Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#111

Post by ben_w »

Pyramus wrote: post #90
xyzzyz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PTFE? It’s so non-reactive that it is commonly used in medical implants, precisely because of its high biocompatibility. I don’t think that there are any connections at all between PTFE and cancer.

"While PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures, it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of cookware reaches about 260 °C (500 °F), and decomposes above 350 °C (662 °F).[58] Over 400 °C (752 °F) pyrolysis occurs and more decomposition becomes significantly more rapid. The main decomposition products are tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and difluorocarbene radicals (RCF2).[58] The degradation by-products can…

> However these cases of polymer fume fever were mostly present in people who had cooked at 390 °C (734 °F) for ≥4 hours.

My oven goes up to 250 °C, though I never use it above 220. What cooking processes go to each of these thresholds?

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#113

Post by [deleted] »

happymellon wrote: post #82
_kbh_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not only is it rodent the amount of Aspartame / kilogram is huge even at their lowest value (20mg/kg). Coke no sugar has ~87 mg of Aspartame in it, you need to do drink ~20 cans of it to meet the same Aspartame level in a 90kg human.

Artificial sweeteners are in more than just sodas. The number of food products that traditionally didn't have sweetners in, that now have aspartame is increasing. That is concerning for me.

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#114

Post by adrr »

dundarious wrote: post #63
tptacek wrote: 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?

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…

Meat is associated with cancer. We see this in Americans with the increase in colon cancer that is correlated with the increase of meat consumption. Also hot drinks is a suspected carcinogen. Alcohol is a known carcinogen and even if you don’t consume it, it is present in fruit and can also be produced in your gut.

People worry about suspected carcinogens but they are everywhere. Overall cancer rates are at record low levels except colon cancer and skin cancer. Skin cancer is a weird one since Americans spend less time in the sun and use sunblock.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#115

Post by KozmoNau7 »

computerphage wrote: post #88
MyHypatia wrote: post #87

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?

Frequent exposure to sweetness makes your taste receptors accustomed to it, like building up a tolerance.

It's obvious by a simple experiment: cut out everything sweet (at the very least candy, sweets and desserts) for a couple of weeks, then try eating a candy bar or a thickly-frosted cupcake. It will taste almost unbearably sweet.

Make sweets something you only enjoy as a rare treat, and you'll find that you'll eat much less of them, because the sweetness will simply be too much.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#116

Post by evgen »

colordrops wrote: post #55
tptacek wrote: 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?

We barely understand the causes of most cancers; how would we separate out that aspartame is the cause of a bump in rates among so many other carcinogenic influences in our lives?

You start with the null hypothesis. If consumption of substance X increases significantly but there is almost no evidence of a significant increase in the cancer rate over that time period then you have a large hill to climb out of in terms of proving causality. Cancer rates over the past 100 years have been mostly dropping. If aspartame really was what some claim then I would expect to see a bump like the one you see in lung cancer starting in the late 40s and climbing hard and fast up until the late-80s/early-90s whereupon it the rate turns negative and starts dropping fast.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#117

Post by TameAntelope »

n_io wrote: post #97
adrr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What harm does repeating Big Sugar lies do to your body?

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

[2] - https://www.smh.com.au/technology/sydney-university-study-cl...

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#118

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

tptacek wrote: 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?

> practically universally consumed

I take issue with this, frankly. Aspartame seems to be particularly popular in the USA (diet sodas), and less popular the further away you go.

It's used in other stuff, sure, but most products outside of the USA just use sugar or corn-syrup-based sweeteners. I don't think anyone in my circle of family or friends has had a diet soda in decades, save for exactly one individual who drinks a lot of diet drinks.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#119

Post by KozmoNau7 »

adrr wrote: post #33
kiba wrote: 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.

They very probably are. Still, you're exposing your taste buds to sweetness all day, which can mess with your perception of taste.

Plus, it just tastes worse. I'd much rather have a single sugar-containing soda on the weekend, or after finishing some hard physical labor, than liters of diet soda every day.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#120

Post by scythe »

tofof wrote: post #98
MyHypatia wrote: post #87

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…

Fruits contain dietary fiber and potassium. Both are nutrients Americans tend to consume not quite enough of [1,2]. Both help to mitigate the physiologic disorders (hypertension [3], diabetes [4]) associated with sugar consumption [5]. In addition, fruit contains vitamin C, which reduces uric acid [6]; the detrimental effect of fructose on hypertension is thought to be mediated by uric acid [5]. Consumption of fruits, even moderate amounts of juices, is associated with reduced risk of CVD [7].

1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221226721...

2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181280/

3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11906-011-0197-8

4: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200005113421903

5: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/899/4649308?login...

6: https://www.jrheum.org/content/35/9/1853.short

7: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...

Post reply on HN