I'm no expert in statistics but it came down to a 2+ percentage difference between groups. As well, although the groups were categorized from a starting point of no cardiovascular problems, the starting age is significant. Everyone 65 or older has increased risk of cardiovascular issues. I am no fan of aspartame, but, out of 60k women, the group who changed only represented under 10% of the total group and the difference was 8.5% of the women in more than two sodas a day vs. 7.2% in the group who consumed next to none. am I missing something here?

A few years ago I obtained a report about how aspartame was approved for human consumption. I have avoided it ever since. Aspartame is very bad stuff. I'll consume sucralose on occassion - but not aspartame.

This is a difficult one to control for. For instance, diet beverages are popular with people who are also suffering from eating disorders. Eating disorders will also reduce life expectancy. Also, I may be an outlier but I have a long diet coke habit that would scare the crap out of most folks. Between 1995 and 2002 I was running at about 4 liters per day. I quit cold turkey for a year and was back to 2 liters a day in no time. Currently I am at 6 cans a day. The closest I have come to neuro problems would be bells palsy (caused by the chicken pox virus ) and slight case of diabetic neuropathy caused by a period of very low blood sugars. The bells palsy ran its course, and the neuropathy cleared up when I was on the c-peptide replacement drug test. That said, while we need to have a better understanding of the effects of the stuff we should only be looking for the truth. Food studies these days have a nasty habit of being done with an outcome in mind ahead of time.