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

281–290 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#281

Post by jaggederest »

SapporoChris wrote: post #199
jaggederest wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tobacco is the cause. Raw tobacco usage straight off the plant is cancer-causing, there's no manipulation needed.

I will not disagree completely. But I will point out that nicotine by itself can actually have benefits that outweight the risks. Search "benefits of nicotine", yields a wealth of articles supporting this such as: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/

Absolutely, there are few weight loss / irritable bowel syndrome drugs more effective, though it is of course horribly addictive. But tobacco is a lot more than just pure nicotine, and that's where the problems come in.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#282

Post by ncmncm »

naasking wrote: post #274
symlinkk wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Why is “processed” automatically bad?

Processing is by definition used to extra more of something (usually calories) than would otherwise be present. It doesn't have to be bad, but it's definitely something that doesn't occur naturally and so we may not be well adapted to it. Thus, the chance of it being "worse", health-wise, than the natural thing is higher.

Processing almost invariably means taking out and throwing away the fiber. But the fiber plays an absolutely vital role. Leaving the fiber in is so anomalous they have to note it in big print on the label, e.g. "whole grain".

There are very serious reasons to treat the fiber as deeply precious, and removing it as deeply harmful.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#283

Post by ncmncm »

satellite2 wrote: post #233
burnished wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've sort of lost something in your study of macros there. As an anecdote, I can eat and enjoy an orange, or a banana but typically no more. I can absolutely crush a package of oreos though. I've got a rule about junk food, that the total size of a container needs to be an appropriate single serving.. because no matter how big it is, one package has consistently been 'one serving'. I won't speculate because…

Except cherry, cherry is definitely bingeable. But other than that it's a very good analysis. Is it because fruit sugar is fructose and not saccharose?

Most fruits approximate 50% fructose and 50% glucose, like sucrose or "high-fructose corn syrup". Pears and, particularly, mangos have a much larger fraction of fructose.

The important difference is that they all (except grapes!) have enough fiber to modulate absorption. Juice, any juice, is as bad as candy. Amount matters. Rate matters.

Regular corn syrup and corn sugar are just glucose, so relatively harmless. You can't find corn sugar at a supermarket, but can online: "Homebrew" sells it for $2/lb, nominally for home beer brewers to boost carbonation, but it is good for anywhere you would use cane sugar. (Sometimes a pinch of the latter may still be needed, e.g. in hot cocoa.)

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#284

Post by ncmncm »

naasking wrote: post #275
enchiridion wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally people who do keto have documented increased insulin levels from artificial sweeteners.

I believe that's true, that you'll see an insulin response from anything that tastes sweet, but that doesn't automatically entail that you'll crave sweet.

An insulin increase without carb intake results in lowered blood sugar, thus hunger.

This is the simplest sort of biochemistry.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#285

Post by ncmncm »

kortex wrote: post #194
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…

> I think a geometric interpretation can help some non-chemists understand how intercalating molecules bind to dna. Absolutely, geometry of electric fields is the primary factor in biochemical interactions. "The electron is where its at" as my o-chem teacher always said. But that's exactly why aspartame is totally different than intercalators like EthBr, doxorubicin, and PAHs. That phenyl moeity has a rotational degr…

While you're here... what is a Ph ring with an O substituted, and an N opposite it, called?

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#286

Post by ncmncm »

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #204
lamontcg wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they stimulate insulin release and make people hungrier. IF you could IN COMPLETE ISOLATION replace sugary drinks with sugar substitutes then it would lead to weight loss. The number of people who can actual accomplish that is probably very small. The majority of people, particularly those with actual weight issues, are going to wind up hungrier and gaining weight through consumption of other calories. They are n…

Everybody can test this with a quick test and see for themselves, there is no insulin spike. Diabetics wouldn't be able to drink diet coke without insulin shots if it were different.

If you think that through, you will recognize it makes no sense at all.

Diabetics are uniquely free of risk of insulin spikes. (Except from accidental overdosing.)

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#287

Post by WalterBright »

Spare_account wrote: post #279
WalterBright wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also simply difficult to eat enough fruit to cause problems. For example, I've never gotten a sugar rush from eating fruit, but just one cookie will do it. P.S. I'm not talking about juicing fruit, I mean chewing and eating fruit in its natural state.

Can you explain what you mean by a sugar rush? I thought that was a myth

It's hard to describe, but I can feel it when my blood sugar levels spike.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#288

Post by xyzzyz »

Gigachad wrote: post #248
xyzzyz wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it becomes toxic at high temperatures, same as many other commonly used materials, eg. wood. Should we also be concerned about widespread use of woods because it becomes toxic when burned?

If wood was sold as cookware designed to get to high temperatures. Yes.

Cookware is not designed to go to temperatures as high as those that cause decomposition of PTFE. But, there is plenty of wood cookware in common use. Spatulas, pot handles, etc.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#289

Post by naasking »

ncmncm wrote: post #284
naasking wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that's true, that you'll see an insulin response from anything that tastes sweet, but that doesn't automatically entail that you'll crave sweet.

An insulin increase without carb intake results in lowered blood sugar, thus hunger. This is the simplest sort of biochemistry.

You haven't quantified the magnitude of the insulin response just from tasting something sweet, which is relevant to how much of an impact it will have on behavior, nor does a lowered blood sugar necessarily entail you crave sweets. Simple biochemistry does not capture human behaviour.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#290

Post by kortex »

ncmncm wrote: post #285
kortex wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think a geometric interpretation can help some non-chemists understand how intercalating molecules bind to dna. Absolutely, geometry of electric fields is the primary factor in biochemical interactions. "The electron is where its at" as my o-chem teacher always said. But that's exactly why aspartame is totally different than intercalators like EthBr, doxorubicin, and PAHs. That phenyl moeity has a rotational degr…

While you're here... what is a Ph ring with an O substituted, and an N opposite it, called?

If it's fully unsaturated, 1,4-oxazinane. If it's 2 double bonds, 1,4-oxazine, or more commonly oxazinone if it's part of a larger fused structure (eg nile red). If you fully aromatize it, it becomes oxazinium. That's a weird one, probably unstable. I think there are some peroxo species with a 1,4-oxazin-1-ium but it's a bit wacky.

The meta (1,3) oxazinium is more stable, but it still needs 3 big electron-withdrawing groups to stabilize it in the case of 2,4,6-Triphenyl-1,3-oxazine-1-ium.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxazines

https://chemdrawdirect.perkinelmer.cloud/js/sample/index.htm...

Post reply on HN