Phenylalinine: Happy Pill or Neuro-Toxin? A Newsvine Exclusive

Me either, but I took a fair amount of organic chemistry in school. D- and L- phenylalanine enantiomers, a form of stereoisomer.

Phenylalanine occurs in two chemical forms: L-phenylalanine, a natural amino acid found in proteins; and its mirror image, D-phenylalanine, a form synthesized in a laboratory. Some research has involved the L-form, others the D-form, and still others a combination of the two known as DL-phenylalanine.

In the body, phenylalanine is converted into another amino acid called tyrosine. Tyrosine in turn is converted into L-dopa, norepinephrine, and epinephrine, three key neurotransmitters (chemicals that transmit signals between nerve cells). Because some antidepressants work by raising levels of norepinephrine, various forms of phenylalanine have been tried as a possible treatment for depression.

D-phenylalanine (but not L-phenylalanine) has been proposed to treat chronic pain. It blocks enkephalinase, an enzyme that may act to increase pain levels in the body.
(iHerb Health Library)

I was mistaken in thinking that the method was conversion to phenethylamine though, apparently it does have some potential. The theory that D-phenylalanine could be used to treat depression was based on several studies that showed reduced levels of phenylethylamine in the urine of depression and ADD patients. A couple of studies have been done showing it does have some possibliities in treating depression and possibly pain.

.

Of course I know that anecdotal evidence, as it is called, has to be handled carefully. But it does point to a piece of evidence from the studies, that aspartame caused brain tumors.
The fit works for me, OK?

I wish they used it in the diet colas.

There is a Splenda sweetened Diet Coke available, but it can be hard to find.

One of the problems with artificial sweeteners that cannot ever be addressed by just a new chemical is that we do not just have sweet receptors on our tongue, we have them in our gut as well. So when you drink something that tastes sweet on the tongue, the gut also recognizes it as sweet and pumps out insulin to deal with the sugar it expects to find.

That's exactly why artificial sweeteners are so attractive to diabetics, Brian. You don't have to take a shot every time you want to drink a soda or eat a candy bar. Beyond that, I really don't see much use for them. This country is way too obsessed with appearance/dieting.

As noted there is a Diet Coke version with Splenda. Very hard to find in some areas. The packaging has a yellow stripe of sorts.

Pepsi One is the Pepsi equivalent. Also hard to find.

Some store-brand drinks use Splenda. I think all of Publix's drinks are Splenda now. They really skimp on the caffeine though so if that's what you want, drink something else.

I will have to double check since it was over a year ago that I looked into the Splenda for a friend of mine but I do know that I told her not to use it and can't remember what it was but it is not as sugar like as the pitch makes it seem, that much I am sure of there's a fancy bit of chemistry involved in the miracle.

One of the general problems with so many of life's quick fixes like low or no calorie is that bodies evolved forever, to deal with certain compounds and when they are confronted suddenly, in evolutionary terms with a barrage of new and foreign ones it sets things a kilter. Like dominoes in a row, moving one can set off a chain reaction.

Brian @ #6.2: that's really interesting. I didn't realize that about the insulin response at all.

It's one of the theories as to why people who drink diet sodas do not lose weight compared to people who drink regular sodas. Throwing off your body's insulin response could easily erase any positive effects of skipping 200 calories.

Your Gut Has Taste Receptors

"We now know that the receptors that sense sugar and artificial sweeteners are not limited to the tongue. Our work is an important advance for the new field of gastrointestinal chemosensation - how the cells of the gut detect and respond to sugars and other nutrients," said lead author, Robert F. Margolskee, MD, PhD Professor of Neuroscience at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. "Cells of the gut taste glucose through the same mechanisms used by taste cells of the tongue. The gut taste cells regulate secretion of insulin and hormones that regulate appetite. Our work sheds new light on how we regulate sugar uptake from our diets and regulate blood sugar levels."

Phentermine, or (α, α)-Dimethylphenethylamine is not derived from phenylalanine.

Do you know how the rates of brain cancer today compare with 40 years ago?

Sharp Rise in Brain Cancer Rates Found Among Americans Under 45 (1990)

Although brain cancer remains quite rare, the incidence jumped from around 2.2 new cases for every 100,000 people in 1973, to 3.1 cases per 100,000 people 13 years later, the study reported.

What's the rate today? National Cancer Institute Brain Tumor Study in Adults: Fact Sheet:

The rate for people under age 65 is 4.5 for every 100,000 people in the United States

2.2 to 3.1 to 4.5. Something is going on, but it's incredibly hard to pinpoint what. There are so many more environmental toxins, and so many ways they can all interact with each other. Maybe it's not aspartame, but only aspartame + pesticides + smog? It is basically impossible to test each new chemical for safety, let alone the combinations of chemicals.

You could just as easily single out any environmental factor that has been introduced in the last 2 decades - there's no reason to single out artificial sweeteners except a taboo of the "unnatural".

For all we know computer monitors are giving us brain cancer, and ADHD, and everything else, but that doesn't mean we spend any less time on the computer. It's actually much -more- likely that your computer is the culprit because no one has sat thousands of mice in front of computers to see if there are ill effects, but they have done that for artificial sweeteners and found no correlation.

the definitive, inescapable evidence that it tastes like @!$%#.

Yes, it seriously does. I just use plain old sugar, I can't stand the taste of artificial sweeteners. This is a very good article, though, and from the comments I'm tempted to try stevia.

but they have done that for artificial sweeteners and found no correlation.

Are you sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Saccharin_and_cancer

Throughout the 1960s, various studies suggested that saccharin might be an animal carcinogen. Concern peaked in 1977, after the publication of a study indicating an increased rate of bladder cancer in rats fed large doses of saccharin. In that year, Canada banned saccharin while the United States Food and Drug Administration also proposed a ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose#Safety

After FDA approval, a study published in the Journal of Head and Face Pain reported sucralose as a possible trigger for migraine patients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

They think that even a moderate spike in blood plasma phenylalanine levels from typical ingestion may have adverse consequences in long-term use.
...
The study of 1,800 rats demonstrates that aspartame administered at varying levels in feed causes a statistically significant increase of lymphomas-leukemias and malignant tumors of the kidneys in female rats and malignant tumors of peripheral nerves in male rats.
...
The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay not only confirm, but also reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM's multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when lifespan exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased
...
Some critics of Aspartame use have criticized its approval process specifically; they note that the head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, was removed from his post on the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981). Previously, Goyan refused to approve the legalization of aspartame, due to the studies documenting increase of cancers in rats. Reagan appointed Arthur Hayes, MD, (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983) Commissioner, who legalized aspartame a year later.
...
Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia (aspartame's main competitor then[citation needed]) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records

The FDA approval process for aspartame looks especially shady. How objective do you think the people involved were when they new they had high paying jobs at Nutrasweet waiting if they just said yes?

Brian, as much as I adore Wikipedia as a quick guide to the available information on the web, it is by no means a comprehensive or authoritative source of the final status of any controversy. In all liklihood the industry advocating use has had teams making sure their side is represented and critics do not have a unified front to challenge these on every front.

A handful of studies is only as good as the group performing them and even in the case of seemingly safe drugs results change over time. Lastly the absence of harm is not the same as safety and animal studies while useful are not a perfect predictor of human health effects.

The fundamental problem is that for generations the regulatory functions have had varying degrees of compromised or corrupted effectiveness, as a result of industry influence and control in both the agency level and the lawmaking, regulatory standards.

On the whole the US observes what I commonly refer to as a don't look-don't find policy. The result is that for most industrial chemicals now widely used there have never been any safety studies. Scorecard is the global authority on chemicals, their safety, approved status known releases and sites where they are identifies as everything from legal disposals to Superfund sites. Here's Scorecard's statement on the situation...

Information Needed for Safety Assessment
Could government assess a chemical's safety or risk? For most of the important industrial chemicals in U.S. commerce, government lacks the information to draw any scientifically based conclusion about the degree of risk--or lack of risk--that a chemical may pose when used. For every chemical in the database, Scorecard tells you whether or not the information needed to assess chemical risk is available. If it isn't, no one can accurately claim the chemical is "safe."

The problem is exacerbated by the system of liability where corporations are able to make monetary settlements that are so delayed and such a small percentage of the revenue gained from the toxic product or activity, that there is no incentive to stop it.

No corporate officers have ever been held accountable for deaths from their corporate activity. Contrast that with accidental harm by a doctor for example, who as a result of human error can be held to account but the executive who knowingly exposes that same patient to a lethal drug keeps working, collecting income.

We have a class of untouchables who have usurped the very system put in place to stand as a the first line of defense between consumers and profit seeking vendors. The more you dig the greater the evidence that very much that is added to our food, air and water is known to have devistating effects but business as usual is to have the media talk about Paris Hilton and cut to commercials for toxic food and drug treatments, perpetuating the root cause, moral bankruptcy in politics and ignorance in the public.

If you'd like to see what's near you it may change your attitude about terrorist threats, WMD's are right in our backyards, they just kill you slowly and the polluters get to make a buck on treatments as well.

Over 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released by industry into the nation's environment each year, including 72 million pounds of recognized carcinogens. Scorecard can give you a detailed report on chemicals being released from any of 20,000 industrial facilities, or a summary report for any area in the country. Scorecard spotlights the top polluters in the U.S., and ranks states and counties by pollutant releases.

Provide your zipcode to get a report for your community, or use the Pollution Locator to search for reports on specific areas. To zoom in to your state's report, click on the map below.

The 100 Year Lie is a good book on that topic.

I was just disputing the claim that these sweeteners have not been linked to negative health effects. They all have been, for various illnesses in various studies. It is however a completely open question of whether sugar consumption is worse for you than sweeteners given the massive amount know about the negative health effects of sugar: diabetes, obesity leading to heard disease, etc.

Oh, thanks for the clarification.

The figure that I found shocking was that in colonial days the average America ate 7 pounds of sugar a year, by 1914 it was 83 pounds, and today the average American eats 142 pounds of sugar a year. What an unbelievable increase. Does always determines health effects of something, so adjust the dose back to something reasonable.

All of these have been shown to be harmful or potentially harmful for human consumption.

As have sugar, alcohol, caffeine, fat, carbohydrates, water, and air. The key is balance, not conspiracy theories.

Where did I post a conspiracy theory? The key may be balance, but some things should be avoided entirely if one wants to be optimally healthy. Heroin is one example.

You, like most people, don't care about optimal health, so moderation is fine. I am simply providing the information for people that want to be as healthy as possible.

Don't you have a moderate amount of cyanide to chew on?

some things should be avoided entirely if one wants to be optimally healthy. Heroin is one example.

Even if I balance it out with lots of fiber?

:)

Adipic...The ignorant rabble should sit down and do as they are told

Seems you're already doing that by swallowing the party line on the safety of %$#@ in the stores.

Wow, it's crazy how fast an otherwise intelligent conversation can degenerate as soon as someone posts a snarky comment.

Sorry, apologies, I should know better or at least be a good guest!

You did an awesome job! It does very quickly go in eight thousand directions. For me it sometimes feels like juggling Jello. You know you've got a hold of something, but it never seems to stay in one place long enough to get a good handle on what. It was very wise to stay focused, fantastic piece, again!!

Welcome aboard Tauriee, glad you've found us and you stumbled into one of our best to boot. Be sure to add him to your friends list so as you go about discovering that we've so much you won't lose track of top authors.

Synth --
No charge!

I like the alliteration but prefer Long Island tea. Tequila not my drink.
Maybe Martinis -- the MinnieApolis Martini diet? Those olives are packed with yummy and nutritious essential oils, you know.
MinnieApolis Manhattans diet?

I guess I should just quit pop, eh?

There are increasing options of sugar based sodas, my kiddies drink the Whole Foods 365 brand and it's perfectly safe, cane sugar, just like the old days. Don't give up the treats, just the chemical concoctions. :~)

Maybe you want to handle a review? Since you already have a bunch of background material, already...