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

221–230 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#221

Post by xyzzyz »

Pyramus wrote: post #90
xyzzyz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PTFE? It’s so non-reactive that it is commonly used in medical implants, precisely because of its high biocompatibility. I don’t think that there are any connections at all between PTFE and cancer.

"While PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures, it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of cookware reaches about 260 °C (500 °F), and decomposes above 350 °C (662 °F).[58] Over 400 °C (752 °F) pyrolysis occurs and more decomposition becomes significantly more rapid. The main decomposition products are tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and difluorocarbene radicals (RCF2).[58] The degradation by-products can…

Yes, it becomes toxic at high temperatures, same as many other commonly used materials, eg. wood. Should we also be concerned about widespread use of woods because it becomes toxic when burned?

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#222

Post by [deleted] »

renewiltord wrote: post #190
pengaru wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#223

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #137
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…

To your point, I bought a food dehydrator recently and made a batch of dried apples. I was watching a movie and midway through realized that in my snacking while watching I had eaten 9 whole apples. That water content really prevents a lot of abuse.

Fruit is fructose + water + fibre + natural flavouring.

Confectionery is sucrose + other carbs + filler + appetite enhancers.

While you can over eat fruit, the water and fibre make it very difficult.

With confectionery, it's literally designed to be easy.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#224

Post by mixmastamyk »

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…

> easily devour pounds

The real problem—don't do that. Eat a salad beforehand and then keep the fruit to a serving or two. Zero doesn't work in the long term, there is no need for deprivation that squeezes out the fun in life.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#225

Post by sgtnoodle »

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…

When I visited a small island in Belize, I went out on a tiny sailboat with a middle aged local and his teenage son. At lunch time, he grabbed his gut and proclaimed that he ate too many bananas, and then promptly diced up a pineapple for everyone.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#226

Post by Someone1234 »

nicoburns wrote: post #141
computerphage wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Aspartame does not increase insulin levels. People have heard that Sucralose does and group all artificial sweeteners together.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#227

Post by sgtnoodle »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #214
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My wife stopped drinking Diet Coke for a month, and then decided she preferred life with that vice and started drinking it again.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#228

Post by sjs7s »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #209
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…

Gotta love the internet, where you can find people trying to convince themselves that a candy bar is healthier to eat than fruit by posting the nutritional contents of a Snickers bite sized mini. The confirmation bias is strong with this one.

I can't even tell if the comments here are serious or trolling any more.

Fruits contain micronutrients in addition to the regular nutrients they have. There's no comparison that just about any fruit would be a healthier choice than a candy bar. I thought it would also go without saying that it is essential to have a diverse diet because a person needs a lot of different nutrients, not just one.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#229

Post by burnished »

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…

I think you've sort of lost something in your study of macros there. As an anecdote, I can eat and enjoy an orange, or a banana but typically no more. I can absolutely crush a package of oreos though. I've got a rule about junk food, that the total size of a container needs to be an appropriate single serving.. because no matter how big it is, one package has consistently been 'one serving'. I won't speculate because I don't know why, but I've consistently noticed that fruit, while appealing and satisfying, are more difficult to unthinkingly binge than processed sweets.

Basically, I think you're losing something when you compare the macros of a pear to a snickers bar.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#230

Post by stjohnswarts »

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.

I always throw my hands up when people mention refined vs unrefined sugar, there is practically no difference between the two except one has been extracted from the other, and the body readily reacts the same to both.
Post reply on HN