Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation • Hacker News Board

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#171

Post by nate_meurer » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #128

argvargc wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, cancer is a leading cause of death so it may not be easy to tease that one out. Regardless, where did you get the idea it's "practically universally" consumed? Taking soda for example, people typically either do or don't drink diet soda, and in much of the beverage chillers I've seen "diet" is stocked in the minority (with limited regional variation). Bear in mind diet itself is fractured into aspartame and ste…

People keep saying that it's hard to tease this out of the data, but consumption of aspartame skyrocketed suddenly in the 1980s. We ran the natural experiment. We have the before-after data. Does that data show a sharp rise in cancer correlated to aspartame consumption? No, it does not; it shows in fact (I believe) the opposite. That's the argument I'm inviting you to rebut. There are ways to rebut it! But "the data…

The same voodoo is applied to the supposed connection to dementia. Like the neurotransmitter toxicity nonsense that Mercola helped popularize, which isn't supported by clinical studies, and doesn't even really make sense physiologically.

That's not to say there isn't interesting stuff in these investigations. The recent studies the effect of sweeteners on gut biomes and the resulting effects on serum chemistry are fascinating to me, and I think these studies will be productive in other ways.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#172

Post by jaggederest » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

twerkmonsta wrote: post #161

jaggederest wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of "natural" carcinogens. Tobacco, for example, is perhaps the largest single cause of cancer in human history.

I know there are natural carcinogens. That wasn’t my question. Tobacco is a plant. Cigarettes are a product made from tobacco with many “artificial” chemicals added. Cigarettes are the cause.

Tobacco is the cause. Raw tobacco usage straight off the plant is cancer-causing, there's no manipulation needed.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#173

Post by TeeMassive » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #163

TeeMassive wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the increased cancer rates and cardiovascular incidents caused by obesity far exceeds the the little aspartame-cancer causation studies have demonstrated so far.

Have diet drinks ever been successful at getting people to lose weight?

Why it wouldn't How replacing a high calorie drink by a low one does not create a decrease in caloric intake?

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#174

Post by abacadaba » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

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…

I still tell myself stevia is better even though I'm not at all confident that it's true.

I usually avoid/minimize but those flavored water squirt things get me.

Edit: Mainly due to the effects of my body thinking it's getting sugar, no reason to think stevia causes cancer that I'm aware of.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#175

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#176

Post by yawaworht1978 » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #163

TeeMassive wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the increased cancer rates and cardiovascular incidents caused by obesity far exceeds the the little aspartame-cancer causation studies have demonstrated so far.

Have diet drinks ever been successful at getting people to lose weight?

Yes, fluid calories are the main reason for weight gains, sugary drinks, alcopops and lattes with more calories than a pizza. These enter the bloodstream very fast, cause blood sugar spikes, more hunger, and the average Joe has their glycogen stores pretty full at all times. 25 percent of the sugars, depending on genetics , are converted to fat in a caloric surplus state. The fats, if the glycogen stores are full, goes straight to the fat cells, there was a study where they laced food with radioactive substance traces to make it trackable. Lo and behold, the fat started to assimilate to the fat cell within minutes. Another important thing that most people are not aware of is that the body always metabolizes proteins, glucose and fats at the same time. The body likes to store glucose, but doesn't like to use it, unless it's hard physical work, like lifting weights. It defaults to using energy when sedatery, sleeping and in general.

This can be good and bad, the good is that the fat is used(external from food or internal from fat cells during a caloric deficit), the bad thing is, if you eat plenty of carbohydrates at all times and don't work out, most of the external fats consumed via meals will be stored as body fat.

Often people say but average Joe's can simply eat less. In theory, yes, but it's not practical, if your diet consists of 2000calories of beer and fries and you don't work out, you will not look the same as a person who eats 2000 calories, works out(or not, diet weighs more) and eats lean proteins , not too many carbs and a bit of fat.

The beer and fries guy will also suffer from hunger pangs non stop due to blood sugar volatility.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#177

Post by thatguy0900 » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

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?

Fiber slows down the absorption, so there's less spike in blood sugars as when eating candy which is all easy to digest refined sugar.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#178

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #170

WalterBright wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is a complete package of nutrients You'll die of malnutrition on a fruit-only diet. It lacks fat, for example, which is essential.

I don't mean complete as in, its all that you need, just that food is more than simply tallying sugar content. People seem to think fruit == candy since both contain lots of sugar. It's a lot more complicated than that.

It is also simply difficult to eat enough fruit to cause problems. For example, I've never gotten a sugar rush from eating fruit, but just one cookie will do it.

P.S. I'm not talking about juicing fruit, I mean chewing and eating fruit in its natural state.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#179

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

TeeMassive wrote: post #173

WalterBright wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have diet drinks ever been successful at getting people to lose weight?

Why it wouldn't How replacing a high calorie drink by a low one does not create a decrease in caloric intake?

Because people who drink diet drinks tend to just eat more sugar from other sources.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#180

Post by pengaru » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #166

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.

> is a complete package of nutrients You'll die of malnutrition on a fruit-only diet. It lacks fat, for example, which is essential.

> You'll die of malnutrition on a fruit-only diet. It lacks fat, for example, which is essential.

Ever heard of Avocado?