Oh man, this report about Gen Z taking "Diet Coke" breaks to 'escape work' came to mind: https://fortune.com/2023/04/25/gen-z-diet-coke-break-trend-t...
Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
561–570 of 584 posts
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#562Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evidence [0][1] suggests that the fructose in honey acts differently from fructose in table sugar, and seems to have some unexplained metabolic benefits. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421854/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21621801/
Your first study is testing three different diets only specifically for high triglycerides and the second doesn't mention honey.
That looks like some very lazy criticism. Care to provide contradicting studies?
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#563Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leaded gasoline will really blow your mind, at least it did for me Edit: Figuratively not literally, haha!
Interestingly, the inventor of leaded gasoline also invented freon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr .
Citation Needed, by The Technical Difficulties, has a great episode on him (and Chris's pope infestation.)
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sucralose saw a recent study on effects of DNA that are more compelling than Aspartame. Acesulfame-K messes with pancrease and insulin signalling, Stevia has other detractors iirc... etc. etc. In the end, it's all a mixed bag, and who knows if it's actually better or worse than consuming more than 25-40mg of fructose or alcohol in a day. There are massive corporate interests in all directions with deep revolving door…
Why 250+ years?
Crops as industry. Most of the changes are more recent. But selective breeding for appeal en mass is not the same as for nutrition.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your first study is testing three different diets only specifically for high triglycerides and the second doesn't mention honey.
That looks like some very lazy criticism. Care to provide contradicting studies?
very lazy criticism
It's literally true and fundamental to what you're claiming.
Care to provide contradicting studies?
That sugar is bad for you? Here is a presentation with lots of studies.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're telling me there's a chance? Warnings like these quickly hit the Prop 65 problem - the notices are so ubiquitous you go blind to them.
These notices are ineffective to say the least. Saying “everything causes cancer” is pointless because it ignores the key questions of “how often?” and “with what severity?”
The IARC lists do not answer these two questions on their own either, but with the "evidence level" groups there's at least some separation from alcohol down to aspartame. These levels are still insufficient for at-a-glance risk assessment: putting mustard gas and alcohol both at level 1 can send you into a bit of a spin until you realize what the grouping is about.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#567Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too little or too much of many foods will be bad Where Aspartame is unhealthy in soda could use more detailed light shed on it. There may be some issue with how it’s used for food and soda in second and third world countries compared to First world.
> Where Aspartame is unhealthy in soda could use more detailed light shed on it. I imagine it's complex, with indirect affects, with its ability to modulate the gut: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/artificial-sweete...
Interesting, thanks.
I have also heard carbonated beverages during eating may affect stomach acid. Need to find some research clarifying it one way or the other.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s actually sodium nitrite that’s carcinogenic (after being exposed to high heat), and I can find bacon without sodium nitrite here pretty much at every grocery store.
If you read carefully, it still contains sodium nitrite except as powdered celery. So the source of the sodium nitrate is “natural” but the dose is still the same.
I buy raw pork belly. Doesn't taste the same after being cooked, but surely it has no nitrites. ;)
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
Engines don't work on unleaded fuel.
Untrue. G100UL is a drop-in replacement for 100LL. TEL should be banned because 70% of all airborne lead is a result of piston-driven general aviation.
It probably works as drop-in replacement, but until there's actual QA, we can't be sure enough.
Unless you want planes falling from the sky.
Maybe a little more on the table than releasing something to prod and finding a speling mistake.
And to be clear: I don't want the dozens of airplanes that fly over me daily to be running leaded gas. Politics is gunna politics I guess.