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

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#191

Post by nate_meurer » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

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…

I doubt there are many graduate students who would readily understand what you wrote about fused rings. It's going to take me some time to digest it.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#192

Post by guerby » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:37 PM UTC

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…

I don't know if the consensus on this will stand very long:

https://www.dietdoctor.com/red-meat-is-not-associated-with-h...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YG81VK6co8

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#193

Post by Johnny555 » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

nvarsj wrote: post #148

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

Where is the science showing that artificial sweeteners are actually good for me? Or even better than natural sugars?

Like I said, I don't know if artificial sweeteners are bad for me but I also don't know that they are good for me, so why use them?

I don't eschew everything that might be bad for me I still enjoy wine and even the occasional slice of cake (which even if it's loaded with all-natural sugar which I am sure is not "good" for me), but it's not like my quality of life is lessened by not having more aspartame or even stevia in my diet.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#194

Post by kortex » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

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…

> I think a geometric interpretation can help some non-chemists understand how intercalating molecules bind to dna.

Absolutely, geometry of electric fields is the primary factor in biochemical interactions. "The electron is where its at" as my o-chem teacher always said.

But that's exactly why aspartame is totally different than intercalators like EthBr, doxorubicin, and PAHs. That phenyl moeity has a rotational degree of freedom, and the whole peptide backbone is floppy. EthBr has a Ph but it's stabilized in-plane by the tri-ring. Intercalators typically have 300-500 daltons worth in a "planar greasy brick" regime, with very little in the way of bulky or floppy steric groups. On paper, aspartame looks pretty flat, but you gotta think about thermal molecules in solution.

E: just noticed this

> I would also say two rings with a carbon-carbon link seem to be potent binding as well.

Oh yeah, like biphenylyl, -Ph-Ph? So that's actually much more planar than a single Ph. The conjugation (any time you see carbon chains with alternating double bonds) of the pi-orbitals stabilizes the rings in-plane. Also it's rather unnatural, there's not a lot of reactions which forge a sigma bond between two aromatics like that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphenyl

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#195

Post by k__ » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #179

TeeMassive wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I noticed switching from juice to artificially sweetened iced tea, that I was more tired.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#196

Post by jonhohle » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

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…

Fruit also contains fiber, which most sweets do not.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#197

Post by slumdev » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

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…

No matter what they say, nobody likes fruit enough to get fat off of it.

Can't say that about candy bars.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#198

Post by slumdev » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:54 PM UTC

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?

Artificial sweeteners, from the time that they enter your mouth and encounter your taste buds, cause the release of insulin.

This insulin lowers your blood sugar. Because artificial sweeteners provide only the sensation of sweetness and not the energy content of an actual sugar, your blood sugar falls low enough that your unconscious brain is compelled to eat.

People who drink diet soda consistently eat more calories than they would have eaten if they had drunk a regular soda--even if you include the calories from the soda.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#199

Post by SapporoChris » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:56 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #172

twerkmonsta wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I will not disagree completely. But I will point out that nicotine by itself can actually have benefits that outweight the risks.

Search "benefits of nicotine", yields a wealth of articles supporting this such as: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#200

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Aug 14, 2021, 7:56 PM UTC

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…

> Ah, yes, replace 'sweets' with 'fruits' which are about 50-75% sugar by non-water mass.

What constitutes the rest of the non-water mass matters quite a bit (especially if l, as much of it is with many whole fruits, it is fiber, which is demonstrated to mitigate Type 2 diabetes risk and severity.) Sugar + fiber is much less bad for you than sugar alone.