In article <1993Apr16.155123.447@cunews.carleton.ca> wcsbeau@alfred.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes: >>So far, I've seen about a dozen posts of anecdotal evidence, but >>no facts.  I suspect there is a strong psychological effect at  >>work here.  Does anyone have results from a scientific study >>using double-blind trials?   > >Check out #27903, just some 20 posts before your own.  Um, I hate to break this to you, but article numbers are unique per site. They have no meaning on other machines.  >Maybe you missed it amidst the flurry of responses?  You mean the responses some of which pointed to double-blind tests which show no such "chinese restaurant effect" unique to MSG (it's elicited by the placebo as well.)  >Yet again, the use of this >newsgroup is hampered by people not restricting their posts to matters >they have substantial knowledge of.  Like youself?  Someone who can read a scientific paper and apparently come away from it with bizarrely cracked ideas which have nothing to do with the use of this substance in human nutrition?  >For cites on MSG, look up almost anything by John W. Olney, a >toxicologist who has studied the effects of MSG on the brain and on >development.  It is undisputed in the literature that MSG is an >excitotoxic food additive,  No, it's undisputed in the literature that glutamate is an amino acid which is an excitatory neurotransmitter.  There is also evidence that excessive release of glutamate may be involved in the pathology of certain conditions like stroke, drowning and Lou Gehrig's disease, just to name a few. This is a completely different issue than the use of this ubiquitous amino acid in foods.  People are not receiving intra-ventricular injections of glutamate.  >and that its major constituent, glutamate >is essentially the premierie neurotransmitter in the mammalian brain >(humans included).  I don't know about premier, but it's certainly an important one.  >Too much in the diet, and the system gets thrown off.  Sez you.  Such an effect in humans has not been demonstrated in any controlled studies.  Infant mice and other models are useful as far as they go, but they're not relevant to the matter at hand.  Which is not to say that I favor its use in things like baby food--a patently ridiculous use of the additive.  But we have no reason to believe that MSG in the diet effects humans adversely.  >Glutamate and aspartate, also an excitotoxin are necessary in >small amounts, and are freely available in many foods, but the amounts >added by industry are far above the amounts that would normally be >encountered in a ny single food.  Wrong.  Do you know how much aspartate or phenylalanine is in a soft drink? Milligrams worth.  Compare that to a glass of milk.  Do you know how much glutamate is present in most protein-containing foods compared to that added by the use of MSG?  >By eating lots of junk food, >packaged soups, and diet soft drinks, it is possible to jack your >blood levels so high, that anyone with a sensitivity to these >compounds will suffer numerous *real* physi9logical effects.   Notice the subtle covering of her ass here: "anyone _with a sensitivity_..." We're disputing the size of that class.  >Read Olney's review paper in Prog. Brain Res, 1988, and check *his* >sources. They are impecable. There is no dispute.  Impeccable.  There most certainly is a dispute.