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

141–150 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#141

Post by nicoburns »

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've read that sweeteners still affect insulin levels even though they're not metabolised.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#142

Post by psyc »

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.

Lay's Potato Chips. I remember that one. Pringles was Once you pop, you can't stop.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#143

Post by renewiltord »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #109
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…

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.

Is this actually evidence backed? I adore fruit. When I wanted to lose weight I had to go off fruit and substitute with diet cola. It worked really well.

Ultimately, all the evidence I see points to the fact that most people can’t eat large amounts of fruit. I can, though. I’m like 170 lbs (77 kg) and I can easily devour pounds of apples or strawberries or mangoes in a sitting and eat more tomorrow. So the pro fruit argument usually ends up on CICO which I am willing to accept.

So I stay away from fruit when I know I need to control weight.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#144

Post by nate_meurer »

zippy5 wrote: post #110
kortex wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that hypothesis were true, it would implicate not just phenylalanine, but dopamine, epinephrine, diphenhydramine, ibuprofen, paracetamol, limonene, vanillin, cinnamaldehyde, and literally thousands of other different molecules, natural and synthetic, we constantly interact with. Heck, most polyphenols have pi-conjugation, and those are widely thought to have antioxidant and anticancer effects. Oh and I completely…

It’s not really a comprehensive interpretation of intercalation but I think a geometric interpretation can help some non-chemists understand how intercalating molecules bind to dna. From the purely geometric model, some of the molecules you proposed have pretty large functional groups adjacent to rings which I think may make the intercalation process less efficient. That being said, if you took those molecules and ga…

> some of the molecules you proposed have pretty large functional groups adjacent to rings

And many more do not.

> if you took those molecules and gave massive doses to rats, some may comeback as carcinogenic.

Luckily we don't have to guess. For example, look at the hundreds of terpenoids that saturate traditional diets, many of which and are widely believed to prevent cancer. If you have any actual evidence, put it up.

> The multi ring structure to me suggests...

All this is interesting, but it has exactly nothing to do with in vivo carcinogenicity. You don't have to look far to see this is true. Healthy diets are chock full of polyphenols that exhibit significant DNA binding affinity, but lack evidence of carcinogenicity. And it's not for lack of looking.

You appear to have some specialized knowledge, but when you try to extrapolate it to a wider field where you're out of your depth, these hand-waving guesses can easily turn into fearmongering.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#145

Post by nicoburns »

adrr wrote: post #114
dundarious wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lo…

"Americans use sunblock" seems like quite a generalisation. Is that universally true? Spending less time in the sun could easily lead to less natural protection from melanin leading the more extreme exposure when it does occur.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#146

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#147

Post by nicoburns »

hivacruz wrote: post #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.

Health wise you'd probably be better off drinking a caffienated drink that wasn't coke. Perhaps kombucha or similar.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#148

Post by nvarsj »

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…

Except mask wearing actually has scientific evidence for its effectiveness, and is why governments around the world recommend it. [1]

Your rationale is based on personal bias against "artificial" substances. The same kind of quack reasoning that drives anti vaxers and other nonsense movements.

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#149

Post by Semaphor »

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…

While I don’t disagree with you in general, I disagree on strawberries. 100g of them is a very small amount and a snickers bar (or in my case, some artificially sweetened protein bar) is far more filling.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#150

Post by Semaphor »

Jtsummers wrote: post #14
_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.

A 90kg human is above the US national average, though about on target for US men. 81kg is the US average body weight with women around 73kg. So for women, that means the quantity they'd need to consume to reach that level is around 16 cans. 16 cans translates to 192 oz, or about 1.5 gallons. That is indeed quite a bit, but about twice what's recommended by volume for water consumption for women.

> 16 cans translates to 192 oz, or about 1.5 gallons.

About 5.5 liters for non USA people.

Post reply on HN