Note that it is in rodent. Aspartame hadn't been confirmed as a carcinogenic agent in humans. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to subject to ourselves to drinking diet soda as a daily habit. It costs money, may or may not interfere with your blood sugar and the health of your gut microbiomes. As a goal, I limit my intake of any sweet and/or artifically sweetened drinks. Instead of being a chronic diet coke d…
I like the burn of carbonated soda so I bought a soda stream and I just carbonate water or homemade tea whenever I want a treat. It's definitely the way to go for your day to day if you have a bit of an addtiction!
Aspartame isn't just widely consumed, it's practically universally consumed. If it was carcinogenic in humans, wouldn't there be obvious epidemiological evidence to back that up?
Cured meats probably have a wider base of consumption and are carcinogenic, but only somewhat recently were categorized as such by the WHO. It certainly wasn't folk knowledge when I was a kid that they would be cancer-causing. Bad for the heart, sure, but nothing to do with cancer. And yet it is now established. That being said, this is a rodent study. Really not a good input to guide human behavior. And human cohort…
“Established” is a loaded word in something that can’t be tested with a controlled trial. It was once established that eating fat made you fat, eating eggs raised your cholesterol, etc.
It's not unreasonable to assume that the current rate of disease in our populations might be able to be lower since we weren't tracking the association of the introduction of products to safety in years past as well as we do today. A better question is, suppose it was known that it did create a small but measurable in lifetime cancer risk, would you actually want to keep consuming it? EDIT: Also aspartame is hardly u…
I don't know, like everybody else, I eat things with substantial amounts of acrylamide, which is a carcinogen we actually know is problematic, unlike aspartame. You're commenting on a story that suggests that even small exposures to aspartame might be dangerous. And you stopped drinking diet soda only recently. I think you might have a hard time finding an American (for instance) that hadn't consumed a substantial am…
Is aspartame commonly used in products that aren't labeled as containing it, or that one might be surprised about? I never buy any food or drink labeled "sugar free" or "contains NutraSweet (or similar)". So I had assumed I wasn't consuming chemical sweeteners. Is it as common as you say because it is widely used in little-known places, or just because most people eat/drink sugar-free products?
Asking out of idle curiosity/surprise. I'm not afraid of aspartame, I just don't care for the taste much.
Note that it is in rodent. Aspartame hadn't been confirmed as a carcinogenic agent in humans. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to subject to ourselves to drinking diet soda as a daily habit. It costs money, may or may not interfere with your blood sugar and the health of your gut microbiomes. As a goal, I limit my intake of any sweet and/or artifically sweetened drinks. Instead of being a chronic diet coke d…
I like the burn of carbonated soda so I bought a soda stream and I just carbonate water or homemade tea whenever I want a treat. It's definitely the way to go for your day to day if you have a bit of an addtiction!
If they ever find out that carbonated water is carcinogenic I will probably keel over dead the next day. I measure my LaCroix habit in packs per day.
Are there any other common food ingredients that have a high chance of causing cancer?
I was surprised to see a Prop 65 warning on the organic frozen spinach we get delivered by Amazon Fresh/Whole Foods. Apparently it's due to Cadmium. It makes me wonder if the stuff you buy in-store doesn't have the same risk, or if they just don't label it as obviously as online.
Brazil nuts are like that as well. The nuts themselves are ok but how they're grown causes them to contain too much selenium which can be toxic over time.
It's not unreasonable to assume that the current rate of disease in our populations might be able to be lower since we weren't tracking the association of the introduction of products to safety in years past as well as we do today. A better question is, suppose it was known that it did create a small but measurable in lifetime cancer risk, would you actually want to keep consuming it? EDIT: Also aspartame is hardly u…
I don't know, like everybody else, I eat things with substantial amounts of acrylamide, which is a carcinogen we actually know is problematic, unlike aspartame. You're commenting on a story that suggests that even small exposures to aspartame might be dangerous. And you stopped drinking diet soda only recently. I think you might have a hard time finding an American (for instance) that hadn't consumed a substantial am…
There's an interesting hypothesis that the pathway to cancer for aspartame (if it exists) might involve creating formaldehyde in the same way that's done when drinking ethanol, and so actually, drinking alcohol is _protective_ as it blocks the aspartame cancer effect -- in a similar way that ethanol is a treatment for methanol poisoning.
I don't really worry about aspartame cancer risk though, it doesn't seem like a big deal if it exists at all. I do buy the idea that diet sodas kill good gut bacteria and avoid them for that reason, but I don't remember a single thing about where I got that idea. It just "feels" right, and I don't mind the lack.
Scientists think that up to 50% of cancer might come from alcohol consumptions, but it’s apparently quite hard to study.
Ah
I remember watching Hamilton’s Pharmacopoeia, or maybe just an interview with Hamilton Morris, anyway he usually studies psychedelics and barbiturates and all the weird fringe drugs, and someone asks his opinion on alcohol and he says it’s a really crappy drug because you have to consume massive quantities of it for the desired effect, like most drugs that change your brain up are measured in milli/micrograms, but if you want to get trashed your poisoning yourself with, like, a liter of straight alcohol, it’s a lot of work for your body to deal with compared to smaller dose drugs.
Poisoning aside I guess you need to suggest a mechanism where DNA gets interfered with, is our body just as good at error-free mitosis when we’re sleeping off a rough night?
Aspartame isn't just widely consumed, it's practically universally consumed. If it was carcinogenic in humans, wouldn't there be obvious epidemiological evidence to back that up?
I used to work on DNA dyes. Typically when you see a 6 carbon ring with a chain of carbons attached, there is high probability of that molecule interfering with DNA replication. Basically the mechanism works because the hexagon ring slides between the base pairs and this leads to a lowest energy state due to a phenomenon call pi orbital stacking resulting in the molecule getting stuck there. The carbon chain is mostl…
The biochemist I raised and who is sitting next to me drinking beers I paid for so that he would not drink all my expensive whiskey says that ethidium bromide doesn't even pass the Ames test except with liver homogenates, and its actual carcinogenicity is unproven. Your body produces similar carbon rings --- phenylalanines --- constantly. You can't simply derive carcinogencity axiomatically.
(I'm butchering this and mostly just having fun with it.)
Edit
He is correcting me and saying that at the moment he is technically working as a veterinary immunologist. But the point about 6-carbon thingies stands.
Are there any other common food ingredients that have a high chance of causing cancer?
These are not common food ingredient, and they are not supposed to be injested. I was doing the dishes the other day, and like usually, doing a terrible job--trying to save water too. I was thinking what damage could soap residue do? I then noticed the Dawn Soap. From and center they listed all the ingredients. (So front and center it looks like a lawyer told them to place the ingredients front, and center?) Do I sti…
Cured meats probably have a wider base of consumption and are carcinogenic, but only somewhat recently were categorized as such by the WHO. It certainly wasn't folk knowledge when I was a kid that they would be cancer-causing. Bad for the heart, sure, but nothing to do with cancer. And yet it is now established. That being said, this is a rodent study. Really not a good input to guide human behavior. And human cohort…
“Established” is a loaded word in something that can’t be tested with a controlled trial. It was once established that eating fat made you fat, eating eggs raised your cholesterol, etc.
True, I consider those things to be established to this day.
Regarding cholesterol and dietary levels to serum levels, it's curvilinear. If you have a low baseline, dietary input has a strong impact on serum output. If you are eating a standard American diet that has a relatively high baseline cholesterol level, the relationship weakens to being statistically insignificant.
And sure, you can get fat without eating fat, and you can create high fat diets that don't increase visible body fat, but those aren't healthy diets.