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

261–270 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#261

Post by zug_zug »

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 don't know if this addresses the root of the question though, which is - of things occurring naturally vs those man-made, is there a statistically significant difference in safety of ingesting those found in nature.

I'd imagine there is, or at the very least we'd have millions of years worth of evolution to learn to dislike the taste of naturally occurring things that are bad for us in the vast majority of cases.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#262

Post by Someone1234 »

Supermancho wrote: post #240
Someone1234 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aspartame does not increase insulin levels. People have heard that Sucralose does and group all artificial sweeteners together.

> The sweet taste of artificial sweeteners triggers cephalic phase insulin release, causing a small rise in insulin levels. I'm gonna bet it does. Even our autonomic systems are pavlovian in conjunction, for good reason evolutionarily (hyper efficiency somewhere in the past).

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/

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#263

Post by mbbutler »

xsmasher wrote: post #202
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…

Your numbers for the Snickers bar seem too small - a 44g candy bar has 11g fat, 20g sugar. If you meant some smaller bar, then you are comparing a very small candy bar against 100g or 165g or fruit; not very fair.

They are using numbers for a fucking fun size snickers, ie the tiny ones people give out at Halloween that are a single bite.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#264

Post by fsckboy »

lovemenot wrote: post #254
vlod wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a control group used to negate this?

Assuming both your parent and your comment are correct (and no other controls), then the experiment tells us the effects of the substance on populations that are disproportionately predisposed to cancer. Surely, not very infourmative in a cancer study. Note, I don't know whether these assumptions actually hold. Just taking it on its face.

I believe he's referring to the hypothesis (I think tested) touted by Bret Weinstein that lab mice breeding has led to strains with extremely long telomeres, a feature that makes them resilient to all sorts of cellular damage, but makes them also susceptible to cancer; Bret's point being that they aren't good for either cancer nor non-cancer research. Lab mice breeders may have responded to this idea, but he alleges it's been swept under the carpet, too many studies at stake. Or something like that.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#265

Post by sasaf5 »

tofof wrote: post #98
MyHypatia wrote: post #87

One of the lowest effort healthy lifestyle changes you can make is to wean your body off of craving sweets. Artificial sweeteners still make you crave sweets. Replace sweetened drinks with unsweetened tea (there are hundreds of varieties, you will find something that you like). Replace desserts with your favorite fruit or berries. Your body, mind, and teeth will thank you.

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…

First, the snark in the first sentence is unnecessary to try to make your point.

Second, the presence of fibers is the differentiator here, meaning that the same amount of sugar in fruits will bring a lot more satiety.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#266

Post by dnautics »

gscott wrote: post #246
zosima wrote: post #107

From the abstract this study does not bear any resemblance to the headline and makes very little sense to me. They reevaluated tumors from a 15 year old study in rodents, to prove that the original work was correct and that there wasn't any traces of mycoplasma. And so, I presume, they argue that the cancers were caused by aspartame. But that in itself does not prove whether or not the original study was flawed, and…

Mice tend to be so inbred they all die of cancer. They should redo the study on a different animal that has less incidence of cancer normally... like Rabbits.

That's deliberate. Cancer usually hits humans on a timeframe that is longer than the normal lifespan of mice, so an exact 1:1 experiment is likely to never see anything, not to mention too long to be a reasonable experiment to risk in either direction. Science per day is not cheap.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#267

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

tptacek wrote: post #255
theon144 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but how popular is diet soda? Anecdotally, there's huge differences between soda consumption in USA and Europe.

If that were true, it makes the epidemiological case for an aspartame link clearer , because you'd simply be able to compare cancer incidence between countries by aspartame consumption and see the evidence. It's the most studied additive in the history of the food industry, and that link has not been found.

It turns out measuring aspartame consumption by country is not simple and that there aren't good sets of equivalent studies across regions to draw from. I browsed some papers in the National Library of Medicine[0] and it seems like, at least as recent as a decade ago, it's generally accepted the USA has a higher intake than the rest of the globe, by 15-25% per capita, but it's hard to know for sure.

I agree there should be an epidemiological case for a link, but alternatively maybe the link is that there is no strong link to cancer.

Everything in moderation, as they say.

0: search "aspartame intake", I can't easily cite anything right now.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#268

Post by yissp »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #139
dls2016 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is what a lot of “food science” is these days.

Not to mention all the effort that goes into studying how different food constituents affect human consciousness and behavior, which results in products that are habit-forming and increase impulsive buying. I’ve often wondered how many secondary impulse buys are made because someone makes an extra trip to the store to satisfy their primary craving for tobacco, coffee, energy drinks or just sugar.

I think it's more the opposite, no? You go to the store for something you need, but then on your way out you pick up a bag of chips or a chocolate bar or whatever. I suspect that's why they often put them on display in the check-out line.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#269

Post by yissp »

WalterBright wrote: post #184
pengaru wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Fruitarians" also include nuts in their "fruit" diet. https://www.byrdie.com/fruitarian-diet You can get fats from nuts. "Anyone following a fruit diet may be missing out on vital nutrients, including: iron calcium vitamin D zinc omega-3 fatty acids B vitamins, including B-12" https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/fruit-diet

If they allow any "botanical" fruits, wouldn't that also include grains and legumes? In which case it's basically just a vegan diet.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#270

Post by azdle »

jyounker wrote: post #258
azdle wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, so is all of our fruit these days. Just through a couple thousand years of selective breeding.

Our fruit is tested for many things other than simply, "can we get you to eat more of this." One of the most common being, "does is stay shiny while we ship it," as opposed to, "does this taste good?"

I don't disagree. But much like the sugary (or "sugary") treats I'd say it's one of the highest priorities.
Post reply on HN