Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 267 posts

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#241

Post by dekhn »

ch4s3 wrote: post #110
bennettnate5 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a family member who has discovered through gradual process of elimination that she gets migraines from MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. "just sodium headaches" doesn't really apply to her case; simply chewing a piece of gum that has aspartame, or eating a piece of meat cooked with MSG in her salad is enough to trigger them. I agree in the general sense with your comment and the article that there's no widespr…

> discovered through gradual process of elimination that she gets migraines from MSG This is definitely not true. There is no biological pathway that can do this. MSG is nearly identical to the glutamic acid in other foods. If it were true they'd be unable to tolerate parmesan cheese, soy sauce, aged meats, tomatoes, mushrooms, and seaweed.

MSG is the salt form, wherre the glutamate is bound to a sodium atom. In food, my understanding is that MSG will split into two things: sodium ion and glutamate ion. The difference between adding MSG to food and food being already high in glutamate would be the salt content.

I don't recommend telling people their subjective experience isn't true- you don't know for sure that they don't actually get migraines from MSG. I think it's fine to tell people that often their subjective experiences can be colored by prior knowledge, and people often ascribe causes to unrelated factors. (My personal belief is that most people who say they got a headache from MSG experienced a headache, but consuming glutamate was not the cause).

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#242

Post by erelong »

Well, from the comments we see:

-possible disruption of gut microbiome

-possible trigger of migraines

as well as from other places:

-those with phenylketonuria (PKU) must avoid it

-there are concerns that aspartic acid which is produced "can act as an excitotoxin, overstimulating nerve cells and potentially leading to neuronal injury and cell death" with chronic exposure or high doses

-potentially carcinogenic

-no nutritional value (thus no "need" to consume it)

Fruit, honey, or maple syrup in contrast are natural without some of these concerns in the same way

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#243

Post by tptacek »

Groxx wrote: post #233
tptacek wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with HFCS either, at least not that isn't also wrong with sugar. This is all just naturalist fallacy stuff.

The HFCS stuff always feels weird to me. Like sure, there's glycemic index impact, it is measurably different, etc... but I feel like people don't realize that "high" fructose is different only by a few percent from table sugar, and is "high" only because it's being compared to regular corn syrup. Like... HFCS-42 is 42% fructose. That's lower than cane / table sugar, which is 50%. If you really think fructose is the…

I don't believe it is measurably different! Apart from what you noted (HFCS is "high fructose" relative to normal corn syrup, not table sugar), ordinary sugars are broken down instantly by the human body.

The subtext and I think valid concern about HFCS is that it drastically reduces the cost of calorically sweetening foods and especially beverages.

But people routinely cruise past that to claims that HFCS itself is uniquely harmful to humans, and it isn't, at least no more than sugar is.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#244

Post by tptacek »

hawk_ wrote: post #239
tptacek wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work? It's hydrolized into its constituents, which are present in higher quantities in apples and chicken and other foods, in the upper GI. Do you have a cite for this?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39475342/ - mouse colitis model https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41137210/ - inflammation pathways

Did you read the second paper carefully? It seems to model direct gut exposure to aspartame under experimental conditions. In reality, aspartame is quickly broken into its constituents in the upper GI. Capsaicin will also quickly damage epithelial cells in a petri dish! It's still widely and uncontroversially present in ordinary foodstuffs.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#245

Post by srean »

ch4s3 wrote: post #110
bennettnate5 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a family member who has discovered through gradual process of elimination that she gets migraines from MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. "just sodium headaches" doesn't really apply to her case; simply chewing a piece of gum that has aspartame, or eating a piece of meat cooked with MSG in her salad is enough to trigger them. I agree in the general sense with your comment and the article that there's no widespr…

> discovered through gradual process of elimination that she gets migraines from MSG This is definitely not true. There is no biological pathway that can do this. MSG is nearly identical to the glutamic acid in other foods. If it were true they'd be unable to tolerate parmesan cheese, soy sauce, aged meats, tomatoes, mushrooms, and seaweed.

That's very interesting because cheese, paneer and cured meats do trigger wife's migraines. I had not considered that richness is n glutamic acid is a common factor.

The personal, anecdotal relation seems strong on the cheese and paneer component. Even if she had something not aware that it contains either of those it would trigger a migraine, sometimes not immediately though, seems to take a few to several hours.

Will have to try a blind testing with MSG.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#246

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #243
Groxx wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HFCS stuff always feels weird to me. Like sure, there's glycemic index impact, it is measurably different, etc... but I feel like people don't realize that "high" fructose is different only by a few percent from table sugar, and is "high" only because it's being compared to regular corn syrup. Like... HFCS-42 is 42% fructose. That's lower than cane / table sugar, which is 50%. If you really think fructose is the…

I don't believe it is measurably different! Apart from what you noted (HFCS is "high fructose" relative to normal corn syrup, not table sugar), ordinary sugars are broken down instantly by the human body. The subtext and I think valid concern about HFCS is that it drastically reduces the cost of calorically sweetening foods and especially beverages. But people routinely cruise past that to claims that HFCS itself is…

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#247

Post by Groxx »

tptacek wrote: post #243
Groxx wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HFCS stuff always feels weird to me. Like sure, there's glycemic index impact, it is measurably different, etc... but I feel like people don't realize that "high" fructose is different only by a few percent from table sugar, and is "high" only because it's being compared to regular corn syrup. Like... HFCS-42 is 42% fructose. That's lower than cane / table sugar, which is 50%. If you really think fructose is the…

I don't believe it is measurably different! Apart from what you noted (HFCS is "high fructose" relative to normal corn syrup, not table sugar), ordinary sugars are broken down instantly by the human body. The subtext and I think valid concern about HFCS is that it drastically reduces the cost of calorically sweetening foods and especially beverages. But people routinely cruise past that to claims that HFCS itself is…

I think it's fairly safe to say there's a measurable difference - fructose generally (afaict) has noticeably lower insulin responses compared to glucose. Though it's still very minor compared to the total change vs none of course, and I haven't seen much of anything showing evidence of a benefit compared to the other - just "technically different".

Definitely agreed that there's a weird demonizing of HFCS in particular though. Maybe because it sounds technical? It's easy to point to because it's common, and it doesn't sound "natural".

And personally I don't think HFCS's clear manufacturing benefits really affect much, it's just the most convenient so it's the most used. The addictive qualities of sugar are much more valuable, IMO They™ would continue to sweeten things at the same level even if it were completely banned. They'd just use something else, and sucrose is also very cheap.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#248

Post by human_person »

srean wrote: post #245
ch4s3 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> discovered through gradual process of elimination that she gets migraines from MSG This is definitely not true. There is no biological pathway that can do this. MSG is nearly identical to the glutamic acid in other foods. If it were true they'd be unable to tolerate parmesan cheese, soy sauce, aged meats, tomatoes, mushrooms, and seaweed.

That's very interesting because cheese, paneer and cured meats do trigger wife's migraines. I had not considered that richness is n glutamic acid is a common factor. The personal, anecdotal relation seems strong on the cheese and paneer component. Even if she had something not aware that it contains either of those it would trigger a migraine, sometimes not immediately though, seems to take a few to several hours. Wi…

Oh she/you should check out mast cell activation syndrome (mcas). Basically different foods increase histamine levels in the body or prevent its degradation. Old proteins and fermented foods are particularly problematic because microbes break down the protein and release histamine precursors.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#249

Post by cluckindan »

tptacek wrote: post #47
cluckindan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s probably because 10% of ingested aspartame breaks down into methanol. Or, you might just be sensitive to phenylalanine.

A six-pack of aspartame-sweetened Diet Coke has about as much methanol as a single apple.

But crucially, it has no ethanol.

Re: Aspartame is not that bad? (2022)

#250

Post by JCattheATM »

cyberax wrote: post #197
midiguy wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that everything has to be sweet, but rather that, for example, Coke really isn't Coke without sweetness and people just happen to enjoy Coke. And if you're going to enjoy a Coke, Coke Zero or Diet Coke is better for your health. Of course there are other things like coffee that really are not defined by sweetness and can be perfectly enjoyed unsweetened.

A guy on the Internet recently reverse-engineered the Coke formula and published the recipe. I always liked Diet Coke, the regular one is just too sweet for me. So I replicated the recipe, and I actually liked unsweetened Cola! It feels a bit tea-like, but also more acidic. Kinda like coffee but without the bitter undertone. If you like Coke drinks, I highly recommend it.

There are lots of cola recopies, why is this guy confident he has Coke's?
Post reply on HN