[HN Gopher] Aspartame and cancer - new evidence for causation
___________________________________________________________________
Aspartame and cancer - new evidence for causation
Author : pilingual
Score : 190 points
Date : 2021-08-14 02:19 UTC (20 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
| Gatsky wrote:
| Aspartame is an amino acid right? Isn't it going to be in all
| sorts of proteins then? Doesn't that make it rather implausible
| that it is toxic?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Aspartame is an amino acid right?
|
| No, that's not right. It's a peptide (a unit composed of amino
| acids), not an amino acid.
|
| > Isn't it going to be in all sorts of proteins then?
|
| Proteins are made of peptides but not all peptides are common
| in proteins, no.
|
| > Doesn't that make it rather implausible that it is toxic?
|
| No, lots of proteins are toxic to particular organisms, too.
| schoen wrote:
| The amino acid in question is apparently
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartic_acid, a chemical
| component of aspartame, and the origin of the latter's name,
| but not at all the same substance.
| Bud wrote:
| Even without the fundamental error of calling aspartame an
| amino acid, this argument is also similar to saying that
| chlorine and sodium can't be toxic since they are "in" sodium
| chloride, and salt is perfectly safe.
|
| Betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of chemistry.
| brador wrote:
| Are there any other common food ingredients that have a high
| chance of causing cancer?
| gnicholas wrote:
| I was surprised to see a Prop 65 warning on the organic frozen
| spinach we get delivered by Amazon Fresh/Whole Foods.
| Apparently it's due to Cadmium.
|
| It makes me wonder if the stuff you buy in-store doesn't have
| the same risk, or if they just don't label it as obviously as
| online.
| Groxx wrote:
| You can find prop 65 warnings on basically anything heated to
| browning too. Coffee, cooked asparagus, bread, the list is
| gigantic: https://franzbakery.com/HTML/prop65
| fermentation wrote:
| I've seen the prop65 warnings about reproductive health on
| Japanese canned coffee and tea, but I've never seen these
| warnings on any other canned drinks here in the US
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Maybe they are imported through California? Most canned
| drinks probably come from Ohio or New Jersey or
| something.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| The physical store likely has a warning saying they "contain
| chemicals known to cause cancer." Because these warning signs
| are so ubiquitous in California you probably just miss it
| when you go to the brick & mortar.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Quite possibly, but it seems like if you can just have one
| big sign in front of the store, then you could just have
| one sign on the bottom of a website. Here there's a
| specific warning on the organic frozen spinach.
| xeromal wrote:
| Brazil nuts are like that as well. The nuts themselves are ok
| but how they're grown causes them to contain too much
| selenium which can be toxic over time.
|
| Mercury in fish is another doozy.
| farmerstan wrote:
| Acrylamides.
| NeoLaval wrote:
| Yes. Trans fats and nitrates, for example.
| sjwalter wrote:
| I might be a paranoiac here, but I prefer to keep a somewhat-
| permeable whitelist instead of a blacklist. Make sure 2/3ish of
| my calories come from healthy animal proteins (I raise pigs and
| chickens and trade meat and eggs for beef, so I know exactly
| what's going into what's going into me), drink almost
| exclusively water (2-5 expressos a day are worth mentioning
| too), and then fill in the rest with whatever the hell I want.
|
| Don't have to be careful with particular ingredients if you
| have a steady baseline of known-good, nutrient-dense, healthful
| calories. Also never have to waste on time on bullshit like
| this--oh, no, maybe aspartame ISN'T good for you! or, What did
| the NYTimes says about Splenda? or what the NIH researched
| about highly-processed factory-produced fake meat. Ignore it
| all, eat reasonable, old-school food.
|
| In one kind of way it's kind of like that story you hear about
| Steve Jobs wearing the same black shirt and jeans every day--it
| actually is a consequential decision--what to eat vs. how to
| present yourself. But, if you can pre-set some defaults that
| get you to Good Enough (and in the case of my diet, apparently
| Better Than 95% of Americans), you save so much mental energy.
| It seems to me most "nutritional research" serves the purposes
| of large agribusiness and/or fad-nutrition industries. Why
| bother spending mental effort on that bullshit?
| xwdv wrote:
| I agree. Flavor should follow function. Too many people
| prioritize building meals that taste good when they should
| first be optimizing for nutrition. Once you've configured
| genuinely healthy foods into some arrangement suitable for
| consumption, it's best to just keep building that same meal
| over and over. You'll get more efficient at making it and
| eating it, thus saving time and never having to worry if
| you're hitting your nutrition goals.
|
| Save the creative meals for special occasions or social
| functions.
| Gh0stRAT wrote:
| Processed meats and red meats are linked to colorectal cancer.
| I believe it's something like 70% of CRC cases can be traced
| back to red/processed meat consumption.
|
| >In 2007, the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) stated that
| there is convincing evidence linking the consumption of red and
| processed meat with the development of colorectal cancer (CRC).
| The WCRF further stated that the public should limit their
| intake of red meat to below 500 g per week, and avoid processed
| meat entirely. A further update from the WCRF emphasized that
| no safe level of processed meat could confidently be attributed
| to a lack of risk.
|
| Excerpt from:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893523/
| bitexploder wrote:
| I saw another study that showed only processed meats were
| linked to colon cancer recently. Variety and moderation,
| avoid processed foods. I don't think red meat is the culprit
| people make it out to be /in a healthy and balanced diet/.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| These studies are all incredibly weak, because they rely on
| surveys and pluck variables out for correlations. So besides
| the fact that people almost never remember or accurately
| report what they eat over many years, it's a dubious
| correlation that can't be relied on.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| Alcohol would be the big one.
| vkou wrote:
| Red meat.
| illuminati1911 wrote:
| Those are all correlations and observational studies. There
| is no actual evidence of any meat increasing risk of cancer.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Except when it's grilled/charred, but then I guess it's not
| the meat that's carcinogenic at that point
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| These are not common food ingredient, and they are not supposed
| to be injested. I was doing the dishes the other day, and like
| usually, doing a terrible job--trying to save water too. I was
| thinking what damage could soap residue do? I then noticed the
| Dawn Soap. From and center they listed all the ingredients. (So
| front and center it looks like a lawyer told them to place the
| ingredients front, and center?) Do I still love Dawn soap--yes,
| but not for my dishes anymore. (Machine shops use Dawn to clean
| parts, and it works great on oily birds.
|
| My point is the amount of chemicals around us. An No--I'm not
| claiming anything bad about Dawn Soap.
|
| WATER SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE surfactant SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE
| C10-16 ALKYLDIME-THYLAMINE OXIDE ALCOHOL DENAT. solvent PPG-26
| SODIUM CHLORIDE SODIUM HYDROXIDEadjuster PEI-14 PEG-24/PPG-16
| COPOLYMER cleaning PHENOXYETHANOL solvent solvent* stabilizes
| formula FRAGRANCES fragrance perfume adds scent to product
| METHYLISOTHIAZO-LINONE COLORANTS, BLUE 1,YELLOW 5, RED 33
| colorant colorant C9-11 PARETH-8 STYRENE/ACRYLATES COPOLYMER
| TETRASODIUM GLUTAMATE DIACETATE CHLOROXYLENOL PHENOXY-
| ISOPROPANOL GLYCERIN SODIUM CUMENE-SULFONATE PROPYLENE GLYCOL
| solvent solvent* TERPINEOL solvent solvent
| qweqwweqwe-90i wrote:
| Get ready to be surprised at the ingredients in a banana!:
| INGREDIENTS: WATER (75%), SUGARS (12%) (GLUCOSE (48%),
| FRUCTOSE (40%), SUCROSE (2%), MALTOSE (<1%)), STARCH (5%),
| FIBRE (3%) (E460, E461, E462, E464, E466, E467) AMINO ACIDS
| (GLUTAMIC ACID (19%), ASPARTIC ACID (16%), HISTIDINE (11%),
| LEUCINE (7%), LYSINE (5%), PHENYLALANINE (4%), ARGININE (4%),
| VALINE (4%), ALANINE (4%), SERINE (4%), GLYCINE (3%),
| THREONINE (3%), ISOLEUCINE (3%), PROLINE (3%), TRYPTOPHAN
| (1%), CYSTINE (1%), TYROSINE (1%), METHIONINE (1%)), FATTY
| ACIDS (1%) (PALMITIC ACID (30%), OMEGA-6 FATTY ACID: LINOLEIC
| ACID (14%), OMEGA-3 FATTY ACID: LINOLENIC ACID (8%), OLEIC
| ACID (7%), PALMITOLEIC ACID (3%), STEARIC ACID (2%), LAURIC
| ACID (1%), MYRISTIC ACID (1%), CAPRIC ACID (<1%)), ASH (<1%),
| PHYTOSTEROLS, E515, OXALIC ACID, E300, E306 (TOCOPHEROL),
| PHYLLOQUINONE, THIAMIN, COLOURS (YELLOW-ORANGE E101
| (RIBOFLAVIN), YELLOW-BROWN E160a), FLAVOURS (ETHYL HEXANOATE,
| ETHYL BUTANOATE, 3-METHYLBUT-1-YL ETHANOATE, PENTYL ACETATE),
| E1510, NATURAL RIPENING AGENT (ETHENE GAS).
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Soap is hydrophilic, it sticks to water, that's what makes it
| good at washing things away. I never had trouble with soap
| residue, I figure I would taste it if any was left behind.
|
| Edit: I do buy the colorless and scent free soap cause I
| don't see why dyes should be in soap tho
| XorNot wrote:
| These are literally, literally, the same ingredients which
| are found in "natural" (animal-fat derived) soaps.
|
| This is some "dihydrogen monoxide" grade FUD.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| 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
| not, they are almost certainly not nutritious and good for me.
|
| (of course the big difference is that wearing a mask almost
| certainly helps others more than myself)
| tomp wrote:
| Ideally you should be avoiding natural sweeteners as well.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| I don't think either sweeteners are bad, but I agree, beware
| of marketing terms like natural, bio etc. The companies are
| in it for the money and well, heroin is kind of natural too.
| abacadaba wrote:
| I still tell myself stevia is better even though I'm not at all
| confident that it's true.
|
| I usually avoid/minimize but those flavored water squirt things
| get me.
|
| Edit: Mainly due to the effects of my body thinking it's
| getting sugar, no reason to think stevia causes cancer that I'm
| aware of.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Fun factoid they are a major migraine trigger for many.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| 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.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Have diet drinks ever been successful at getting people to
| lose weight?
| TeeMassive wrote:
| Why it wouldn't How replacing a high calorie drink by a low
| one does not create a decrease in caloric intake?
| WalterBright wrote:
| Because people who drink diet drinks tend to just eat
| more sugar from other sources.
| k__ wrote:
| I noticed switching from juice to artificially sweetened
| iced tea, that I was more tired.
| lamontcg wrote:
| 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 not diet drinks, they are ruin-your-
| diet-drinks.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| 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.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| Yes, fluid calories are the main reason for weight gains,
| sugary drinks, alcopops and lattes with more calories than
| a pizza. These enter the bloodstream very fast, cause blood
| sugar spikes, more hunger, and the average Joe has their
| glycogen stores pretty full at all times. 25 percent of the
| sugars, depending on genetics , are converted to fat in a
| caloric surplus state. The fats, if the glycogen stores are
| full, goes straight to the fat cells, there was a study
| where they laced food with radioactive substance traces to
| make it trackable. Lo and behold, the fat started to
| assimilate to the fat cell within minutes. Another
| important thing that most people are not aware of is that
| the body always metabolizes proteins, glucose and fats at
| the same time. The body likes to store glucose, but doesn't
| like to use it, unless it's hard physical work, like
| lifting weights. It defaults to using energy when sedatery,
| sleeping and in general.
|
| This can be good and bad, the good is that the fat is
| used(external from food or internal from fat cells during a
| caloric deficit), the bad thing is, if you eat plenty of
| carbohydrates at all times and don't work out, most of the
| external fats consumed via meals will be stored as body
| fat.
|
| Often people say but average Joe's can simply eat less. In
| theory, yes, but it's not practical, if your diet consists
| of 2000calories of beer and fries and you don't work out,
| you will not look the same as a person who eats 2000
| calories, works out(or not, diet weighs more) and eats lean
| proteins , not too many carbs and a bit of fat.
|
| The beer and fries guy will also suffer from hunger pangs
| non stop due to blood sugar volatility.
| Fergusonb wrote:
| 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/
| [deleted]
| nvarsj wrote:
| Except mask wearing actually has scientific evidence for its
| effectiveness, and is why governments around the world
| recommend it. [1]
|
| Your rationale is based on personal bias against "artificial"
| substances. The same kind of quack reasoning that drives anti
| vaxers and other nonsense movements.
|
| [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
| twerkmonsta wrote:
| 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?
| jaggederest wrote:
| There are plenty of "natural" carcinogens. Tobacco, for
| example, is perhaps the largest single cause of cancer in
| human history.
| twerkmonsta wrote:
| 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.
| jaggederest wrote:
| Tobacco is the cause. Raw tobacco usage straight off the
| plant is cancer-causing, there's no manipulation needed.
| SapporoChris wrote:
| 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/
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Tobacco is a plant.
|
| That is full of carcinogens. And nicotine, which IIRC
| isn't a carcinogen itself but instead promotes tumor
| growth once they form.
|
| > Cigarettes are the cause.
|
| Chewing tobacco is a great way to get (a different set of
| kinds of) cancer, too.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Being insulting isn't going to change anyone's mind. In fact,
| it'll probably persuade people in the opposite direction.
| parineum wrote:
| Artificial sweeteners have even more evidence for the safety.
|
| I agree with your second point but I generally take a lot
| more issue with the lack of skepticism put towards the
| alternatives rather than the skepticism towards science.
|
| Evenly applied skepticism leads you to accept the thing which
| has the most evidence in support while also letting you
| change your mind if the evidence changes. The problem with
| the "alternative" medicine crowd is that evidence didn't lead
| them to their conclusion so evidence can't lead them out.
| [deleted]
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Where is the science showing that artificial sweeteners are
| actually _good_ for me? Or even better than natural sugars?
|
| Like I said, I don't know if artificial sweeteners are bad
| for me but I also don't know that they are good for me, so
| why use them?
|
| I don't eschew everything that might be bad for me I still
| enjoy wine and even the occasional slice of cake (which even
| if it's loaded with all-natural sugar which I am sure is not
| "good" for me), but it's not like my quality of life is
| lessened by not having more aspartame or even stevia in my
| diet.
| gruez wrote:
| >Or even better than natural sugars?
|
| lower calories?
| caturopath wrote:
| I think that there's some weird sort of moralization aspect to
| alternative sweeteners or just a 'too good to be true' attitude.
| In how many other areas would we spend so much time looking at
| such scant evidence and taking it seriously?
| Pxtl wrote:
| I agree. You saw it with Trump's Diet Coke habit - it somehow
| was tied into the many ways he is a complete garbage human, as
| if it was one more petty vice to pile onto the long list of his
| vices.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I've always thought they tasted terrible.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I agree, but maybe that's because it gives me a headache.
|
| At least, I think it does. I can never remember which
| sweeteners do - some do, some don't. I don't eat them enough
| to keep track.
| Gigachad wrote:
| They taste different to cane sugar / corn syrup but good/bad
| is subjective and something you get used to. I used to not
| like it but now my taste adjusted it and now I don't like the
| "real sugar" flavor.
| caturopath wrote:
| It's a big category. Aspartame has a really distinctive
| taste, but lots of sweeteners like sucralose and allulose not
| so much.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| I can recommend tagatose.[1]
|
| It tastes and feels indistinguishable from ordinary table
| sugar to me.
|
| [1] - https://www.wired.com/2003/11/newsugar/
|
| [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagatose
| notJim wrote:
| You get used to it after a while. I actually sometimes prefer
| a Coke Zero because of its unique taste (though I try to
| avoid soda altogether.)
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Their taste is definitely odd. It's sweet but not really, and
| often leaves a soapy aftertaste. The only way I can deal with
| it personally is if the food in question is flavorful enough
| to drown out the strangeness, in which case it probably
| didn't need sweetening much anyway.
| goda90 wrote:
| I've seen lots of concern about preservatives, colors, and
| flavorings in foods as well, but sweeteners have a more
| pronounced role as replacements for sugar. This makes them far
| more visible in general.
| frickinLasers wrote:
| Aspartame also rapidly "breaks down into residual components,
| including aspartic acid, phenylalanine, methanol, and further
| breakdown products including formaldehyde and formic acid" on
| ingestion. [1]
|
| Even with no smoking gun for cancer, why would anyone tempt
| fate after reading that?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Metabolites
| losethos7 wrote:
| Just love how you selectively quote that paragraph. The
| following sentence is: In some fruit juices, higher
| concentrations of methanol can be found than the amount
| produced from aspartame in beverages.
|
| In other words, all of those compounds are fairly simple
| small molecules and will be found abundantly in nature.
| There is no indication that aspartame leads to the
| breakdown of larger quantities then many "natural" foods.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Damn bro your first comment got insta-killed, I wonder
| whose mad
|
| Anyway, not everybody gets o-chem in their lives, but we
| all have an opinion on the news.
|
| All I want to know is what does it say about my biology
| that aspartame tastes like shit to me.
| akiselev wrote:
| That's some weapons grade FUD you got there.
|
| First the dose makes the poison and second, _all of those
| compounds are naturally occurring in humans as part of our
| metabolism_. The pathways responsible for metabolizing
| proteins and keeping us alive produce them.
| mioasndo wrote:
| You forgot the second half of the paragraph from your
| source:
|
| > Human studies show that formic acid is excreted faster
| than it is formed after ingestion of aspartame. In some
| fruit juices, higher concentrations of methanol can be
| found than the amount produced from aspartame in beverages.
|
| Also:
|
| > Aspartame consists of two amino acids--aspartic acid and
| phenylalanine. When ingested, aspartame is broken down into
| these amino acids for use in protein synthesis and
| metabolism. In addition to aspartic acid and phenylalanine,
| aspartame digestion also yields a small amount of methanol,
| a compound that is naturally found in foods like fruits and
| vegetables and their juices. The amount of methanol
| resulting from consuming an aspartame-sweetened beverage is
| about five to six times less than that resulting from the
| same volume of tomato juice.[1]
|
| [1] https://foodinsight.org/everything-you-need-to-know-
| about-as...
| frickinLasers wrote:
| Yep I earned those downvotes, thanks.
|
| That's a useful website.
|
| Since who drinks tomato juice, really, another way to put
| it is that you'd need about 20 large Diet Cokes (32 oz
| each, no ice) per day to get the same amount of methanol
| as from a diet rich in ripe fruits (1000 mg/day).
|
| https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cot/cotstatem
| ent...
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Methanol basically comes from fermentation or digestion
| of pectin, so it's in pretty much all fruits and fruit
| byproducts in small quantities. It's really not a problem
| in small doses, in fact your breath will have a small but
| measurable amount of it at pretty much all times. You
| really have to try to get enough methanol to poison
| yourself.
| kiba wrote:
| Note that it is in rodent. Aspartame hadn't been confirmed as a
| carcinogenic agent in humans.
|
| That said, I don't think it's a good idea to subject to ourselves
| to drinking diet soda as a daily habit. It costs money, may or
| may not interfere with your blood sugar and the health of your
| gut microbiomes.
|
| As a goal, I limit my intake of any sweet and/or artifically
| sweetened drinks.
|
| Instead of being a chronic diet coke drinker, I instead became a
| chronic drinker of water. Two or three cups of water is typically
| what I drink in a daily meal.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| Also note that this particular research lab seems to be the
| only one that can find any link between aspartame and cancer,
| with many others finding none. Additionally, this is not new
| data but a reanalysis of existing data, and the rats in
| question were exposed to a quite high dose.
| [deleted]
| _kbh_ wrote:
| not only is it rodent the amount of Aspartame / kilogram is
| huge even at their lowest value (20mg/kg). Coke no sugar has
| ~87 mg of Aspartame in it, you need to do drink ~20 cans of it
| to meet the same Aspartame level in a 90kg human.
| happymellon wrote:
| Artificial sweeteners are in more than just sodas.
|
| The number of food products that traditionally didn't have
| sweetners in, that now have aspartame is increasing. That is
| concerning for me.
| schipplock wrote:
| I once had a limonade that had sugar and aspartame in it,
| probably to bring down the amount of sugar.
| [deleted]
| Jtsummers wrote:
| A 90kg human is above the US national average, though about
| on target for US men. 81kg is the US average body weight with
| women around 73kg. So for women, that means the quantity
| they'd need to consume to reach that level is around 16 cans.
| 16 cans translates to 192 oz, or about 1.5 gallons.
|
| That is indeed quite a bit, but about twice what's
| recommended by volume for water consumption for women.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > 16 cans translates to 192 oz, or about 1.5 gallons.
|
| About 5.5 liters for non USA people.
| [deleted]
| xyst wrote:
| Same. The only times I drink sugary drinks are on the weekends.
| Otherwise it's water for me.
|
| Unfortunately moderation is lost on most people.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| It it isnt lost on people.
|
| Many try and fail to moderate due to mental health issues.
|
| For some substitution is the answer. For other strict
| elimination.
|
| Different strokes for different folks.
| int0x2e wrote:
| H2O all the way. I used to drink a ton of coke everyday. I
| started carrying a water bottle everywhere (and I do mean
| everywhere), and I take small sips very often. It's a
| surprisingly easy habit to kick - grab a bottle and stick with
| it.
| user3939382 wrote:
| To be sure, the jury is still out on this, but there is at
| least reason to be concerned about aspartame's like to certain
| neurological problems as well:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23280025/
|
| Also, it still spikes your insulin. Better to just avoid it and
| sugar altogether as much as possible.
| ineedasername wrote:
| If you need something a bit more exciting than water there's
| also always club soda and plain seltzer.
| arn wrote:
| Considering how widespread Aspartame on a societal level, you'd
| think there'd be epidemiologic evidence of increasing cancer
| rates over that time. Maybe there is some literature on it, but
| I hadn't heard.
| rgbrenner wrote:
| Aspartame was approved by the fda in 1981... no spike in
| cancer rates AFAICT:
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer-death-rates-in-
| the...
|
| Doesn't mean it doesn't cause cancer... but even if it does,
| it must not be a very significant cause.
| wallaBBB wrote:
| Death rate from cancer is not really comparable, since
| there has been significant progress in early diagnosis and
| treatment. Not accusing or defending aspartame, just
| pointing it out.
| Bud wrote:
| As this study points out, however, most tumors manifest
| very late in life. 1981 is only 40 years ago.
| dsego wrote:
| There seems to be an increase of people with a range of
| neurodevelopmental conditions like repetitive patterns of
| behavior and a perturbed sense of identity.
| Gigachad wrote:
| The problem is that we have introduced so many new chemicals
| recently and have seen so many unexplained changes to health.
| Its virtually impossible to work out which thing did what.
| I'm not going to stress over aspartame though. Plastics,
| PFOA, PTFE, processed meats, and air pollution are way above
| on my concern scale.
|
| If I was concerned about cancer from aspartame, I would never
| touch any form of alcohol again.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| O? What's alcohol got to do with aspartame?
| Gigachad wrote:
| Its that there are so many thing we _know_ cause cancer
| in high rates that we still consume. So I wouldn't waste
| mental energy on something that maybe might cause it
| before cutting out everything we know causes it first.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| Scientists think that up to 50% of cancer might come from
| alcohol consumptions, but it's apparently quite hard to
| study.
| noir_lord wrote:
| I went effectively teetotal around 2007 (I got
| spectaculary blackout drunk - woke up nearly a day later
| and couldn't remember getting home or much of the 8hrs
| prior to that - decided that was a silly way to live and
| quit).
|
| Honestly not something I miss, I raise a glass of whiskey
| every xmas in remembrance of my grandfathers (Irish one
| side, Scottish the other).
|
| Otherwise never, it's fun when the doc/nurse asks "How
| any units do you drink?" "About one per year" it's such a
| massive in-grained part of our culture (I'm British)
| still.
|
| Though the youngsters coming up now drink _way_ less than
| I did at 18 in 1998 - partly cost and partly a greater
| awareness of the damage (plus there is just so much more
| for the average teenager to do now).
|
| The evidence on alcohol and pariculary mouth/oesphagal
| problems is pretty compelling but I'm not a doctor.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Ah
|
| I remember watching Hamilton's Pharmacopoeia, or maybe
| just an interview with Hamilton Morris, anyway he usually
| studies psychedelics and barbiturates and all the weird
| fringe drugs, and someone asks his opinion on alcohol and
| he says it's a really crappy drug because you have to
| consume massive quantities of it for the desired effect,
| like most drugs that change your brain up are measured in
| milli/micrograms, but if you want to get trashed your
| poisoning yourself with, like, a liter of straight
| alcohol, it's a lot of work for your body to deal with
| compared to smaller dose drugs.
|
| Poisoning aside I guess you need to suggest a mechanism
| where DNA gets interfered with, is our body just as good
| at error-free mitosis when we're sleeping off a rough
| night?
| xyzzyz wrote:
| PTFE? It's so non-reactive that it is commonly used in
| medical implants, precisely because of its high
| biocompatibility. I don't think that there are any
| connections at all between PTFE and cancer.
| Pyramus wrote:
| "While PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures,
| it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of
| cookware reaches about 260 degC (500 degF), and
| decomposes above 350 degC (662 degF).[58] Over 400 degC
| (752 degF) pyrolysis occurs and more decomposition
| becomes significantly more rapid. The main decomposition
| products are tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and
| difluorocarbene radicals (RCF2).[58] The degradation by-
| products can be lethal to birds,[59] and can cause flu-
| like symptoms[60] in humans--see polymer fume fever."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Saf
| ety
| xyzzyz wrote:
| 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?
| Gigachad wrote:
| If wood was sold as cookware designed to get to high
| temperatures. Yes.
| ben_w wrote:
| > However these cases of polymer fume fever were mostly
| present in people who had cooked at 390 degC (734 degF)
| for >=4 hours.
|
| My oven goes up to 250 degC, though I never use it above
| 220. What cooking processes go to each of these
| thresholds?
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| It seems like a burner left on a dry pot or pan could
| easily do that.
|
| Grills with PTFE coated utensils.
|
| Commercial kitchens using specialized ovens and PTFE
| lined pans could be constantly putting out fumes.
|
| Our propane pizza oven gets up to about 400C on the
| stone, and hotter at the flames. I don't think there's
| ever any PTFE near it, though. There do exist "non-stick"
| pizza peels, though, so someone could do that. The thing
| with peels on pizza stones is that their edges tend to
| grind down. I probably eat a miniscule amount of aluminum
| each time we make pizza.
| RL_Quine wrote:
| Frying.
| ben_w wrote:
| I thought oil boiled at 300 degC, how do you get up to
| 390 degC?
| nate_meurer wrote:
| You don't, at least not on purpose. At 390 C you're
| filling your kitchen with smoke, and if you're cooking on
| gas you probably already have a grease fire on your
| stove.
|
| However, it is shockingly easy to get a pan this hot by
| accident, with no more than a few minutes of inattention.
| I've seen people burn the non-stick coating off their
| pans on a couple of occasions after getting distracted by
| the phone.
|
| It's risky to use nonstick cookware the same way you use
| bare metal pans, by heating the pan up to searing
| temperature before adding oil and food. I tell people to
| treat nonstick as though the food is already in the pan
| before they turn the heat on: don't turn the heat up high
| enough to burn the food, and the coating will stay safe.
|
| It's worth pointing out that there isn't really any good
| evidence that fumes from burning PTFE cause permanent
| damage. There have been very few cases of verifiable PTFE
| "fume fever", in spite of the fact that lots of people
| burn up their nonstick cookware, and lasting effects
| haven't been obvious as far as I know.
| ruined wrote:
| there are many pet horror stories of bird deaths from
| PTFE pans, typically from accidents, but occasionally
| from normal use. one may assume that it happens quite
| often without a canary in the kitchen so to speak, and
| thus goes unnoticed.
|
| also, damaging the coating is known to lower the
| temperature at which PTFE will pyrolize. anecdotally i
| don't think i've seen a single teflon pan in anyone's
| home that didn't have some damage unless it was nearly
| new.
|
| most situations that people are exposed to PTFE fumes are
| certainly below the level that triggers acute illness,
| but i wouldn't be surprised if it was very common to get
| enough exposure to contribute to cancer, but it would be
| very hard to verify or test for that specific cause.
| ben_w wrote:
| Given what I originally quoted said it only happens after
| four hours of exposure, your final paragraph does not
| surprise me.
| mjmahone17 wrote:
| A broiler typically goes to or above 260degC. A pizza
| oven can pretty easily get above 400degC.
|
| Not sure why anyone would use nonstick cookware in a
| pizza oven, but people make bad decisions frequently
| enough.
| xeromal wrote:
| I like the burn of carbonated soda so I bought a soda stream
| and I just carbonate water or homemade tea whenever I want a
| treat. It's definitely the way to go for your day to day if you
| have a bit of an addtiction!
| mattmaroon wrote:
| If they ever find out that carbonated water is carcinogenic I
| will probably keel over dead the next day. I measure my
| LaCroix habit in packs per day.
| barcoder wrote:
| Best too drink water atleast 30 minutes before or after the
| meal because it dilutes the stomach digestive acids
| schipplock wrote:
| That can lead to other problems :D. We humans are so
| complicated :).
| adrr wrote:
| Drinking five diet Cokes a day is probably healthier than
| drinking 5 regular cokes a day. Sugar is linked to diabetes and
| other ailments.
| KozmoNau7 wrote:
| They very probably are. Still, you're exposing your taste
| buds to sweetness all day, which can mess with your
| perception of taste.
|
| Plus, it just tastes worse. I'd much rather have a single
| sugar-containing soda on the weekend, or after finishing some
| hard physical labor, than liters of diet soda every day.
| n_io wrote:
| And smoking light cigarettes are probably healthier for you
| too...
| TameAntelope wrote:
| What harm does repeating Big Sugar lies do to your body?
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
|
| [2] - https://www.smh.com.au/technology/sydney-university-
| study-cl...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jasonhansel wrote:
| I think the relevant question is not "does aspartame increase
| cancer risk" but "does aspartame cause _more_ negative health
| effects than added sugar. " Excessive sugar consumption itself
| has numerous well-known health risks, including increasing the
| risks of some types of cancer (mainly by driving obesity).
| skwirl wrote:
| That's a false choice, though. I can avoid both sugar and
| aspartame.
| tptacek wrote:
| Aspartame isn't just widely consumed, it's _practically
| universally_ consumed. If it was carcinogenic in humans, wouldn
| 't there be obvious epidemiological evidence to back that up?
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| > practically universally consumed
|
| I take issue with this, frankly. Aspartame seems to be
| _particularly_ popular in the USA (diet sodas), and less
| popular the further away you go.
|
| It's used in other stuff, sure, but most products outside of
| the USA just use sugar or corn-syrup-based sweeteners. I don't
| think anyone in my circle of family or friends has had a diet
| soda in decades, save for exactly one individual who drinks _a
| lot_ of diet drinks.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > Aspartame seems to be particularly popular in the USA (diet
| sodas), and less popular the further away you go.
|
| At least in Germany, it's very similar. Most diet sodas here
| are aspartame sweetened.
| theon144 wrote:
| Right, but how popular is diet soda? Anecdotally, there's
| huge differences between soda consumption in USA and
| Europe.
| farmerstan wrote:
| This is absolutely false. It's not universal in the least. I
| can't consume asparatame because even a tiny amount will give
| me terrible gastrointestinal pains. I haven't consumed
| asparatame in over 25 years now and don't even think about it.
| XorNot wrote:
| It's not unreasonable to assume that the current rate of
| disease in our populations might be able to be lower since we
| weren't tracking the association of the introduction of
| products to safety in years past as well as we do today.
|
| A better question is, suppose it was known that it did create a
| small but measurable in lifetime cancer risk, would you
| actually want to keep consuming it?
|
| EDIT: Also aspartame is hardly universal - it's biggest use is
| in diet soda. Those of us who essentially never consume it
| (it's been...over 2 years for me) would almost never be exposed
| to it.
| tptacek wrote:
| I don't know, like everybody else, I eat things with
| substantial amounts of acrylamide, which is a carcinogen we
| actually know is problematic, unlike aspartame.
|
| You're commenting on a story that suggests that even small
| exposures to aspartame might be dangerous. And you stopped
| drinking diet soda only recently. I think you might have a
| hard time finding an American (for instance) that _hadn 't_
| consumed a substantial amount of aspartame.
| kortex wrote:
| Exactly. Anyone worried about aspartame but still consuming
| fried/grilled/brazed food (basically anything besides
| blanching) is kinda missing the point.
| XorNot wrote:
| Depends how much I was drinking (that varies substantially
| across the population) but cancer risk usually doesn't
| track exactly with total exposure compared to ongoing
| exposure - i.e. when you quit smoking your lung cancer risk
| decreases the longer you stay quit, until after 5-7 years
| it tends to level out at about the normal population level.
| psyc wrote:
| Is aspartame commonly used in products that aren't labeled
| as containing it, or that one might be surprised about? I
| never buy any food or drink labeled "sugar free" or
| "contains NutraSweet (or similar)". So I had assumed I
| wasn't consuming chemical sweeteners. Is it as common as
| you say because it is widely used in little-known places,
| or just because most people eat/drink sugar-free products?
|
| Asking out of idle curiosity/surprise. I'm not afraid of
| aspartame, I just don't care for the taste much.
| dundarious wrote:
| There's an interesting hypothesis that the pathway to
| cancer for aspartame (if it exists) might involve creating
| formaldehyde in the same way that's done when drinking
| ethanol, and so actually, drinking alcohol is _protective_
| as it blocks the aspartame cancer effect -- in a similar
| way that ethanol is a treatment for methanol poisoning.
|
| I don't really worry about aspartame cancer risk though, it
| doesn't seem like a big deal if it exists at all. I do buy
| the idea that diet sodas kill good gut bacteria and avoid
| them for that reason, but I don't remember a single thing
| about where I got that idea. It just "feels" right, and I
| don't mind the lack.
| colordrops wrote:
| We barely understand the causes of most cancers; how would we
| separate out that aspartame is the cause of a bump in rates
| among so many other carcinogenic influences in our lives?
| evgen wrote:
| You start with the null hypothesis. If consumption of
| substance X increases significantly but there is almost no
| evidence of a significant increase in the cancer rate over
| that time period then you have a large hill to climb out of
| in terms of proving causality. Cancer rates over the past 100
| years have been mostly dropping. If aspartame really was what
| some claim then I would expect to see a bump like the one you
| see in lung cancer starting in the late 40s and climbing hard
| and fast up until the late-80s/early-90s whereupon it the
| rate turns negative and starts dropping fast.
| argvargc wrote:
| 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 stevia and various others.
|
| Similarly, aspartame or sorbitol or other artificial sweeteners
| are presented as an option for most hot drinks, alongside sugar
| - in my experience it's the sugar constantly being replaced on
| the table.
|
| Looking at packaged foods, I can find few products containing
| it, and again, packaged foods are only a subsection of all
| foods out there.
|
| Also there are those among us who consume predominantly (in
| many cases _only_ ) fresh vegetables, fruit, grains, legumes
| etc.
|
| Look at India, China, Africa, and everywhere in between - this
| is well over half the worlds population and while many are
| exposed to at least a small selection of packaged foods, few
| can afford them, and many simply have no interest.
|
| Just a cursory glance and very rough estimate showed 6000
| metric tonnes of Nutrasweet produced in 2014. Divided into a
| population of 7.8 billion gives each person less than a gram
| per year.
|
| Aside from the fact that like all products a chunk of that will
| go back to landfill unsold, there simply isn't nearly enough
| for it to be universally consumed.
| tptacek wrote:
| 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 is super subtle" is on its own not
| a powerful argument.
| argvargc wrote:
| 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.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| In that case, here's a short list of other foods you'll
| want to avoid:
|
| - All citrus fruits (due to the limonene content)
|
| - Mint of any kind (limonene again)
|
| - Red meat
|
| - Excess protein
|
| - Coffee (acrylamide)
|
| - Chips and fries (acrylamide)
|
| - Bread (often contains acrylamide)
|
| - Dried fruits and nuts (another acrylamide risk)
|
| - Arugula, beets, cabbage, celery, cilantro, endive,
| fennel, lettuce, parsley, rhubarb, spinach, and any other
| vegetables that are high in nitrates.
|
| Also be sure to stay away from cell phones, WiFi, and
| microwave ovens.
|
| This is just a short list off the top of my head. It's a
| dangerous world out there. For a lab rat.
| tptacek wrote:
| Also ice cream and eye drops (carboxymethyl cellulose).
| nate_meurer wrote:
| The same voodoo is applied to the supposed connection to
| dementia. Like the neurotransmitter toxicity nonsense that
| Mercola helped popularize, which isn't supported by
| clinical studies, and doesn't even really make sense
| physiologically.
|
| That's not to say there isn't interesting stuff in these
| investigations. The recent studies the effect of sweeteners
| on gut biomes and the resulting effects on serum chemistry
| are fascinating to me, and I think these studies will be
| productive in other ways.
| benjaminwootton wrote:
| There is a lot of cancer in the western world. Without looking
| it up, I assume many cancers are even correlated with Aspartame
| consumption, for instance the US will have a lot of both.
|
| Maybe there's the evidence.
| tptacek wrote:
| No, the correlation evidence apparently goes the other way
| with aspartame.
| dundarious wrote:
| Cured meats probably have a wider base of consumption and are
| carcinogenic, but only somewhat recently were categorized as
| such by the WHO. It certainly wasn't folk knowledge when I was
| a kid that they would be cancer-causing. Bad for the heart,
| sure, but nothing to do with cancer. And yet it is now
| established.
|
| That being said, this is a rodent study. Really not a good
| input to guide human behavior. And human cohort studies have
| only found associations with cancer after really long periods,
| like decades. Might be nothing there.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| "Established" is a loaded word in something that can't be
| tested with a controlled trial. It was once established that
| eating fat made you fat, eating eggs raised your cholesterol,
| etc.
| dundarious wrote:
| True, I consider those things to be established to this
| day.
|
| Regarding cholesterol and dietary levels to serum levels,
| it's curvilinear. If you have a low baseline, dietary input
| has a strong impact on serum output. If you are eating a
| standard American diet that has a relatively high baseline
| cholesterol level, the relationship weakens to being
| statistically insignificant.
|
| And sure, you can get fat without eating fat, and you can
| create high fat diets that don't increase visible body fat,
| but those aren't healthy diets.
| adrr wrote:
| Meat is associated with cancer. We see this in Americans with
| the increase in colon cancer that is correlated with the
| increase of meat consumption. Also hot drinks is a suspected
| carcinogen. Alcohol is a known carcinogen and even if you
| don't consume it, it is present in fruit and can also be
| produced in your gut.
|
| People worry about suspected carcinogens but they are
| everywhere. Overall cancer rates are at record low levels
| except colon cancer and skin cancer. Skin cancer is a weird
| one since Americans spend less time in the sun and use
| sunblock.
| guerby wrote:
| I don't know if the consensus on this will stand very long:
|
| https://www.dietdoctor.com/red-meat-is-not-associated-
| with-h...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YG81VK6co8
| nicoburns wrote:
| "Americans use sunblock" seems like quite a generalisation.
| Is that universally true? Spending less time in the sun
| could easily lead to less natural protection from melanin
| leading the more extreme exposure when it does occur.
| zippy5 wrote:
| I used to work on DNA dyes. Typically when you see a 6 carbon
| ring with a chain of carbons attached, there is high
| probability of that molecule interfering with DNA replication.
|
| Basically the mechanism works because the hexagon ring slides
| between the base pairs and this leads to a lowest energy state
| due to a phenomenon call pi orbital stacking resulting in the
| molecule getting stuck there. The carbon chain is mostly
| valuable in the sense that it distances the rest of molecule
| from interfering with the stacking process.
|
| Take a look at ethidium bromide or pretty much any other
| intercalating dna stain and you'll see similar characteristics.
| It's also extremely carcinogenic.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi-Stacking_(chemistry)
|
| It's analogous to getting some cloth stuck in your zipper.
| Sometimes you can zip and unzip easily enough but sometimes
| it'll get stuck. My understanding is that really DNA
| replication issues tend to be the root cause of some, possibly
| many cancers but really that's outside my expertise.
|
| So I would say that it is internally consistent with my limited
| knowledge of biochemistry that aspartame is carcinogenic.
|
| I would strongly caveat this with saying that these structures
| occur in pretty high frequency across many forms of plant and
| animal life. Chemists in my lab used to joke about how potatoes
| contain 17 or so know carcinogenic compounds so why buy
| organic. My point is, if you go looking for correlations with
| cancer in many forms of food, you will find them.
|
| I think for most people, aspartame is not likely to be major
| risk factor unless you are consuming it in extreme quantities
| and otherwise live a very healthy life.
| tptacek wrote:
| The biochemist I raised and who is sitting next to me
| drinking beers I paid for so that he would not drink all my
| expensive whiskey says that ethidium bromide doesn't even
| pass the Ames test except with liver homogenates, and its
| actual carcinogenicity is unproven. Your body produces
| similar carbon rings --- phenylalanines --- constantly. You
| can't simply derive carcinogencity axiomatically.
|
| (I'm butchering this and mostly just having fun with it.)
|
| _Edit_
|
| He is correcting me and saying that at the moment he is
| technically working as a veterinary immunologist. But the
| point about 6-carbon thingies stands.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| > _Take a look at ethidium bromide or pretty much any other
| intercalating dna stain and you'll see similar
| characteristics. It's also extremely carcinogenic._
|
| This is a myth. This is actually a good example of a
| plausible biological effect that doesn't apply to living
| organisms:
|
| https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/18/th.
| ..
| kortex wrote:
| If that hypothesis were true, it would implicate not just
| phenylalanine, but dopamine, epinephrine, diphenhydramine,
| ibuprofen, paracetamol, limonene, vanillin, cinnamaldehyde,
| and _literally thousands_ of other different molecules,
| natural and synthetic, we constantly interact with. Heck,
| most polyphenols have pi-conjugation, and those are widely
| thought to have antioxidant and anticancer effects. Oh and I
| completely forgot about the indole moiety (tryptophan).
|
| Intercalation is _way_ more complicated than just some flat
| pi-bonded moieties. If that 's all it took, we'd see everyone
| getting cancer like...rats...oooohhhh, I wonder...
|
| Maybe rodents (especially Sprague rats) are way more
| vulnerable to intercalation? That would explain why so many
| things cause cancer - weak recovery mechanisms for DNA
| replication errors. I need to look into this further.
|
| Anyway... the pattern I see across known intercalators is
| large, multi-ring (3 or more) fused flat structures. Like
| PAHs.
| zippy5 wrote:
| 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
| gave massive doses to rats, some may comeback as
| carcinogenic.
|
| I think that your multi-ring point is fair. The multi ring
| structure to me suggests that the more the pi orbitals are
| able to delocalize their electrons the higher the binding
| efficiency. I have tested 1-2 molecules where non-fused
| rings showed some affinity but not near the potency of
| fused ring structures. I would also say two rings with a
| carbon-carbon link seem to be potent binding as well. I
| presume that it's also related to delocalizing pi orbitals
| and extra degrees of freedom in the intercalation process
| but I suppose that's just speculative.
| kortex wrote:
| > 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 degree of freedom,
| and the whole peptide backbone is floppy. EthBr has a Ph
| but it's stabilized in-plane by the tri-ring.
| Intercalators typically have 300-500 daltons worth in a
| "planar greasy brick" regime, with very little in the way
| of bulky or floppy steric groups. On paper, aspartame
| looks pretty flat, but you gotta think about thermal
| molecules in solution.
|
| E: just noticed this
|
| > I would also say two rings with a carbon-carbon link
| seem to be potent binding as well.
|
| Oh yeah, like biphenylyl, -Ph-Ph? So that's actually much
| more planar than a single Ph. The conjugation (any time
| you see carbon chains with alternating double bonds) of
| the pi-orbitals stabilizes the rings in-plane. Also it's
| rather unnatural, there's not a lot of reactions which
| forge a sigma bond between two aromatics like that.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphenyl
| nate_meurer wrote:
| > _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 up.
|
| > _The multi ring structure to me suggests..._
|
| All this is interesting, but it has exactly nothing to do
| with in vivo carcinogenicity. You don't have to look far
| to see this is true. Healthy diets are chock full of
| polyphenols that exhibit significant DNA binding
| affinity, but lack evidence of carcinogenicity. And it's
| not for lack of looking.
|
| You appear to have some specialized knowledge, but when
| you try to extrapolate it to a wider field where you're
| out of your depth, these hand-waving guesses can easily
| turn into fearmongering.
| zippy5 wrote:
| 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.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| I doubt there are many _graduate_ students who would
| readily understand what you wrote about fused rings. It
| 's going to take me some time to digest it.
| tptacek wrote:
| Bah! It was a fun argument to read and you clearly seem
| to have been participating in good faith.
| zwischenzug wrote:
| https://mobile.twitter.com/ianmiell/status/13952925042081259...
|
| I found aspartame triggers my skin condition, probably due to gut
| bacteria effects. Reading up I found it's got a lot of side
| effects which sound bad. Also, my gums are better since giving up
| coke zero.
| [deleted]
| oojuliuso wrote:
| bill gates is/was a diet coke fan. if i ran into him, say at
| dick's drive-in, i'd ask if he still drinks the stuff. i'd likely
| follow whatever he says. but for now, i'll continue to enjoy my
| 1-2 cans daily.
| hivacruz wrote:
| I still need a small glass of Diet Coke every day in the
| afternoon. I need to cut the habit so I'm drinking right now Diet
| Coke without Caffeine.. It is like the last step before quitting
| for good. I like to drink sparkling water (San Pellegrino) when
| eating, I hope it will help me stop. Fresh sparkling water is
| good!
|
| My bottle of 1 liter (33 oz I think in the US) lasts 4 or 5 days
| so I don't know if I'm at risk.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Health wise you'd probably be better off drinking a caffienated
| drink that wasn't coke. Perhaps kombucha or similar.
| sm4rk0 wrote:
| TL;DR:
|
| > This immunohistochemical and morphological re-evaluation
| confirmed the original diagnoses of malignancy in 92.3% of cases.
| Six lesions originally diagnosed as lymphoma (8% of all HLTs)
| were reclassified: 3 to lymphoid hyperplasia, and 3 to chronic
| inflammation with fibrosis. There was no evidence of Mycoplasma
| infection.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| To the fruit issue, it needs to be said that fructose can only be
| metabolized or stored in the liver, the capacity is about 25
| grams for an adult, that would be one banana. Or two apples. It's
| not bad, but should be kept in mind. The same vitamins can are in
| vegetables, but of course veggies do not taste as good.
| kortex wrote:
| Occam's razor:
|
| 1) humans consume ~5000 tonnes of the stuff, which apparently
| causes multiple kinds of cancers in rodents, and it's also super
| bad for humans, but despite its ubiquity we haven't seen that
| signal because...?
|
| 2) rodents with a lifespan of 1-3 years get cancer super-duper
| easily
|
| Rodent models are easy. Easy != simple.
| zug_zug wrote:
| Well if you google it the very first result shows that some
| studies have found a link in humans, others have not.
|
| So in the case of mixed data, it's really up to the individual
| if they want to err on the side of cancer or not. Given the
| track record of underestimating the damage of things, I know
| where I stand. But it's your body.
| zosima wrote:
| 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 well there is mountains of evidence showing
| very little carcinogenicity from aspartame.
|
| If you were to argue for the carcinogenicity of aspartame, then I
| suggest running a new study as a first step at least. And then
| explain why you see something most other studies have failed to
| see.
| gscott wrote:
| 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.
| vlod wrote:
| Isn't a control group used to negate this?
| lysozyme wrote:
| The strain of rat used in these experiments, the Sprague Dawley,
| is commonly used to study cancer because it has a higher baseline
| incidence of cancer and grows solid tumors faster than other
| strains [1].
|
| Interestingly, it's the same strain that was used in the now-
| discredited study purportedly showing that RoundUp causes cancer
| [2].
|
| 1.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_rat#Sprague_Dawley_...
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seralini_affair
| cwwc wrote:
| #monsanto
| MyHypatia wrote:
| 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.
| agumonkey wrote:
| what about carrots ? I find them great fillers, low cal, just
| enough sweetness inside (only side effect is skin tone if done
| too much)
| computerphage wrote:
| > Artificial sweeteners still make you crave sweets.
|
| How do you know that this is true?
| KozmoNau7 wrote:
| Frequent exposure to sweetness makes your taste receptors
| accustomed to it, like building up a tolerance.
|
| It's obvious by a simple experiment: cut out everything sweet
| (at the very least candy, sweets and desserts) for a couple
| of weeks, then try eating a candy bar or a thickly-frosted
| cupcake. It will taste almost unbearably sweet.
|
| Make sweets something you only enjoy as a rare treat, and
| you'll find that you'll eat much less of them, because the
| sweetness will simply be too much.
| viseztrance wrote:
| I question the same thing, and would like to know how
| accurate it is.
|
| Is there any peer reviewed literature that supports this?
| nicoburns wrote:
| I've read that sweeteners still affect insulin levels even
| though they're not metabolised.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Aspartame does not increase insulin levels. People have
| heard that Sucralose does and group all artificial
| sweeteners together.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > 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).
| slumdev wrote:
| Artificial sweeteners, from the time that they enter your
| mouth and encounter your taste buds, cause the release of
| insulin.
|
| This insulin lowers your blood sugar. Because artificial
| sweeteners provide only the sensation of sweetness and not
| the energy content of an actual sugar, your blood sugar falls
| low enough that your unconscious brain is compelled to eat.
|
| People who drink diet soda consistently eat more calories
| than they would have eaten if they had drunk a regular soda--
| even if you include the calories from the soda.
| davidcbc wrote:
| Studies have not shown any link between aspartame and
| insulin levels. Artificial sweeteners have shown an
| increase in blood sugar over long periods of time in mice,
| but not humans.
|
| Studies haven't found a causal relationship between diet
| soda and weight gain.
|
| https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/artificial-
| sweeteners-b...
|
| https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diet-sodas-and-weight-
| ga...
| tolleydbg wrote:
| I think there is evidence that this is true for some
| sweeteners, such as Ace K, but I don't think this is the case
| with aspartame.
| enchiridion wrote:
| Anecdotally people who do keto have documented increased
| insulin levels from artificial sweeteners.
| tofof wrote:
| 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 carbs (20.4g sugar), 2.7g protein, 10.4g
| fat. 50% sugar.
|
| Granted, the fruits have way way more water content so by mass
| are substantially lower fractions of sugar. It _can_ be (but is
| not necessarily) more satisifying to eat the increased mass and
| volume of fruit, or to eat the same total mass /volume but
| ingest substantially fewer calories (about tenfold, by mass).
|
| But really this advice is just 'swap sweets for smaller
| quantities of sweets'.
|
| https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices...
|
| https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices...
|
| https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5461/2
|
| https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5418/2
| scythe wrote:
| Fruits contain dietary fiber and potassium. Both are
| nutrients Americans tend to consume not quite enough of
| [1,2]. Both help to mitigate the physiologic disorders
| (hypertension [3], diabetes [4]) associated with sugar
| consumption [5]. In addition, fruit contains vitamin C, which
| reduces uric acid [6]; the detrimental effect of fructose on
| hypertension is thought to be mediated by uric acid [5].
| Consumption of fruits, even moderate amounts of juices, is
| associated with reduced risk of CVD [7].
|
| 1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212267
| 21...
|
| 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6181280/
|
| 3:
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11906-011-0197-8
|
| 4: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200005113421903
|
| 5: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/4/899/4649308?log
| in...
|
| 6: https://www.jrheum.org/content/35/9/1853.short
|
| 7: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-
| of-n...
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I think the issue isn't just the pure carb content. 100g of
| strawberries is a lot of strawberries. 100 g of Snickers bars
| is... two bars. I can easily eat two and then crave another
| one right away. After 100 g of strawberries, I'm pretty much
| done for a while. Same with say, apples.
|
| I think one thing that is usually overlooked in these
| discussions is the "feeling" part of it, for lack of a better
| term. Some things make you want to keep on eating, while
| others are satiating. Of course, if you're able to only eat
| one Snickers bar a day while the cupboard is full of them,
| then that's great! I know I can't, so I avoid them
| altogether.
|
| Carb content (calories, actually) isn't important per se,
| what matters is the total consumed quantity, and usually
| calorie-dense foods have a tendency to incite
| overconsumption.
| Semaphor wrote:
| While I don't disagree with you in general, I disagree on
| strawberries. 100g of them is a very small amount and a
| snickers bar (or in my case, some artificially sweetened
| protein bar) is far more filling.
| learc83 wrote:
| 100g of strawberries is 33 calories. 1 cliff bar is 240.
| erincandescent wrote:
| > a snickers bar (or in my case, some artificially
| sweetened protein bar) is far more filling.
|
| Come on, this is just incomparable. Protein is satiating.
|
| A protein bar is a very different experience from a
| Snickers
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| You can eat a pound of strawberries and feel full for an
| hour. Try that with a candy bar.
|
| Volume and digestability is key to eating less.
| [deleted]
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| To your point, I bought a food dehydrator recently and made
| a batch of dried apples. I was watching a movie and midway
| through realized that in my snacking while watching I had
| eaten 9 whole apples. That water content really prevents a
| lot of abuse.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Fruit is fructose + water + fibre + natural flavouring.
|
| Confectionery is sucrose + other carbs + filler +
| appetite enhancers.
|
| While you can over eat fruit, the water and fibre make it
| very difficult.
|
| With confectionery, it's literally designed to be easy.
| fouc wrote:
| 100 grams of strawberries looks to be about 8-10 large
| strawberries
|
| http://www.wholefoodsplantbasedhealth.com.au/wp-
| content/uplo...
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| Eating only one snickers isn't impossible - I do this. It
| is mostly habit. I'm used to eating about a half of a candy
| bar at a time, but I'm also basically just having a bit of
| candy when I want a bit.
| dls2016 wrote:
| > make you want to keep on eating
|
| Junk food recipes are a/b tested and statistically
| evaluated just like in ad tech.
| azdle wrote:
| To be fair, so is all of our fruit these days. Just
| through a couple thousand years of selective breeding.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I remember an ad I once saw on TV about some snack, and
| the tagline was something like "you can't eat only one".
| I can't remember the product, though...
|
| One example I have in mind about products being made like
| this is Nestle's Extreme ice cream cones. They're fairly
| sugary throughout, but right at the end there's a small
| "chocolate bomb", super sweet, that just gives you that
| "I have to have another one" craving.
| dls2016 wrote:
| Yeah this is what a lot of "food science" is these days.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| 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.
| psyc wrote:
| Lay's Potato Chips. I remember that one. Pringles was
| Once you pop, you can't stop.
| infogulch wrote:
| > calorie-dense foods have a tendency to incite
| overconsumption
|
| Key quote that refutes GP's perspective.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Gotta love the internet, where you can find people trying to
| convince themselves that a candy bar is healthier to eat than
| fruit by posting the nutritional contents of a Snickers bite
| sized mini. The confirmation bias is strong with this one.
| sjs7s wrote:
| I can't even tell if the comments here are serious or
| trolling any more.
|
| Fruits contain micronutrients in addition to the regular
| nutrients they have. There's no comparison that just about
| any fruit would be a healthier choice than a candy bar. I
| thought it would also go without saying that it is
| essential to have a diverse diet because a person needs a
| lot of different nutrients, not just one.
| jader201 wrote:
| Hasn't it been proven many times that fruits are healthy,
| period? Let alone comparing fruits to processed/refined
| sugars?
|
| I never understand these claims of fruits being unhealthy --
| or an unhealthy substitute for processed/refined sugars --
| yet there are many sources stating that fruits are
| fine/healthy [1].
|
| There's more to the story than just comparing the amount of
| "sugar" from nutritional facts between fruits and candy.
|
| Yes, juices aren't great. But be clear that whole fruits and
| fruit juices are vastly different, and shouldn't be thought
| of as equally unhealthy.
|
| [1] https://www.cancercenter.com/community/blog/2016/08/natur
| al-...
| vnjfvfg wrote:
| >Hasn't it been proven many times that fruits are healthy,
| period?
|
| Fruits are healthy in the same sense that dihydrogen
| monoxide is. Infinitesimal amounts have no health
| consequence, moderate amounts are healthy, amounts that
| exclude other foods will cause nutritional deficiencies,
| and excessive enough amounts will result in suffocation.
| dukeyukey wrote:
| Sure, but if you eat a kilo of apples a day you'll get
| sick of apples and eat a light lunch worth of calories.
| Eat a kilo of chocolate and you're eating double your
| daily calories. Nobody got obese because of their 10kg-a-
| day apple habit.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| 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.
| symlinkk wrote:
| Why? Why is "processed" automatically bad?
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Fiber slows down the absorption, so there's less spike in
| blood sugars as when eating candy which is all easy to
| digest refined sugar.
| dls2016 wrote:
| It's not automatic, but the processing is guided by
| whatever processing scales (both in manufacturing and
| delivery of the "food") and has been honed by a/b testing
| and statistically evaluated to be addictive.
|
| Maintaining the complex structure of the unprocessed
| ingredients isn't even on the radar.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| The fiber content in fruit makes a huge difference in
| limiting how much your blood sugar is raised.
|
| Industrialized products on the other hand, will usually
| use high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) which is similar to
| table sugar, but slightly different. The jury is still
| out but it has been linked to metabolic syndrome and
| insulin resistance due to being absorbed more easily. You
| will have a hard time finding any processed food that
| matches the water or fiber content of fruit.
|
| On top of that, most modern dietary guidelines will tell
| you to limit the amount of fruit you consume, and prefer
| vegetables, the old 'fruit gets a free pass' approach is
| gone.
| renewiltord wrote:
| 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 argument usually
| ends up on CICO which I am willing to accept.
|
| So I stay away from fruit when I know I need to control
| weight.
| pengaru wrote:
| Nobody is saying it's impossible to eat enough fruit to
| be fattening.
|
| We've arguably evolved to do exactly that, since fruits
| are seasonal crops with brief periods of availability
| before rotting and vanishing until next season. We binge
| when they're available (and love sweets accordingly),
| storing some energy for the coming period of scarcity.
|
| But it's true that intact fruits include soluble dietary
| fiber. The soluble fiber interferes somewhat with the
| small intestine's access to the sugars locked up in the
| goop as it passes through, to become flatulence via your
| guests living in the colon.
|
| Just look at an insulin index including fruits to see how
| they compare, there's a small example on wikipedia @ http
| s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index#Explanation_of_I.
| ..
| renewiltord wrote:
| Right. That makes sense and is what I am familiar with.
| Is it evidence-backed as a causative mechanism?
|
| I like the Insulin Index page. That seems like reasonable
| evidence.
| pengaru wrote:
| > Is it evidence-backed as a causative mechanism?
|
| My understanding of the role soluble fiber plays in fruit
| digestion comes entirely from talks by ucsf professor of
| pediatrics Robert Lustig. There's a bunch of his stuff on
| youtube, you may have heard of the famous one Sugar: The
| Bitter Truth. In some talks he goes more into the role of
| soluble fiber, but I don't recall which, and it's a bit
| of a rabbithole to go digging through again. Plus it's
| been years since I spelunked this particular hole, it's
| presumably even deeper now.
|
| I'm sure if you do some digging you could find reliable
| info on the subject. It's not my impression that we're
| breaking new ground here, pretty sure dietary fiber's
| effects on digestion are at least partially understood
| scientifically at this point.
|
| Unfortunately you'll still encounter a lot of folks
| fixating on "the physics" and calories in vs. calories
| out, which ignores the fact that your body is full of
| living organisms. The composition of your food largely
| determines how much of its calories get taken up by your
| body vs. your guests vs. simply pass through.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Oooh. Thanks for the Lustig recommendations! Much
| appreciated.
|
| I have recently started appreciating the gut flora stuff
| after discovering that there's a whole class of
| artificial sweeteners that not only gives me the runs
| (easy to handle) but also wrecks my mood (harder to
| detect since it borks my detection mechanism).
|
| On the bright side, if I'm willing to accept the pain,
| weight loss is trivial. Smash the Nick's and Halo Top for
| a week, compensate for mood with a Barry's Bootcamp every
| day, come out the other side stronger and lighter.
| [deleted]
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| When I visited a small island in Belize, I went out on a
| tiny sailboat with a middle aged local and his teenage
| son. At lunch time, he grabbed his gut and proclaimed
| that he ate too many bananas, and then promptly diced up
| a pineapple for everyone.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| > easily devour pounds
|
| The real problem--don't do that. Eat a salad beforehand
| and then keep the fruit to a serving or two. Zero doesn't
| work in the long term, there is no need for deprivation
| that squeezes out the fun in life.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, right, but that's just CICO in the end. It's not a
| sugar thing. That's fully understandable. It's the added
| sucrose vs fructose in fruit discussion that's
| interesting.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Need to keep high-glycemic foods to a minimum to keep a
| moderate blood sugar level.
| dukeyukey wrote:
| How many obese/overweight people are so because they eat
| too many apples? I can't imagine many.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-
| you...
| renewiltord wrote:
| I'm sympathize and _want_ to believe but this is stating
| a whole bunch of correlative "why fruits are good for
| you" not a difference in the mechanism between added
| sugar and sugar in fruits.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I always throw my hands up when people mention refined vs
| unrefined sugar, there is practically no difference between
| the two except one has been extracted from the other, and
| the body readily reacts the same to both.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > is a complete package of nutrients
|
| You'll die of malnutrition on a fruit-only diet. It lacks
| fat, for example, which is essential.
| pengaru wrote:
| > You'll die of malnutrition on a fruit-only diet. It
| lacks fat, for example, which is essential.
|
| Ever heard of Avocado?
| WalterBright wrote:
| "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
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| 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.
| WalterBright wrote:
| 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.
| burnished wrote:
| 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 I don't know why, but I've consistently noticed that
| fruit, while appealing and satisfying, are more difficult to
| unthinkingly binge than processed sweets.
|
| Basically, I think you're losing something when you compare
| the macros of a pear to a snickers bar.
| satellite2 wrote:
| 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?
| jonhohle wrote:
| Fruit also contains fiber, which most sweets do not.
| slumdev wrote:
| No matter what they say, nobody likes fruit enough to get fat
| off of it.
|
| Can't say that about candy bars.
| jlos wrote:
| It's not just the sugar, it's the sugar in combination with
| other ingredients. Even the example you gave the fat is 10x
| as high and obviously has no fibre.
|
| The nutrient density of fruits is magnitudes higher than
| sweets.
|
| And water mass matters as it contributes to satiety vs grams
| of food consumed.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I believe in that theory too, non processed foods have a
| lot of stuff beside sugar, fibers will change your gut
| processing and the metabolic impact can be different. Also
| you rarely binge on strawberries, you get sick way faster
| than on kitkats.
| tofof wrote:
| OP didn't say anything about reducing fat intake. Aspartame
| is a sugar substitute, OP talked about switching from
| sweetened beverage to unsweetened beverage neither of which
| has any fat. OP also said "your teeth will thank you" which
| again is an association between sugar and tooth decay, of
| which fat plays no part. Fat is a nonsequitur here; the
| linked article is about a sugar substitute.
|
| The nutrient density of _desserts_ is magnitudes higher.
| Carbohydrates, protein, and fat are the primary nutrients.
| You must mean micronutrients, i.e. individual amino acids,
| vitamins, and minerals. Of these, the snickers bar does
| quite well with amino acids thanks to the peanuts, but yes,
| a serving of strawberries will give you vitamin c which the
| snickers won 't.
|
| However, that single vitamin is the only real difference in
| micronutrient quality!
|
| The fruit and candy are both negligible 2-10% amounts for
| the remainder. They're also very similar on mineral
| content, with the candy providing 8-10% dv on 5 minerals,
| while the fruit provides 7% and 29% of two minerals, the
| rest negligible in both, averaging 5.6% dv for the fruit or
| 7.6% dv for the candy across the ten minerals.
|
| I already addressed water mass and caloric density, but for
| completeness I will say again that you're getting these
| very comparable amounts of micronutrients for a tenfold
| caloric difference.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Notice how the parent didn't say to wean yourself off
| 'sugar', but sweets. It he had said sugar, most of the
| advice about fruits would be contradictory. 'Sweets'
| generally refers to processed junk food, generally high
| in sugar and fat. I think following up the conversation
| by saying fruits are better than sweets because they have
| water, fiber, and micronutrients, and none of the bad
| fats most sweets have, is perfectly reasonable.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Ah, yes, replace 'sweets' with 'fruits' which are about
| 50-75% sugar by non-water mass.
|
| What constitutes the rest of the non-water mass matters quite
| a bit (especially if l, as much of it is with many whole
| fruits, it is fiber, which is demonstrated to mitigate Type 2
| diabetes risk and severity.) Sugar + fiber is much less bad
| for you than sugar alone.
| xsmasher wrote:
| 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.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| Aspartame makes me crave more aspartame, not sugar. I am
| addicted to Diet Coke, but I can't even finish a single can of
| regular coke.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| I think it's a combination of flavor and dopamine from
| drinking it. A lot of Diet Coke drinkers would rather drink
| water than Diet Pepsi. Not that it taste "bad", it's just not
| what they're craving.
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| My wife stopped drinking Diet Coke for a month, and then
| decided she preferred life with that vice and started
| drinking it again.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| I've done the same thing.
| croutonwagon wrote:
| I don't/borderline can't drink coffee. I've made a lot of
| dietary and activity chnages in the past couple years but
| the mainstay has been diet or Pepsi max.
|
| I've straight told people it's just gonna have to be my
| vice. I can eat salads and peanut butter sandwiches all
| day and night. But i haven't found a way to wean myself
| from caffeine.
|
| I definitely don't like when I drink too much (see coffee
| comment). But I can't just cold turkey it either.
| humaniania wrote:
| As if the carbon and plastic pollution impacts of the bottled
| beverage industry weren't reason enough to switch to plain water.
| Animats wrote:
| "Increased incidence of malignant tumors was seen even in animals
| exposed to relatively low doses of aspartame - exposures close to
| the current Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels of 40 mg/Kg body
| weight in the European Union and 50 mg/Kg body weight in the
| United States."
|
| Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi has the most aspartame, at 188mg/can (12
| oz). So, for someone weighing 50kg, the currently allowed dose is
| 2000 mg/day. Or 10 cans/day.
|
| For a few years around 2015, Pepsi tried switching from aspartame
| to sucralose. But that was unpopular.
|
| One comment is that aspartame is the most studied artificial
| sweetener. Others may be worse but less studied.
| sudoaza wrote:
| Shouldn't we test this stuff _before_ selling the stuff to
| millions of people?
| notJim wrote:
| Wasn't there a study in the last couple years showing evidence
| that diet soda causes cancer?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-14 23:01 UTC)