Live data from Hacker News

Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

91–100 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#91
post #59

Occam's razor: 1) humans consume ~5000 tonnes of the stuff, which apparently causes multiple kinds of cancers in rodents, and it's also super bad for humans, but despite its ubiquity we haven't seen that signal because...? 2) rodents with a lifespan of 1-3 years get cancer super-duper easily Rodent models are easy. Easy != simple.

Well if you google it the very first result shows that some studies have found a link in humans, others have not.

So in the case of mixed data, it's really up to the individual if they want to err on the side of cancer or not. Given the track record of underestimating the damage of things, I know where I stand. But it's your body.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#92

One of the lowest effort healthy lifestyle changes you can make is to wean your body off of craving sweets. Artificial sweeteners still make you crave sweets. Replace sweetened drinks with unsweetened tea (there are hundreds of varieties, you will find something that you like). Replace desserts with your favorite fruit or berries. Your body, mind, and teeth will thank you.

> Artificial sweeteners still make you crave sweets. How do you know that this is true?

I think there is evidence that this is true for some sweeteners, such as Ace K, but I don't think this is the case with aspartame.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#93
post #4

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…

Also note that this particular research lab seems to be the only one that can find any link between aspartame and cancer, with many others finding none. Additionally, this is not new data but a reanalysis of existing data, and the rats in question were exposed to a quite high dose.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#94
post #45

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?

This is absolutely false. It's not universal in the least. I can't consume asparatame because even a tiny amount will give me terrible gastrointestinal pains. I haven't consumed asparatame in over 25 years now and don't even think about it.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#95
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how widespread Aspartame on a societal level, you'd think there'd be epidemiologic evidence of increasing cancer rates over that time. Maybe there is some literature on it, but I hadn't heard.

Aspartame was approved by the fda in 1981... no spike in cancer rates AFAICT: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer-death-rates-in-the... Doesn't mean it doesn't cause cancer... but even if it does, it must not be a very significant cause.

Death rate from cancer is not really comparable, since there has been significant progress in early diagnosis and treatment. Not accusing or defending aspartame, just pointing it out.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#96
I still need a small glass of Diet Coke every day in the afternoon. I need to cut the habit so I'm drinking right now Diet Coke without Caffeine.. It is like the last step before quitting for good. I like to drink sparkling water (San Pellegrino) when eating, I hope it will help me stop. Fresh sparkling water is good!

My bottle of 1 liter (33 oz I think in the US) lasts 4 or 5 days so I don't know if I'm at risk.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#97
post #33
post #4

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…

Drinking five diet Cokes a day is probably healthier than drinking 5 regular cokes a day. Sugar is linked to diabetes and other ailments.

And smoking light cigarettes are probably healthier for you too…

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#98

One of the lowest effort healthy lifestyle changes you can make is to wean your body off of craving sweets. Artificial sweeteners still make you crave sweets. Replace sweetened drinks with unsweetened tea (there are hundreds of varieties, you will find something that you like). Replace desserts with your favorite fruit or berries. Your body, mind, and teeth will thank you.

Ah, yes, replace 'sweets' with 'fruits' which are about 50-75% sugar by non-water mass.

Eg strawberries - 100 g is 7.7g of carbohydrates (4.9g sugar), 0.7g protein, 0.3g fat. 56% sugar.

Or oranges - 165 g without membrane or peel is 20.7g carbs (14g sugar), 1.5g protein, 0.2g fat. 63% sugar.

As opposed to, say, a snickers bar. 9.1g carbohydrates (7.6g sugar), 1.1g protein, 3.6g fat. 55% sugar.

Or a kitkat. 27.1g carbs (20.4g sugar), 2.7g protein, 10.4g fat. 50% sugar.

Granted, the fruits have way way more water content so by mass are substantially lower fractions of sugar. It can be (but is not necessarily) more satisifying to eat the increased mass and volume of fruit, or to eat the same total mass/volume but ingest substantially fewer calories (about tenfold, by mass).

But really this advice is just 'swap sweets for smaller quantities of sweets'.

https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices...

https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices...

https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5461/2

https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5418/2

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#99
post #98

One of the lowest effort healthy lifestyle changes you can make is to wean your body off of craving sweets. Artificial sweeteners still make you crave sweets. Replace sweetened drinks with unsweetened tea (there are hundreds of varieties, you will find something that you like). Replace desserts with your favorite fruit or berries. Your body, mind, and teeth will thank you.

Ah, yes, replace 'sweets' with 'fruits' which are about 50-75% sugar by non-water mass. Eg strawberries - 100 g is 7.7g of carbohydrates (4.9g sugar), 0.7g protein, 0.3g fat. 56% sugar. Or oranges - 165 g without membrane or peel is 20.7g carbs (14g sugar), 1.5g protein, 0.2g fat. 63% sugar. As opposed to, say, a snickers bar. 9.1g carbohydrates (7.6g sugar), 1.1g protein, 3.6g fat. 55% sugar. Or a kitkat. 27.1g carb…

It's not just the sugar, it's the sugar in combination with other ingredients. Even the example you gave the fat is 10x as high and obviously has no fibre.

The nutrient density of fruits is magnitudes higher than sweets.

And water mass matters as it contributes to satiety vs grams of food consumed.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#100
post #99
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, replace 'sweets' with 'fruits' which are about 50-75% sugar by non-water mass. Eg strawberries - 100 g is 7.7g of carbohydrates (4.9g sugar), 0.7g protein, 0.3g fat. 56% sugar. Or oranges - 165 g without membrane or peel is 20.7g carbs (14g sugar), 1.5g protein, 0.2g fat. 63% sugar. As opposed to, say, a snickers bar. 9.1g carbohydrates (7.6g sugar), 1.1g protein, 3.6g fat. 55% sugar. Or a kitkat. 27.1g carb…

It's not just the sugar, it's the sugar in combination with other ingredients. Even the example you gave the fat is 10x as high and obviously has no fibre. The nutrient density of fruits is magnitudes higher than sweets. And water mass matters as it contributes to satiety vs grams of food consumed.

OP didn't say anything about reducing fat intake. Aspartame is a sugar substitute, OP talked about switching from sweetened beverage to unsweetened beverage neither of which has any fat. OP also said "your teeth will thank you" which again is an association between sugar and tooth decay, of which fat plays no part. Fat is a nonsequitur here; the linked article is about a sugar substitute.

The nutrient density of desserts is magnitudes higher. Carbohydrates, protein, and fat are the primary nutrients. You must mean micronutrients, i.e. individual amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. Of these, the snickers bar does quite well with amino acids thanks to the peanuts, but yes, a serving of strawberries will give you vitamin c which the snickers won't.

However, that single vitamin is the only real difference in micronutrient quality!

The fruit and candy are both negligible 2-10% amounts for the remainder. They're also very similar on mineral content, with the candy providing 8-10% dv on 5 minerals, while the fruit provides 7% and 29% of two minerals, the rest negligible in both, averaging 5.6% dv for the fruit or 7.6% dv for the candy across the ten minerals.

I already addressed water mass and caloric density, but for completeness I will say again that you're getting these very comparable amounts of micronutrients for a tenfold caloric difference.

Post reply on HN