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

181–190 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#181

Post by tptacek »

zippy5 wrote: post #162
nate_meurer wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I want to apologize, I definitely don’t intend to fear monger and most definitely not want to imply that I have expertise. Roughly my level of understanding is mostly that of a low level undergrad and you should treat my naiveness as such. I recognize that what I’m engaging in is entirely wild speculation based on limited experience and data, likely very error prone and that really I’m just having fun without conside…

Bah! It was a fun argument to read and you clearly seem to have been participating in good faith.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#182

Post by learc83 »

Semaphor wrote: post #149
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…

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.

100g of strawberries is 33 calories. 1 cliff bar is 240.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#183

Post by [deleted] »

parineum wrote: post #155
nvarsj wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Artificial sweeteners have even more evidence for the safety. I agree with your second point but I generally take a lot more issue with the lack of skepticism put towards the alternatives rather than the skepticism towards science. Evenly applied skepticism leads you to accept the thing which has the most evidence in support while also letting you change your mind if the evidence changes. The problem with the "altern…

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#184

Post by WalterBright »

pengaru wrote: post #180
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.

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

"Fruitarians" also include nuts in their "fruit" diet.

https://www.byrdie.com/fruitarian-diet

You can get fats from nuts.

"Anyone following a fruit diet may be missing out on vital nutrients, including: iron calcium vitamin D zinc omega-3 fatty acids B vitamins, including B-12"

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/fruit-diet

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#185

Post by tomp »

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…

Ideally you should be avoiding natural sweeteners as well.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#186

Post by pengaru »

renewiltord wrote: post #143
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 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…

Nobody is saying it's impossible to eat enough fruit to be fattening.

We've arguably evolved to do exactly that, since fruits are seasonal crops with brief periods of availability before rotting and vanishing until next season. We binge when they're available (and love sweets accordingly), storing some energy for the coming period of scarcity.

But it's true that intact fruits include soluble dietary fiber. The soluble fiber interferes somewhat with the small intestine's access to the sugars locked up in the goop as it passes through, to become flatulence via your guests living in the colon.

Just look at an insulin index including fruits to see how they compare, there's a small example on wikipedia @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index#Explanation_of_I...

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#187

Post by lamontcg »

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?

No, they stimulate insulin release and make people hungrier.

IF you could IN COMPLETE ISOLATION replace sugary drinks with sugar substitutes then it would lead to weight loss.

The number of people who can actual accomplish that is probably very small. The majority of people, particularly those with actual weight issues, are going to wind up hungrier and gaining weight through consumption of other calories. They are not diet drinks, they are ruin-your-diet-drinks.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#188

Post by renewiltord »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #169
renewiltord wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

I’m sympathize and want to believe but this is stating a whole bunch of correlative “why fruits are good for you” not a difference in the mechanism between added sugar and sugar in fruits.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#189

Post by nate_meurer »

argvargc wrote: post #165
tptacek wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So if cancer went down, which could happen for all kinds of reasons, good luck finding any causal relationship that may yet still be there hidden beneath such noise. As far as I'm concerned, if rats are shown to get cancer from something for which there are many alternatives, I'll steer clear of it.

In that case, here's a short list of other foods you'll want to avoid:

- All citrus fruits (due to the limonene content)

- Mint of any kind (limonene again)

- Red meat

- Excess protein

- Coffee (acrylamide)

- Chips and fries (acrylamide)

- Bread (often contains acrylamide)

- Dried fruits and nuts (another acrylamide risk)

- Arugula, beets, cabbage, celery, cilantro, endive, fennel, lettuce, parsley, rhubarb, spinach, and any other vegetables that are high in nitrates.

Also be sure to stay away from cell phones, WiFi, and microwave ovens.

This is just a short list off the top of my head. It's a dangerous world out there. For a lab rat.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#190

Post by renewiltord »

pengaru wrote: post #186
renewiltord wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nobody is saying it's impossible to eat enough fruit to be fattening. We've arguably evolved to do exactly that, since fruits are seasonal crops with brief periods of availability before rotting and vanishing until next season. We binge when they're available (and love sweets accordingly), storing some energy for the coming period of scarcity. But it's true that intact fruits include soluble dietary fiber. The solubl…

Right. That makes sense and is what I am familiar with. Is it evidence-backed as a causative mechanism?

I like the Insulin Index page. That seems like reasonable evidence.

Post reply on HN