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

301–310 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#301

Post by noptd »

Supermancho wrote: post #294
Someone1234 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>In diabetic adults aspartame does

Since you're stating this definitively in a response to Someone posting evidence debunking your previous claim, can you link a study backing it up?

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#302

Post by Spare_account »

WalterBright wrote: post #287
Spare_account wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what you mean by a sugar rush? I thought that was a myth

It's hard to describe, but I can feel it when my blood sugar levels spike.

As I understand it, the body's self-regulation systems maintain blood sugar within a range that doesn't typically permit a 'sugar high'.

If you regularly experience a 'sugar-high', I wonder if it might be indicative of problems with your body's blood sugar regulation.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324896#Acute-sugar...

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#303

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#304

Post by perrylaj »

dundarious wrote: post #76
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, like everybody else, I eat things with substantial amounts of acrylamide, which is a carcinogen we actually know is problematic, unlike aspartame. You're commenting on a story that suggests that even small exposures to aspartame might be dangerous. And you stopped drinking diet soda only recently. I think you might have a hard time finding an American (for instance) that hadn't consumed a substantial am…

There's an interesting hypothesis that the pathway to cancer for aspartame (if it exists) might involve creating formaldehyde in the same way that's done when drinking ethanol, and so actually, drinking alcohol is _protective_ as it blocks the aspartame cancer effect -- in a similar way that ethanol is a treatment for methanol poisoning. I don't really worry about aspartame cancer risk though, it doesn't seem like a…

Formaldehyde is not a byproduct of ethanol metabolism. Acetaldehyde is the chemical 'equivalent' metabolic byproduct in the pathway that eliminates ethanol. In common alcohol/liquor for drinking there may be trace amounts of methanol (less true than historically, but still occurs), and that may be what you're thinking.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#305

Post by [deleted] »

mmmrtl wrote: post #272
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…

Motivated reasoning, much? You're comparing a 15 g "fun size" snickers or a 42 g kit kat to 100 and 165 g of fruit. And non-water mass is a strange calculation to make - we don't live in a freeze-dried society. Snickers and kit do have higher fat percentages than fruit, what's your point? Wean off sweets with less sweet things, which do have other nutritionally redemptive qualities.

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#306

Post by nobodyandproud »

slumdev wrote: post #197
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…

No matter what they say, nobody likes fruit enough to get fat off of it. Can't say that about candy bars.

Seasonal strawberries and peaches I can eat all day.

They taste better than any candy bar I’ve ever had, and come without the guilt.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#307

Post by ncmncm »

naasking wrote: post #289
ncmncm wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An insulin increase without carb intake results in lowered blood sugar, thus hunger. This is the simplest sort of biochemistry.

You haven't quantified the magnitude of the insulin response just from tasting something sweet, which is relevant to how much of an impact it will have on behavior, nor does a lowered blood sugar necessarily entail you crave sweets. Simple biochemistry does not capture human behaviour.

Insulin response to sweets is probably subject to operant conditioning, so path dependent.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#308

Post by norswap »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #105
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…

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…

Yeah, no.

100g is half a cup. It's about 5 large strawberries. See https://findanyanswer.com/how-many-grams-are-3-strawberries for more numbers.

I buy strawberries in 500g boxes, and let me tell 1/5 isn't all that filling (definitely less than a Snickers bar).

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#309

Post by mattmaroon »

sizzle wrote: post #277
mattmaroon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they ever find out that carbonated water is carcinogenic I will probably keel over dead the next day. I measure my LaCroix habit in packs per day.

Ever read the label on a LaCroix can? Can you tell me what the “natural” flavors are made from? The lack of transparency scares me, will the way thru process “natural flavor” cause cancer?

I happen to do beverage production for a living now. I know exactly where they come from and how many are made. There’s nothing to be scared of.

The FDA has a list of things you can call “natural flavor”. They are essentially all extracts, mostly refined through distillations.

I’ll give you an example: blueberry. Industrial juice is typically concentrated by vacuum distillation. It had to be shipped frozen, and that’s very expensive, so it’s cheaper to remove the water.

The first stuff that comes off of that is called essence and has a delightful blueberry flavor. It doesnt taste exactly like blueberry but it’s recognizable and highly potent.

A couple drops of that flavor your entire can.

You can actually buy them directly from a couple flavor houses (most are wholesale only but not all) in small quantities. Check out Silver Cloud Flavors. I have carbonated water on draft and just add them in rather than buying cans anymore.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#310

Post by cutthegrass2 »

tblt wrote: post #297
gnulinux wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, carbonic acid.

If it tastes great, there's usually a catch somewhere!

Post reply on HN