspartame specifically. | |||
{{quotebox| | |||
Death by Diet Soda? | |||
A new study that links artificially sweetened beverages to premature death is prompting public angst. Some scientists say it has significant flaws. | |||
... a new study that found prodigious consumers of artificially sweetened drinks were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who rarely drank sugar-free beverages. | |||
The study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, followed 450,000 Europeans over 16 years and tracked mortality among soft-drink consumers of all persuasions — both those with a fondness for sugary beverages and those who favored sugar-free drinks.}} | |||
: The rest of the NYT article also refers to "other research in the United States has found a correlation between artificially sweetened beverages and premature death." Again, not specific to Aspartame and the number of confounders is enormous. The lifestyles of people who tend to drink large amounts of soft drinks, sugary or otherwise, isn't good, so there is no surprise here. Are large quantities of artificial sweeteners not good for our health? Probably. Large quantities of junk food and empty calories are not good. Large quantities of unsweetened fruit juices isn't good either. When free from the slowing effects of their natural fibers, they assault the pancreas and can cause blood sugar spikes. Any diabetic knows this. Too high a percentage of even "natural" sugars in the diet isn't good, and one can get far too much compared to what one would get just eating fruit as is. It's hard to "overdose" on apples or oranges in their natural state. {{;)}} The stomach can only hold so much at a time. -- ] (]) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:19, 2 October 2021
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
To-do list for Aspartame controversy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2012-03-11
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
more on aspartame
see:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929
Claustro123 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
/* Ramazzini studies */
Without altering the intent, I reworked this section significantly to:
♦ improve source material referencing; restructure in-line citations for clarity;
♦ improve syntax, diction, and grammar for readability/aesthetics/neutral voice (i.e. – although possible/probable, concluding the ERF refused to cooperate is not justifiable on the record while their ineptness is on many counts);
♦ changed the content to better reflect the issues (e.g. – overcrowding of the animals was interpretable as an ethical issue not an elementary method breech and confound; "possibly carcinogenic infections" was too short, abstract and insufficient to convey the problem; etc...).
More can be done here and in several other pages as the ERF and CSPI continue to campaign on remarkably poor research. Interestingly, a newer investigation, including information from an on-site NTP inspection, found that with the exception of the lymphoma/leukemia bioassays (Soffritti's work regarding sucralose, aspartame, etc...) the ERF adheres to best-practices and produces reliable research (Gift et al. 2013) harv error: no target: CITEREFGift_et_al.2013 (help). I find parenthetical citations vastly more aesthetically pleasing and compositionally functional. Please let me know if I have over-stepped by making the changes contemporaneous to this post.
Gift, Jeffrey S.; Caldwell, Jane C.; Jinot, Jennifer; Evans, Marina V.; Cote, Ila; Vandenberg, John J. (2013). "Scientific Considerations for Evaluating Cancer Bioassays Conducted by the Ramazzini Institute". Environmental Health Perspectives. 121 (11–12): 1253–1263. doi:10.1289/ehp.1306661. ISSN 0091-6765. Retrieved 2019-01-16. {{cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help)
BiosocialPolymath (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Sources
I do a great deal of technical research and writing, and appreciate the caution about primary sourcing. However, research done and communicated well, by truly professional principles not attached to the outcomes, often within themselves meet the exception in Misplaced Pages:MEDREV, " Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources." That is, the primary source will conduct a scathing critique of itself with reference to extant work and standards within the field. In case you missed it I noted these were exceptional, as such they are worthy of being included amongst other rigorous sources.
BiosocialPolymath (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Starting work on Merkle email refs
I noticed that some of the references are now dead links and some of the references are not as robust as they should be around the Nancy Merkle email hoax. It isn't a quick fix, so I just wanted potential editors to know that I am starting an edit that will span sections but focus on the Merkle email.
Tpanagos (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that we do not remove deadlinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding
I would like to add a few meta analysis about aspartame and the research outcome in relation to industry funding. It seems odd to me that nearly every industry funded study is in favor of aspartame while most independently funded studies are not. Any objections to include these meta analysis in the article? https://lightenyourtoxicload.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dr-Walton-survey-of-aspartame-studies.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015869/ --Mikeschaerer (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I moved your thread to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads go. It increases the chance other editors will see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mikeschaerer also, your first link seems incomplete. However, lightenyourtoxicload.com seems unlikely to be a WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mikeschaerer - I made this revert at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not WP:RS, and the PMID 27606602 review is WP:OFFTOPIC for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT as an "aspartame controversy". Zefr (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Zefr Could you elaborate why the source "lightenyour..." is not compliant with WP:RS. Also what about this review? http://www.laleva.org/it/docs/Millstone_EFSA_Aspartame_9Jan2014.pdf --Mikeschaerer (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- The "lighten..." source has no bibliographic information, such as when/where it was published, whether it was peer-reviewed, etc., so remains without WP:V. For an encyclopedia, we need high-quality reviews by authoritative sources, WP:MEDASSESS. The 2013 EFSA assessment of aspartame - mentioned in the first sentence of the Millstone paper (which also has no bibliographic info) - states, as does the FDA, that there is no concern about the safety of aspartame. These are acceptable WP:MEDRS sources, which confirm there is no scientifically-validated "controversy". --Zefr (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Zefr Could you elaborate why the source "lightenyour..." is not compliant with WP:RS. Also what about this review? http://www.laleva.org/it/docs/Millstone_EFSA_Aspartame_9Jan2014.pdf --Mikeschaerer (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mikeschaerer - I made this revert at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not WP:RS, and the PMID 27606602 review is WP:OFFTOPIC for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT as an "aspartame controversy". Zefr (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
death
Here is a 16 year study reported by the New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/health/diet-soda-health-death.html?searchResultPosition=1
Claustro123 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is hardly usable here. Let's look at the title and a few sentences from the article. They tell us that this is a very general study not applicable to Aspartame specifically.
Death by Diet Soda?
A new study that links artificially sweetened beverages to premature death is prompting public angst. Some scientists say it has significant flaws.
... a new study that found prodigious consumers of artificially sweetened drinks were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who rarely drank sugar-free beverages.
The study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, followed 450,000 Europeans over 16 years and tracked mortality among soft-drink consumers of all persuasions — both those with a fondness for sugary beverages and those who favored sugar-free drinks.
- The rest of the NYT article also refers to "other research in the United States has found a correlation between artificially sweetened beverages and premature death." Again, not specific to Aspartame and the number of confounders is enormous. The lifestyles of people who tend to drink large amounts of soft drinks, sugary or otherwise, isn't good, so there is no surprise here. Are large quantities of artificial sweeteners not good for our health? Probably. Large quantities of junk food and empty calories are not good. Large quantities of unsweetened fruit juices isn't good either. When free from the slowing effects of their natural fibers, they assault the pancreas and can cause blood sugar spikes. Any diabetic knows this. Too high a percentage of even "natural" sugars in the diet isn't good, and one can get far too much compared to what one would get just eating fruit as is. It's hard to "overdose" on apples or oranges in their natural state. The stomach can only hold so much at a time. -- Valjean (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)