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

211–220 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#211

Post by jbluepolarbear »

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.

Aspartame makes me crave more aspartame, not sugar. I am addicted to Diet Coke, but I can’t even finish a single can of regular coke.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#212

Post by schipplock »

happymellon wrote: post #82
_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.

Artificial sweeteners are in more than just sodas. The number of food products that traditionally didn't have sweetners in, that now have aspartame is increasing. That is concerning for me.

I once had a limonade that had sugar and aspartame in it, probably to bring down the amount of sugar.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#213

Post by dragonwriter »

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 a plant.

That is full of carcinogens. And nicotine, which IIRC isn't a carcinogen itself but instead promotes tumor growth once they form.

> Cigarettes are the cause.

Chewing tobacco is a great way to get (a different set of kinds of) cancer, too.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#214

Post by ed25519FUUU »

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #211
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.

Aspartame makes me crave more aspartame, not sugar. I am addicted to Diet Coke, but I can’t even finish a single can of regular coke.

I think it’s a combination of flavor and dopamine from drinking it. A lot of Diet Coke drinkers would rather drink water than Diet Pepsi. Not that it taste “bad”, it’s just not what they’re craving.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#215

Post by schipplock »

barcoder wrote: post #130
kiba wrote: post #4

Note that it is in rodent. Aspartame hadn't been confirmed as a carcinogenic agent in humans. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to subject to ourselves to drinking diet soda as a daily habit. It costs money, may or may not interfere with your blood sugar and the health of your gut microbiomes. As a goal, I limit my intake of any sweet and/or artifically sweetened drinks. Instead of being a chronic diet coke d…

Best too drink water atleast 30 minutes before or after the meal because it dilutes the stomach digestive acids

That can lead to other problems :D. We humans are so complicated :).

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#216

Post by azdle »

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.

To be fair, so is all of our fruit these days. Just through a couple thousand years of selective breeding.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#217

Post by tptacek »

nate_meurer wrote: post #189
argvargc wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Also ice cream and eye drops (carboxymethyl cellulose).

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#218

Post by vnjfvfg »

jader201 wrote: post #210
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…

Hasn’t it been proven many times that fruits are healthy, period? Let alone comparing fruits to processed/refined sugars? I never understand these claims of fruits being unhealthy — or an unhealthy substitute for processed/refined sugars — yet there are many sources stating that fruits are fine/healthy [1]. There’s more to the story than just comparing the amount of “sugar” from nutritional facts between fruits and c…

>Hasn’t it been proven many times that fruits are healthy, period?

Fruits are healthy in the same sense that dihydrogen monoxide is. Infinitesimal amounts have no health consequence, moderate amounts are healthy, amounts that exclude other foods will cause nutritional deficiencies, and excessive enough amounts will result in suffocation.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#219

Post by ben_w »

nate_meurer wrote: post #207
ben_w wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought oil boiled at 300 °C, how do you get up to 390 °C?

You don't, at least not on purpose. At 390 C you're filling your kitchen with smoke, and if you're cooking on gas you probably already have a grease fire on your stove. However, it is shockingly easy to get a pan this hot by accident, with no more than a few minutes of inattention. I've seen people burn the non-stick coating off their pans on a couple of occasions after getting distracted by the phone. It's risky to…

Given what I originally quoted said it only happens after four hours of exposure, your final paragraph does not surprise me.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#220

Post by gnicholas »

jdavis703 wrote: post #19
gnicholas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised to see a Prop 65 warning on the organic frozen spinach we get delivered by Amazon Fresh/Whole Foods. Apparently it's due to Cadmium. It makes me wonder if the stuff you buy in-store doesn't have the same risk, or if they just don't label it as obviously as online.

The physical store likely has a warning saying they “contain chemicals known to cause cancer.” Because these warning signs are so ubiquitous in California you probably just miss it when you go to the brick & mortar.

Quite possibly, but it seems like if you can just have one big sign in front of the store, then you could just have one sign on the bottom of a website. Here there's a specific warning on the organic frozen spinach.
Post reply on HN