Literally read halfway down the article before they say that "working overnight" is also in the "probably carcinogenic" category and that the organization is known for publishing confusing results that cause panic.
FFS
Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
151–160 of 584 posts
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#152This is awful reporting. Aspartame has been studied for more than 40 years and no regulatory body in any country has found it to be cancerogenic; it is a risky substance for people with a rare desease called Phenylketonuria. So, the reader will be under the impression that it will cause cancer, which is pretty dubious, all while obesity for which sugary drinks are partially responsible is a very real cancer risk.
> So, the reader will be under the impression that it will cause cancer, which is pretty dubious, all while obesity for which sugary drinks are partially responsible is a very real cancer risk. Saying it's "partially responsible" in essence is ridiculous, though, when it's also a critical nutrient we eat in virtually every food. Aspartame is not. It's the sheer volume of sugar ingested that's the issue.
High fructose corn syrup is not a critical nutrient.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm always surprised by this when it's "50 years ago". Certainly the scientists and analysts at 3M who collected and analyzed the data would have thereafter known of it's extremely harmful effects. And I don't mean to open this up to "heh yea well they made bank!" I don't think they did relatively speaking. My main question, is that certainly those scientists would have been advising their friends and families to sta…
It's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of things when you get a big payday by doing so. This is why analyzing clinical trial data is so obscenely hard. There are bad actors, there are liars, and there are scientists who are really, really hoping to achieve a breakthrough. All of them are liable to end up putting forth bad information.
> It's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of things when you get a big payday by doing so.
Is it easy to turn a blind eye, when factory workers in your own company were dying, or is what we're describing called at best criminal, and at worst psychotic?
They were literally just dumping these chemicals down the river. They were fined a small fraction of their profits (of billions) and told pretty please to not do it again. This is obvious corruption on so many levels.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, is it good or neutral for you? I've always felt like these diet drinks were just marketing to make you think everything was fine, feel free to drink as many as you want. I've worked with a few people that would go through 4-6 Coke Zeros every day. In no world can I imagine that that wouldn't have negative long term effects on a human -- all things in moderation, right? Personally, I'll drink a Mexican Coke with…
> In no world can I imagine that that wouldn't have negative long term effects on a human -- all things in moderation, right? Why on earth would you think that? It's carbonated water with a tiny amount of food dye, sweeter and caffeine. The latter of which, iirc, has generally positive effects.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/
[1] shows that artificial sweeteners lead to higher insulin resistance. It is so because they provoke insulin level increase due to their sweet taste.
Caffeine is a tricky one.
If you can drink 6 cups of espresso a day, you have 50% less chance developing dementia. But, how can you drink 6 cups of coffee per day if you do not have good health? It can be that the "small positive effects of caffeine" are due to caffeine consumers have a little better health overall and these with worse health have to consume less caffeine.
For an anecdote, I once went completely off caffeine for a month and haven't noticed a thing after first three days, when I was unusually sleepy. Even training results followed the same progression.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#155Mobile phones, WiFi etc a have been under the same classification by WHO since 2011. The industry didn’t take it too seriously, and probably this one doesn’t mean anything either.
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E....
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#156A few of the conspiracy nutters that I know firmly beleive that "Big Aspartame" is responsible for suppressing information about its dire negative effects.
But when you consider:
- how many doctors and scientists are personally/professionally motivated to research this
- how many gov't organizations are concerned about this
- how many industry competitors would benefit from discovering this
- how many lawyers would get rich from exploiting this
...then I somewhat doubt that one group could suppress all of this, globally, for 40+ years. At this point, aspartame is probably one of the most researched food additives out there.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#157Honestly, what I want to know in a headline like this is "what changed?" As someone who deals with health anxiety already, I have done my fair share of research on things like this. Aspartame, along with most other artificial sweeteners, have not been proven to be carcinogenic in many studies done over a 40 year period. Additionally, the hazard ratio of any of these sweeteners in comparison to the equivalent consumpt…
Right here, in this very thread, are comments suggesting that there is no credible evidence that aspartame is a carcinogen.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In no world can I imagine that that wouldn't have negative long term effects on a human -- all things in moderation, right? Why on earth would you think that? It's carbonated water with a tiny amount of food dye, sweeter and caffeine. The latter of which, iirc, has generally positive effects.
Well, the mild acidity is bad for your teeth. Other than that there doesn't seem to be much that stands out as an issue, at least from what we know so far.
Can it be called mild? Diet coke has a pH of 3, which is the same as vinegar
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of things when you get a big payday by doing so. This is why analyzing clinical trial data is so obscenely hard. There are bad actors, there are liars, and there are scientists who are really, really hoping to achieve a breakthrough. All of them are liable to end up putting forth bad information.
> It's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of things when you get a big payday by doing so. Is it easy to turn a blind eye, when factory workers in your own company were dying, or is what we're describing called at best criminal, and at worst psychotic? They were literally just dumping these chemicals down the river. They were fined a small fraction of their profits (of billions) and told pretty please to n…
This happened at 3M? What are you referring to?
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
effectively this is pick your poison: aspartame or sugar
Sucralose is another a widely used option. Cokecola uses aspartame, pepsicola uses sucralose. You can also easily buy it off the shelf
Sucralose however seems to be stimulating some insulin secretion even though it has no real caloric value.