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

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#291

Post by kortex » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

zug_zug wrote: post #91

kortex wrote: post #59

Occam's razor: 1) humans consume ~5000 tonnes of the stuff, which apparently causes multiple kinds of cancers in rodents, and it's also super bad for humans, but despite its ubiquity we haven't seen that signal because...? 2) rodents with a lifespan of 1-3 years get cancer super-duper easily Rodent models are easy. Easy != simple.

Well if you google it the very first result shows that some studies have found a link in humans, others have not. So in the case of mixed data, it's really up to the individual if they want to err on the side of cancer or not. Given the track record of underestimating the damage of things, I know where I stand. But it's your body.

If I google what?

"aspartame cancer"

> Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (3). A 2013 review of epidemiologic evidence also found no consistent association between the use of aspartame and cancer risk (4).Aug 10, 2016 https://www.cancer.gov › risk › diet Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer - National Cancer Institute

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#292

Post by gnulinux » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

int0x2e wrote: post #18

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…

H2O all the way. I used to drink a ton of coke everyday. I started carrying a water bottle everywhere (and I do mean everywhere), and I take small sips very often. It's a surprisingly easy habit to kick - grab a bottle and stick with it.

Unflavored seltzer (i.e. no sugar, no sodium, no caffeine) is also as healthy as water and some people like myself find it significantly easier to drink than water.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#293

Post by ericwooley » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 4:31 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…

It's not just about sugar though. Salt can make you hungry, and more likely to eat more than you should.

According to Google, Snickers has 189 mg of salt per 100 grams. Strawberries have 0.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/25/sa...

Anecdotally, I have noticed I can basically eat an entire large pizza and still want more. Once we switched to making our own pizza from dough at trader Joe's, I'm stuffed after about 2 slices. I think the difference is that we don't add a ton of salt and cheese like a pizza place does.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#294

Post by Supermancho » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #262

Supermancho wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The sweet taste of artificial sweeteners triggers cephalic phase insulin release, causing a small rise in insulin levels. I'm gonna bet it does. Even our autonomic systems are pavlovian in conjunction, for good reason evolutionarily (hyper efficiency somewhere in the past).

You can bet whatever you wish, insulin levels are quantifiable. Studies have looked at exactly this question and have been unable to show an increase with Aspartame specifically. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29982723/

In diabetic adults aspartame does (and probably stevia, sucralose in everyone iirc), which is only a subset of sweeteners. More than that, the studies are being done regarding apparent insulin resistance developed by the guy bacteria after prolonged usage, which causes the body to have to produce more. So it does sometimes and usually, depending on composition. I'll double down on that.

Good luck with whatever.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#295

Post by msrenee » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

gscott wrote: post #246

zosima wrote: post #107

From the abstract this study does not bear any resemblance to the headline and makes very little sense to me. They reevaluated tumors from a 15 year old study in rodents, to prove that the original work was correct and that there wasn't any traces of mycoplasma. And so, I presume, they argue that the cancers were caused by aspartame. But that in itself does not prove whether or not the original study was flawed, and…

Mice tend to be so inbred they all die of cancer. They should redo the study on a different animal that has less incidence of cancer normally... like Rabbits.

There are a lot of different lines of mice used in the lab. Generally the incidence rate of cancer is pretty consistent in the lines used for cancer research. In addition, most cancer studies test for whether there is an increase in cancer rates from the baseline for the mice. For example, you'd purchase 100 mice all from a specific breeding line. You'd randomly choose 50 of those mice to expose to experimental conditions. The remaining 50 would be treated in exactly the same way except for the variable being tested. This is the control group.

For example, sticking with aspartame. You'd take 100 mice and randomly select 50 to be exposed to aspartame. All 100 mice would be kept in the same type of cage, receive the same amount of the same food and water from the same source, but the 50 experimental group mice would have aspartame added to the water. Even better would be if there was a way to have them consume the aspartame in controlled amounts and monitor food and water intake to track whether they eat and drink more or less in response to the aspartame, as that could also potentially effect the cancer rate.

It's not as simple as mice and rats are prone to cancer. They are. The people running these experiments are well-aware of that and go to great pains to ensure that that is not what's being measured.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#296

Post by msrenee » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

msrenee wrote: post #295

gscott wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mice tend to be so inbred they all die of cancer. They should redo the study on a different animal that has less incidence of cancer normally... like Rabbits.

There are a lot of different lines of mice used in the lab. Generally the incidence rate of cancer is pretty consistent in the lines used for cancer research. In addition, most cancer studies test for whether there is an increase in cancer rates from the baseline for the mice. For example, you'd purchase 100 mice all from a specific breeding line. You'd randomly choose 50 of those mice to expose to experimental condi…

*affect the cancer rate. Not effect. Still waking up here.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#297

Post by tblt » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 8:09 PM UTC

gnulinux wrote: post #292

int0x2e wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H2O all the way. I used to drink a ton of coke everyday. I started carrying a water bottle everywhere (and I do mean everywhere), and I take small sips very often. It's a surprisingly easy habit to kick - grab a bottle and stick with it.

Unflavored seltzer (i.e. no sugar, no sodium, no caffeine) is also as healthy as water and some people like myself find it significantly easier to drink than water.

Beware, however, that the carbon dioxide in fizzy drinks causes the water to become acidic, which is bad for the enamel on your teeth.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#298

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 8:37 PM UTC

kortex wrote: post #290

ncmncm wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you're here... what is a Ph ring with an O substituted, and an N opposite it, called?

If it's fully unsaturated, 1,4-oxazinane. If it's 2 double bonds, 1,4-oxazine, or more commonly oxazinone if it's part of a larger fused structure (eg nile red). If you fully aromatize it, it becomes oxazinium. That's a weird one, probably unstable. I think there are some peroxo species with a 1,4-oxazin-1-ium but it's a bit wacky. The meta (1,3) oxazinium is more stable, but it still needs 3 big electron-withdrawing…

Thank you. I was looking at a vermicide that had what looked like a complicated nitrogen cage, empty, with a pair of those hanging off, and I realized I had no idea what to call them.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#299

Post by TeeMassive » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 9:51 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.

What if they don't? The "sugar craving" from artificial sweeteners is way overblown.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#300

Post by dctoedt » Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #78

zippy5 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work on DNA dyes. Typically when you see a 6 carbon ring with a chain of carbons attached, there is high probability of that molecule interfering with DNA replication. Basically the mechanism works because the hexagon ring slides between the base pairs and this leads to a lowest energy state due to a phenomenon call pi orbital stacking resulting in the molecule getting stuck there. The carbon chain is mostl…

The biochemist I raised and who is sitting next to me drinking beers I paid for so that he would not drink all my expensive whiskey says that ethidium bromide doesn't even pass the Ames test except with liver homogenates, and its actual carcinogenicity is unproven. Your body produces similar carbon rings --- phenylalanines --- constantly. You can't simply derive carcinogencity axiomatically. (I'm butchering this and…

> The biochemist I raised and who is sitting next to me drinking beers I paid for so that he would not drink all my expensive whiskey

Ah, the joys of having young-adult offspring! I was recently surprised and delighted when the high-school history teacher that I raised brought home a bottle of the not-expensive whisky that we drink (Famous Grouse) to replace the bottle that magically empties so much faster since he started coming over for dinner now and then. He hasn't brought whiskey yet (Jameson's Port Cask) because we don't drink that up as quickly ....