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

161–170 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#161

Post by twerkmonsta »

jaggederest wrote: post #156
twerkmonsta wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t most “artificial” substances more likely to be carcinogenic or toxic than something occurring naturally? Or is that just my wacky personal bias talking?

There are plenty of "natural" carcinogens. Tobacco, for example, is perhaps the largest single cause of cancer in human history.

I know there are natural carcinogens. That wasn’t my question.

Tobacco is a plant. Cigarettes are a product made from tobacco with many “artificial” chemicals added. Cigarettes are the cause.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#162

Post by zippy5 »

nate_meurer wrote: post #144
zippy5 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really a comprehensive interpretation of intercalation but I think a geometric interpretation can help some non-chemists understand how intercalating molecules bind to dna. From the purely geometric model, some of the molecules you proposed have pretty large functional groups adjacent to rings which I think may make the intercalation process less efficient. That being said, if you took those molecules and ga…

> some of the molecules you proposed have pretty large functional groups adjacent to rings And many more do not. > if you took those molecules and gave massive doses to rats, some may comeback as carcinogenic. Luckily we don't have to guess. For example, look at the hundreds of terpenoids that saturate traditional diets, many of which and are widely believed to prevent cancer. If you have any actual evidence, put it…

I want to apologize, I definitely don’t intend to fear monger and most definitely not want to imply that I have expertise. Roughly my level of understanding is mostly that of a low level undergrad and you should treat my naiveness as such.

I recognize that what I’m engaging in is entirely wild speculation based on limited experience and data, likely very error prone and that really I’m just having fun without considering how it may impact other readers.

I understand that for many this an important issue of health and research. I did not intend to detract from these more legitimate forms of discussion.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#163

Post by WalterBright »

TeeMassive wrote: post #158
Johnny555 wrote: post #136

I treat artificial sweeteners like I do mask wearing -- I'm not sure how much difference wearing a mask makes for my safety and safety of others, but I wear it anyway because it's a very minor inconvenience and it probably helps. I avoid artificial sweeteners because I'm not sure if they have any detrimental effects, but I avoid them anyway because it's a minor inconvenience, and whether they are actually harmful or…

I'm pretty sure the increased cancer rates and cardiovascular incidents caused by obesity far exceeds the the little aspartame-cancer causation studies have demonstrated so far.

Have diet drinks ever been successful at getting people to lose weight?

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#165

Post by argvargc »

tptacek wrote: post #128
argvargc wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, cancer is a leading cause of death so it may not be easy to tease that one out. Regardless, where did you get the idea it's "practically universally" consumed? Taking soda for example, people typically either do or don't drink diet soda, and in much of the beverage chillers I've seen "diet" is stocked in the minority (with limited regional variation). Bear in mind diet itself is fractured into aspartame and ste…

People keep saying that it's hard to tease this out of the data, but consumption of aspartame skyrocketed suddenly in the 1980s. We ran the natural experiment. We have the before-after data. Does that data show a sharp rise in cancer correlated to aspartame consumption? No, it does not; it shows in fact (I believe) the opposite. That's the argument I'm inviting you to rebut. There are ways to rebut it! But "the data…

So if cancer went down, which could happen for all kinds of reasons, good luck finding any causal relationship that may yet still be there hidden beneath such noise.

As far as I'm concerned, if rats are shown to get cancer from something for which there are many alternatives, I'll steer clear of it.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#166

Post by WalterBright »

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.

> is a complete package of nutrients

You'll die of malnutrition on a fruit-only diet. It lacks fat, for example, which is essential.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#168

Post by Fergusonb »

WalterBright wrote: post #163
TeeMassive wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the increased cancer rates and cardiovascular incidents caused by obesity far exceeds the the little aspartame-cancer causation studies have demonstrated so far.

Have diet drinks ever been successful at getting people to lose weight?

Yes, when the replace sugary drinks in the diet.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4786736/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4135487/

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#169

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

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…

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#170

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

WalterBright wrote: post #166
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 a complete package of nutrients You'll die of malnutrition on a fruit-only diet. It lacks fat, for example, which is essential.

I don't mean complete as in, its all that you need, just that food is more than simply tallying sugar content.

People seem to think fruit == candy since both contain lots of sugar. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Post reply on HN