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

131–140 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#131

Post by dls2016 »

symlinkk wrote: post #126
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone says this but it misses the point. Fruit in it's natural state is a complete package of nutrients, fiber, and unrefined sugar. It has less of an impact on blood sugar than processed food with the same amount of sugar.

Why? Why is “processed” automatically bad?

It’s not automatic, but the processing is guided by whatever processing scales (both in manufacturing and delivery of the “food”) and has been honed by a/b testing and statistically evaluated to be addictive.

Maintaining the complex structure of the unprocessed ingredients isn’t even on the radar.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#132

Post by vladvasiliu »

dls2016 wrote: post #129
vladvasiliu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue isn't just the pure carb content. 100g of strawberries is a lot of strawberries. 100 g of Snickers bars is... two bars. I can easily eat two and then crave another one right away. After 100 g of strawberries, I'm pretty much done for a while. Same with say, apples. I think one thing that is usually overlooked in these discussions is the "feeling" part of it, for lack of a better term. Some things ma…

> make you want to keep on eating Junk food recipes are a/b tested and statistically evaluated just like in ad tech.

I remember an ad I once saw on TV about some snack, and the tagline was something like "you can't eat only one". I can't remember the product, though...

One example I have in mind about products being made like this is Nestlé's Extreme ice cream cones. They're fairly sugary throughout, but right at the end there's a small "chocolate bomb", super sweet, that just gives you that "I have to have another one" craving.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#133

Post by infogulch »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #105
tofof wrote: 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…

I think the issue isn't just the pure carb content. 100g of strawberries is a lot of strawberries. 100 g of Snickers bars is... two bars. I can easily eat two and then crave another one right away. After 100 g of strawberries, I'm pretty much done for a while. Same with say, apples. I think one thing that is usually overlooked in these discussions is the "feeling" part of it, for lack of a better term. Some things ma…

> calorie-dense foods have a tendency to incite overconsumption

Key quote that refutes GP's perspective.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#134

Post by dls2016 »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #132
dls2016 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make you want to keep on eating Junk food recipes are a/b tested and statistically evaluated just like in ad tech.

I remember an ad I once saw on TV about some snack, and the tagline was something like "you can't eat only one". I can't remember the product, though... One example I have in mind about products being made like this is Nestlé's Extreme ice cream cones. They're fairly sugary throughout, but right at the end there's a small "chocolate bomb", super sweet, that just gives you that "I have to have another one" craving.

Yeah this is what a lot of “food science” is these days.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#135

Post by viseztrance »

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?

I question the same thing, and would like to know how accurate it is.

Is there any peer reviewed literature that supports this?

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#136

Post by Johnny555 »

I treat artificial sweeteners like I do mask wearing -- I'm not sure how much difference wearing a mask makes for my safety and safety of others, but I wear it anyway because it's a very minor inconvenience and it probably helps.

I avoid artificial sweeteners because I'm not sure if they have any detrimental effects, but I avoid them anyway because it's a minor inconvenience, and whether they are actually harmful or not, they are almost certainly not nutritious and good for me.

(of course the big difference is that wearing a mask almost certainly helps others more than myself)

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#137

Post by thatguy0900 »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #105
tofof wrote: 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…

I think the issue isn't just the pure carb content. 100g of strawberries is a lot of strawberries. 100 g of Snickers bars is... two bars. I can easily eat two and then crave another one right away. After 100 g of strawberries, I'm pretty much done for a while. Same with say, apples. I think one thing that is usually overlooked in these discussions is the "feeling" part of it, for lack of a better term. Some things ma…

To your point, I bought a food dehydrator recently and made a batch of dried apples. I was watching a movie and midway through realized that in my snacking while watching I had eaten 9 whole apples. That water content really prevents a lot of abuse.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#138

Post by treeman79 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #136

I treat artificial sweeteners like I do mask wearing -- I'm not sure how much difference wearing a mask makes for my safety and safety of others, but I wear it anyway because it's a very minor inconvenience and it probably helps. I avoid artificial sweeteners because I'm not sure if they have any detrimental effects, but I avoid them anyway because it's a minor inconvenience, and whether they are actually harmful or…

Fun factoid they are a major migraine trigger for many.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#139

Post by eurasiantiger »

dls2016 wrote: post #134
vladvasiliu wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember an ad I once saw on TV about some snack, and the tagline was something like "you can't eat only one". I can't remember the product, though... One example I have in mind about products being made like this is Nestlé's Extreme ice cream cones. They're fairly sugary throughout, but right at the end there's a small "chocolate bomb", super sweet, that just gives you that "I have to have another one" craving.

Yeah this is what a lot of “food science” is these days.

Not to mention all the effort that goes into studying how different food constituents affect human consciousness and behavior, which results in products that are habit-forming and increase impulsive buying.

I’ve often wondered how many secondary impulse buys are made because someone makes an extra trip to the store to satisfy their primary craving for tobacco, coffee, energy drinks or just sugar.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#140

Post by Broken_Hippo »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #105
tofof wrote: 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…

I think the issue isn't just the pure carb content. 100g of strawberries is a lot of strawberries. 100 g of Snickers bars is... two bars. I can easily eat two and then crave another one right away. After 100 g of strawberries, I'm pretty much done for a while. Same with say, apples. I think one thing that is usually overlooked in these discussions is the "feeling" part of it, for lack of a better term. Some things ma…

Eating only one snickers isn't impossible - I do this. It is mostly habit. I'm used to eating about a half of a candy bar at a time, but I'm also basically just having a bit of candy when I want a bit.
Post reply on HN