What do we think after WHO declares the sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen?
Nothing to worry about or stop using it?
Just checked the ingredients in my tub of sis go electrolyte powder and it contains aspartame but doesn't say how much.
It's always been a bit controversial. Unfortunately we live in a society that expects everything to be sweet, so if you don't want sugar and you don't want substitutes, you've got to make it yourself.
Never been able to stomach it to be honest, and I actively check packets to make sure I’m not inadvertently eating/drinking it. Sometimes I’m surprised (and disappointed) to find it unexpectedly - SIS electrolyte powder seems weird frankly.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/13/health/aspartame-who-possible-cancer-cause/index.html#
I’ll still be drinking Pepsi Max.
The prevalent attitude appears to be ingest substances which do not occur in a natural diet until someone proves that it is harmful.
I work on the default assumption that all substances which do not form part of a natural diet are probably harmful. Although I can accept that some things which have been eaten for thousands of years such as butter are mostly harmless.
The fact that aspartame is potentially harmful really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
I always avoid artificial sweeteners so the latest revelation concerning aspartame won't make any difference to me.
It's bollocks.
If aspartame isn't the single most tested foodstuff on the planet - largely because of the bottom half of the Internet - then it ain't far off.
Your 'natural' sugar is way more harmful and most people consume it in spades without a second thought.
The prevalent attitude appears to be
...
I work on the default assumption
That's pseudoscientific gibberish as well.
I avoid all artificial sweeteners anyway as I also like avoiding the disaster pants they give me.
They also taste awful, which I helpful if I get something with them in by accident.
It’s possibly not the best thing in the world for you but I wonder how many will be sitting in front of their wood burners tutting away about it.
I don’t have a problem with sweeteners existing (and I’m partial to a Coke Zero) but there’s massively more products using them since the government started fiddling with the laws and levies around sugar. Surprisingly difficult now to buy things like squash without sweeteners - there will still be some sugar but as they’ve reduced it they’ve added sweeteners to compensate.
The WHO have also said that their current guidance on intake is still fine.
In the categorisation of carcinogenic substances, "possible carcinogen" indicates that evidence is unconvincing. It means that aspartame is now categorised the same as aloe vera, dry cleaning, and pickled vegetables. It is considered lower risk than red meat or working the night shift, which are probable causes, and definitely lower than sun exposure, drinking or smoking which are known causes.
Having said the evidence is unconvincing, scaling up the studies in animals that have possibly linked aspartame to liver cancers, you'd need to be drinking about 20 cans a day of diet coke to reach those levels.
Is it 'good for you'? Probably not in comparison to nothing, but also probably better than actual sugar and the health implications of the associated calories, etc.
Just some perspective.
[disclosure - not my specialisation, but I am a chemist and I've read a few toxicity studies in my life as a result, and almost all can eventually show harmful effects but at use/doses way above expected use; that's how they work, find out at what point they do become harmful, rather than if they're harmful]
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230630-aspartame-what-else-is-possibly-cancerous
I wouldn't worry.
I believe working nightshift has a higher cancer risk. I survived 25 years of those.
Of course I drink more beer than I do diet drinks anyway so I don't really have a dog in the aspartame fight.
I avoid all artificial sweeteners anyway as I also like avoiding the disaster pants they give me.
🤣 Yeah, definitely this!
Possible risk as indicated by class 2b category.
The specific liver cancer is rare, so difficult to attribute cause of any to aspartame.
You'd need to consume a lot of fizzy drinks to exceed safe amounts.
They also taste awful,
They taste fine, you're just not used to it. I weaned myself off sugary drinks, it was a shock to the system. It took about a fortnight to become normal.
The weird thing that I don’t understand is that people who opt for things with sweeteners in them don’t seem to benefit. People I know who avoid real sugar but drink all the zero drinks don’t ever seem to lose the weight they complain about. I don’t know what the mechanism is but I don’t see the zero drinks actually helping with weight reduction.
It’s going to give the hippies on FB Keto pages palpitations.
I avoid all artificial sweeteners anyway as I also like avoiding the disaster pants they give me.
Me too most of the time. I'd never made the connection between them and stormy weather in the undercrackers until a few years back. I went through a short phase of consuming a lot of sugar free mints and gum, in an ill-advised strategy to stop snacking on more calorific stuff. I have never in my life experienced Richter scale commotions in the trousers like it. Seriously, it was terrifying and debilitating. I can't begin to describe the sheer magnitude and the violence of it. Xylitol apparently in my case, not aspartame. It is the absolute devil's work and I carefully scrutinise labels for it now, for fear of a recurrence. I am properly shuddering at the memory of it.
There is an argument - and I don't know how scientific it is - that sugar-free sugar can increase your appetite as your brain thinks it's getting sugar when it isn't.
I'm an outlier either way, I can't put weight on.
They also taste awful,
They taste fine, you’re just not used to it. I weaned myself off sugary drinks, it was a shock to the system. It took about a fortnight to become normal
You're missing the point for me 😂 They taste awful, which is good for me as it means I can spot if something I thought didn't have them in does, so I can avoid disaster pants.
There is an argument – and I don’t know how scientific it is – that sugar-free sugar can increase your appetite as your brain thinks it’s getting sugar when it isn’t.
Yeh apparently it will spike insulin just like sugar so affect appetite and blood sugar in that way.
I drink Diet Coke occasionally, mainly at cafe stops on rides in summer and will continue to do so.
If it is carcinogenic it's at such a low level, it's barely worth thinking about.
The weird thing that I don’t understand is that people who opt for things with sweeteners in them don’t seem to benefit.
This is a well documented phenomenon. I'm no expert, but I think as Cougar says, it relates to the cravings for sugar it gives you, leading to an increase in appetite and consumption.
Yeh apparently it will spike insulin just like sugar so affect appetite and blood sugar in that way.
Posted 1 minute ago
Anyone with a Free Style Libre CGM will tell you this isn't the case.
I tried one for a month, diet drinks had zero affect.
Probably not in comparison to nothing, but also probably better than actual sugar and the health implications of the associated calories, etc.
I don’t really understand this statement. The problem with sugar is not calories…..
There’s less than half the calories per gram of sugar than there is in fat.
The problem is with inflammation, insulin resistance, metabolic disorder and the fact it doesn’t actually fill you up.
Sugar isn’t even bad for you in those ways either if you exercise enough to match the high octane diet you are consuming.
Look how much (to all intents and purposes) refined sugar world tour cyclists consume daily for training. Hundreds of grams and thousands of kcals yet they are not just lean, they’re also near-perfect examples of efficient human beings at a cellular level. And ironically they’re also infinitely better at burning fat than the average Joe.
The problem is way more to do with our sedentary lifestyles than anything we can pin on one particular food group.
(So you actually have no excuse to eat this other junk 😀)
There may or may not be weight loss benefits but not drinking sugary drinks regularly during the day is probably good for your teeth.
Is it ‘good for you’? Probably not in comparison to nothing, but also probably better than actual sugar
The problem is that "actual sugar" isn't very natural either. How long has sucrose been an important part of western diets - a couple of hundred years?
FWIW I've always preferred the "Diet" versions of soft/fizzy drinks. I find the full-sugar versions increadibly cloying. This latest news won't affect my intake as I certainly don't drink anywhere near enough of them to make a difference. I'll stick to that nice, healthy, beer and whisky.
Not when someone has PKU
Well, yes, but you'd likely be hard pressed to find any comestible that someone didn't have issues with. Aspartame is low down on that list after high-protein foods for what is a very rare condition.
Rare it maybe but when it affects your partner it's very much in your face day to day
OK, agree on sugar, was over simplifying / reducing to 'what's more harmful, 4 cans a day of Diet Coke or 4 cans of full sugar'
This is a well documented phenomenon. I’m no expert, but I think as Cougar says, it relates to the cravings for sugar it gives you, leading to an increase in appetite and consumption.
Not convinced by that as the Freestyle Libre anecdote suggests; I'd not look much further than the 'if I have diet coke then I can justify upping my chips to large'
imagine 5% of your entire diet was aspartame. I won’t be giving up the Coke Zero just yet. Now will Paracelsus.
I'll be long dead anyway by the time this argument is settled.
than sun exposure, drinking or smoking which are known causes.
Well, just 2/3 für ne, so I should be good.
Love the sun. Drink anywhere between 5 - 12 beers a day, the occasional bottle of wine, too. Haven't had a proper smoke for a while now, much prefer edibles.
If aspartame isn’t the single most tested foodstuff on the planet – largely because of the bottom half of the Internet – then it ain’t far off.
100% this.
theres plenty of 'natural' things in our diet that are far worse, obesity gives a 15-20% increase in cancer risk
youre better off with coke zero
Apart from red meat is there any natural food which causes a cancer risk though? Genuine question, I am not aware of any apart from processed foods.
Obviously anything in excess is potentially harmful, including food, water, and oxygen.
People I know who avoid real sugar but drink all the zero drinks don’t ever seem to lose the weight they complain about. I don’t know what the mechanism is but I don’t see the zero drinks actually helping with weight reduction.
One train of thought is that the brain associates fizzy drinks with a sugar hit so when you drink a zero sugar drink it waits for the sugar hit but it never arrives. You then end up craving sugar so have a choccy bar, hence never losing weight.
Apart from red meat is there any natural food which causes a cancer risk though? Genuine question, I am not aware of any apart from processed foods.
Define natural? Some nuts and seeds are susceptible to a fungus that grows on them which is a potent carcinogen? Sticking to the carcinogenic point, is pickled vegetables natural - vegetables, and natural fermentation products. Kava extract, used as a ceremonial drink for centuries in pacific islands?
Going wider there is plenty that is natural and very harmful. From the news this week - hemlock, for example.
Just because something is synthesised doesn't automatically make it bad.
any calorie heavy foodstuff, especially carbs, can make you obese, that's when the risk increases, not just specific carcinogens
nitrates in processed meats are carcinogenic (slow cured stuff like posh Parma ham doesnt use them is much better)
overcooked carbs eg spuds- the asparagine (which is an essential amino acid) gets converted to acrylamide, which is carcinogenic
Define natural?
Food that isn't processed.
hemlock, for example.
Hemlock isn't considered to be food though.
Apart from red meat is there any natural food which causes a cancer risk though?
Is red meat a "natural food"? Do you just bite it straight out of the cow?
Food that isn’t processed.
So you don't have an oven at home, then?
Highly processed food can be problematic because of the vast amounts of salt and (oh look) sugar which is added. But pretty much everything we eat is 'processed' to some degree.
overcooked carbs eg spuds- the asparagine (which is an essential amino acid) gets converted to acrylamide, which is carcinogenic
That. I draw the line at calling cooked food 'processed food'. So overcooked carbs would be an example. I didn't know about the risk of overcooked carbs. I do know though that cooked and cooled carbs such as pasta and potatoes are considered healthier because of it becoming "resistant starch".
I have heard it said that one bacon roll is the equivalent of 3 cigarettes in terms of the increase risk of cancer. Which is surprisingly high imo. An 18% increase of getting cancer if eaten every day.
Define "overcooked" as opposed to "cooked"?
I think I'm good on the bacon front, having never eaten it ever.
