https://www.vox.com/2023/7/1/23780348/aspartame-cancer-carcinogenic-health-risk-who-iarc-fda-efsa-diet-coke-sugar-free
Get ready for an earful about the health risks of Diet Coke, Trident gum, Equal, and other sugar-free items.
There is a lot of public misunderstanding of the rodent studies that linked aspartame to cancer, which are very flawed and essentially come from a single Italian research group.
There is still no definitive link to cancer risk in humans so I would continue to be skeptical. The maximum recommended safe exposure for aspartame is the equivalent of 12 cans of coke, and the strong effects from the rodent study were using exposure amounts equivalent to 5 times that amount, or 60 cans daily, every day of their life after day 12 of fetal life (i.e. before birth).
Almost anything can cause long-term health risks and toxicity at such massive exposure levels.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/aspartame.html
Link to the free Pubmed link to one of the original source studies from 2008 so you can see their methodology and the absurdly massive exposure amounts needed to ovserve these effects:
I disagree with the 'massive' exposure 'needed' to observe these effects exaggeration. First, the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic, not to parse at exactly what level in humans. Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.
I suspect further research was done to confirm your linked studies and refine exactly at what minimum levels of daily consumption elicit carcinogenic effects. That will likely be in the full report once released. Until then, you sound like you don't want it to be true, rather than an impartial evaluator of the research.
the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people. But, that doesn't prove anything or serve a point.
Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.
In rats! You can't just multiple a rat study by body weight and expect it to always correlate. That's why studies are done in larger animals, and sometimes the concept just dies there.
A single study is a statistic. Until they duplicate the results multiple times, and upgrade to monkeys, pigs, or (in a safe way) humans, this is all just noise.
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people.
It would lead to death, but not to cancer. Not everything is carcinogenic, even with high exposure. Causing death by a method other than cancer doesn't make it carcinogenic.
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people. But, that doesn’t prove anything or serve a point.
This is how science is done friend. You make no assumptions. You have reason to believe a theory predicts a testable outcome? You test it. Not everything causes cancer. Pure air doesn't... Clean water doesn't... The research shows us Aspartame does indeed have carcinogenic effects in rats. Now we know this, and the result can be used to support applications for more costly research using subjects much more similar to our anatomy because if it is carcinogenic in one mammal, it probably is carcinogenic in others.
You call the study flawed when it looks perfectly fine to me for the purpose it was designed for. It shows it is carcinogenic in the mammal it was tested on at dosage levels that translate to non-'massive', quite reasonable consumption rates for humans. As such, it warrants concern and all these claims by the European and US Food Agencies saying 'we did 100s of studies decades ago and it is fine trust me bro' is not enough. I'm not arguing this one study proves Aspartame causes cancer in humans. I'm saying your particular criticisms of it are unfounded as is your confidence that Aspartame is non-carcinogenic. You cite FDA claims 'Aspartame is safe' but show no research that supports this conclusion. Looking at the provided links I noticed things like "don't feed to pregnant mothers because phenylalanine", "methanol is a metabolite - nothing concerning there", and 'we plan on doing a systemic revaluation of aspartame as the research is over a decade old (the whole time with the biggest corporations in the world breathing down our necks)' https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/factsheetaspartame.pdf
Looks to me like somebody did more research and found contradictory results otherwise why would WHO say they are going to do this?
You cite FDA claims ‘Aspartame is safe’ but show no research that supports this conclusion. Looking at the provided links I noticed things like “don’t feed to pregnant mothers because phenylalanine”, “methanol is a metabolite - nothing concerning there”, and ‘we plan on doing a systemic revaluation of aspartame as the research is over a decade old (the whole time with the biggest corporations in the world breathing down our necks)’ https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/factsheetaspartame.pdf
I do? Which post do I claim anything? What links did I provide?
My whole point is that one flawed study with rats doesn't prove a damn thing, and is not enough to make a decision on.
I'm going to agree with Burstar here - if you're setting out to prove that something is possible, you're going to give it the best chance you can. Once you know its possible (whether its something like using an arduino to simulate an old price of hardware, or if a compound can cause cancer), you go and refine it down.
the strong effects from the rodent study were using exposure amounts equivalent to 5 times that amount, or 60 cans daily, every day of their life after day 12 of fetal life (i.e. before birth).
This is why I hate rodent studies. They always up the exposure to whatever they are testing to hyper-extreme limits. Then point their flawed results to the world and declare "See! X causes Y!"
There are even similar rat studies for marijuana that try to link it to cancer as well, despite the fact that zero people have actually died from weed. It's all overblown bullshit.
Dude have you seen how many diet Cokes people drink? Liters and liters daily. Not excessive at all honestly considering LifeTime total exposure
Im a chemist by trade. This is actually chemically very simple. I only looked deeply into Sucralose Splenda. So I'll discuss that
These have Chlorine molecules. A very electrophilic element even in a chemical bond. Meaning it can cause reactions in other molecules very easily. Sucralose has Three Chlorines. If it touches DNA it's bad business man.
I love diet Coke btw lol I could drink 5 gallons right now idk I smoke cigs. But don't sugar coat it
Table salt has more chlorine by mass than sucralose. Moreover, in your body, table salt dissociates into a chlorine ion, whereas in sucralose it's covalently bonded into the molecular structure. That's not to say that it is suddenly nonreactive, but being covalently bonded tempers some of it's electron craving, so to speak. By your logic, table salt should be orders of magnitude more dangerous than sucralose (it's not).
Edit to add: Do you know of any mechanism by which sucralose could cross the nuclear membrane? If not, sucralose isn't going to be touching DNA at all. It could touch some form of RNA in the cytoplasm, which isn't necessarily innocent, but it's not going to be touching the DNA. That means it won't cause long-term genetic changes or damage; any damage it caused would be transitory to the working set of RNA and that damage would be gone when that RNA was processed/destroyed.
The presence of chlorine does not make a chemical toxic.
Are you a chemist in the sense that you run a drug store?
You are saying that sucralose (or a metabolite thereof) could alkylate DNA - and theoretically proteins too - correct? Like what sulfur mustard gas does?
I did a quick search and couldn't find any papers demonstrating a mechanism of action for that, although I skimmed a few that postulated that a dichlorinated hydrolysis product might be the true carcinogenic agent. Do you know of any studies that demonstrate that the alkylation can happen, either in vitro or (ideally) in vivo? Or maybe some better search terms to use, that could be my issue...
I am truly curious about this, I never knew the chemical structure of sucralose until I read your comment and subsequently looked it up.
Also note most people are choosing between sugar and aspartame or another sweetener, and sugar is pretty much categorically a health risk for humans.
Nail on the head. Aspartame is still better for you than super processed foods loaded with sugar. This reminds me of the big smear campaign against fat that the sugar industry engineered to take the heat off of themselves way back when
Is that a measurement relative to mass/size? Because if not, you'd need to consume a shitload of it to really do anything.
There's a ton of studies with these problems. Researchers simply engrossing the test subject in the material until something bad happens. Unless you're researching on a test group of humans, then suddenly all the levels are actually less than typical.
It all depends if you're looking to prove that it's harmful or not. Want to find it's harmful? Get a bunch of mice and expose them to as much of whatever substance you need to in order to find a problem.... Want to prove something is safe, set up a "double blind" study of the effects on humans, and give half of them regulated and limited doses of it for weeks or months until you can convince everyone that "nothing bad happened".
I have a problem with research done in either way. Researchers should be neutral, and just test and let the data speak for itself. (With limited interpretation for the people who read it)
Instead, almost all research is funded by someone with an agenda who is trying to find out if x is good/bad, and prove or disprove a specific stance. Argh
Still proves it may cause cancer, the only thing seriously in question is the dose. Seemingly nobody knows what a safe upper bound is for any population.
Misleading title. They're about to declare it as possibly cancerous. Not fully cancerous. And if anything this is just to get even more research into it.
Aspartame is in a lot of things, mainly sodas and gum, but you'd have to consume a lot of the stuff beyond a human limit really.
I do think this may put a dent in sugar free products assuming it gets declared as such.
Probably just enough for California to give it that label, and that's about it.
I hate the chemical aftertaste of artificial sweeteners anyway.
There's still other zero calorie sweeteners though. Sucralose, stevia, saccharine, Monk fruit extract, etc.
Every paragraph of that article got less and less certain about the results. Someday I'd love to be able to trust the headline.
They’re about to declare it as possibly cancerous. Not fully cancerous.
What do you mean by this? Everything that can cause cancer is declared "possibly cancerous"; it depends on dose and exposure. Nothing is "fully cancerous" for whatever that might even mean. You can be exposed to radiation and either get cancer or not; it depends on the dose. Would you call radiation "possibly cancerous", or "fully cancerous"?
Analagously, most bacteria can cause infections but they don't always in everyone. So to label a bacteria as purely benign or purely dangerous is just as silly as trying to make a distinction between "possibly cancerous" and "fully cancerous".
Aspartame is in a lot of things, mainly sodas and gum, but you’d have to consume a lot of the stuff beyond a human limit really.
And if someone wants to minimize their risk of cancer, they should be able to make informed decisions. Knowing that at particular food-additive has higher-than-baseline chances of causing cancer allows someone with a different risk-aversion profile to make decisions wisely. If you don't mind the incidence rate at the dose you consume it at, that's fine as well. But it is useful to have it be public knowledge if something is potentially cancer-causing.
It means that Aspartame is going to be added to the “Group 2B” classification list. It’s worth noting that “Red Meat” and “Alcohol” are in the much more severe “Group 1” list, so you should probably give up steak and beer before you ditch your favorite diet soda.
The difference between "possibly cancerous" and "fully cancerous" is that the former is not confirmed to have the property of causing cancer.
Radiation on the other hand is known to be carcinogenic.
To use your analogy, we know that there are bacteria that cause infections and bacteria that are harmless to humans. Let's say we have bacteria A that is known to cause infection but not always in everyone. Then we have a bacteria B, which is potentially able to cause infection. We don't know for certain that it can, but we also don't know that it can't.
And yes, it's a pretty fucking useless designation, and WHO is wasting everyone's time and causing undue panic. Let's not forget how they completely fucked the world with their atrocious handing of Covid in the early stages of the outbreak.
There's different classes of cancer-causing compounds. Alcohol, for example, has the highest classification, meaning there is indisputable evidence exposure increases the risk of certain cancers. Then you have decreasing strength of evidence from there.
There's a scale. I wouldn't put aspartame on the same level as smoking for it's chances of causing cancer. That's what i mean. I guess "fully Cancerous" isnt really a good way of putting it into words.
It doesn't outright cause cancer like the title implies. By saying it causes cancer in the title is misleading. There's very little evidence that supports that, and I see them only doing this considering the concerns around it and more research.
I'm absolutely for people knowing this information and making informed decisions if they want to stay away from it or keep using it. That's all on them.
Should've titled it something more like "WHO is about to rule aspartame as 'possibly cancerous.' Here's what that tells you"
I don't think you can put "the" before WHO unless Roger Daltrey approves it.
I worry about a lot of the additives used today. Some products will say "no sugar added" but will include some artificial sweetener that you only see in the fine print.
I worry about the "natural" sugar alternatives. We all know that aspartame is safe, it's been researched about as extensively as it can be. It only starts to be a concern when you're drinking 2 dozen diets sodas daily.
But people give "natural" a pass for some reason.
Natural is always good, my cereal has natural uranium for a spicy natural alternative to sugar. It's totally safe.
(For legal purposes, this comment is a joke)
So then buy unsweetened tea. We already have a term for things that aren't sweet.
https://www.amazon.com/Pure-Leaf-Unsweetened-Brewed-Calories/dp/B015Z6WJDY/
I seriously don't understand why you want the "no sugar added" label to have factually incorrect requirements.
Every time I go south I forget this and always end-up with disgustingly sweet tea at restaurants. I always get one huge gulp then want to vomit. lol
No sugar added should mean no sweeteners added, but that's not the case unfortunately.
No sugar added usually just means it's full of sugar originally found in the product. A "no sugar added" apple juice will still have an insanely unhealthy amount of sugar.
I don't know why you think it should mean no sweeteners. (most) sweeteners are categorically not sugar. If you want something not sweet, the label you're looking for is "unsweetened".
Besides, sugar is much worse for you than any artificial sweetener.
"Unsweetened" means no sweeteners added. "No sugar added" means no sugars, but maybe other sweeteners.
"Unsweetened" is a subclass of "no sugar added" though, and so if you're really looking for "unsweetened", you still have to read the labels of all of the "no sugar added" products that chose that (more generic) label over the (more specific) "unsweetened" label.
Unsweetened is a subclass of "zero/no sugar". No sugar added is a completely separate thing.
No sugar added does not mean the product doesn't contain sugar or that it's not sweet. It only means there was no extra sugar added during the preparation. A "no sugar added" fruit juice, jam or even ketchup is still going to be sweet.
Something like pure maple suryp qualifies as no sugar added despite being 99% sugar.
I see what you're saying. I think I said this in another comment, but my goal is just to avoid (overly-)sweet foods. From that standpoint, "unsweetened" is ideal. But "no sugar added" for something that's naturally somewhat sweet (such as tomato paste) is also acceptable. If I were to pick up tomato paste that said "no sugar added" but did have artificial sweeteners, I'd be horrified. So I guess the terminology is more straightforward if you're avoiding sugar, but it's less useful if you're avoiding sweetness.
As a Type II diabetic:
fuck
As a punk:
All I wanted was a Pepsi
Just one Pepsi
*Diet Pepsi contains sucralose, not aspertame, so I guess I'm good (for now)
In my area they phased aspartame back into Diet Pepsi, which pleases me. I unabashedly love aspartame sweetener.
Like how cancerous is it? Considering the amount of diet pop my family consumes…I’m kinda worried
I’m pretty sure the last I read about this it was an absurd concentration that showed to potentially cause cancer. Nothing a human could drink in such concentrations.
That being said maybe that’s changed very very recently, I’ll be interested to see what their actual findings are.
A lot of things potentially cause cancer in huge concentrations.
Edit - From what I’ve read aspartame would be considered a possible carcinogen in the same class of Coffee. That doesn’t make quite the same headline though hah!
Lead was used way past discovering it was dangerous, and is still used enough to cause problems in specific populations. Just like cigarettes. If there is a large moneymaking industry and it suddenly comes to light that what it is producing is dangerous, they have a lot of motivation to put money behind keeping that knowledge from getting out or, when it does, keep it from affecting law. They lobby/bribe, they abuse the legal system, whatever they can to avoid going under. As such, it's not safe to assume that something is not dangerous simply because it hasn't been banned.
Was there a denialism effort about lead? As far as I know there just were no regulators to crack down on it back in the day. It's still used in things where it's impractical to replace and in theory is disposed of carefully.
With cigarettes, I seem to remember that a branch of the US government declared them unsafe in the 70's. Academics usually will raise the alarm in a big way if they find something really dangerous and it's not dealt with swiftly. Legislators can be a different matter (see cigarettes, climate change and so on), but when it comes to food don't tend to get involved.
The Roman's used to add lead acetate to their wines to make them sweet. There's records of people at the time noting that drinking to much of this lead sweented wine seems to cause issues. So humanity has known that lead isn't necessarily a good thing for the human body for a very long time.
Yep. They also used mercury to refine gold, and just accepted that gold mine slaves died a lot for some reason. There was no Roman labs doing actual toxicity testing, though, and definitely no Roman FDA.
It doesn't take much for the WHO to classify something as a possible carcinogen.
Aspartame is now in the same risk category as cell phones, kimchee, and carpentry. And still considered less carcinogenic than meat, fried foods, hot beverages, and working a night shift.
Not gonna preach or anything but that stuff is trash. You guys should quit honestly. I “reset” my tastes to less sweet stuff over time and it’s incredible how different things taste after you lose the expectations they should be sweet to be delicious.
I eat my morning oats with unsweetened soy milk and cow's milk now tastes like candy to me.
That will be the most important factor: the quantity needed to be harmful.
If it's the equivalent of 30 cans of diet cola a day, this is a non-issue. They will give those details when they release the report.
Aspartame has been in common usage as a sugar alternative for literally decades.
If it was harmful or potent enough to be dangerous on a public or individual health risk then we would have certainly known about it by now. At this stage, even WHO, are saying it's needed in HUGE concentrations.
Diet sodas aren't the only things that we consume that contains aspartame. And aspartame isn't the only thing we're exposed to that has been linked to cancer and other deseases.
Just get on with life, enjoy what you enjoy in moderation. Don't put too much thought into it otherwise you'll just end up living in fear and avoiding everything.
Lead's affects were well known, just ignored.
Aspartame is no different to any other food or substance we're exposed to. You can't buy anything in California that's doesn't have the 'Known to cause cancer' label on it.
Honestly, the rise in the diagnosis of cancer in industrial humans is a result of living longer and not being killed by something else.
Basically, what I'm saying is that as long as you live in moderation and overall healthy, a couple of pints of Diet Cola a day or a bottle of wine on a weekend isn't going to kill you.
From annectdotal experience, the people who get the most knotted up about this stuff probably sit down all day and eat absolute crap. The aspartame is not the thing to worry about in that equation.
Not cancerous whatsoever. It's approved for use worldwide and it's one of the most studied additives on the planet.
It has been massively consumed worldwide for many decades, without causing any statistically noticeable increase in cancer rates.
Considering the incredibly negative health impact of sugary drinks, artificial sweeteners probably prevented millions of deaths over the decades they have been used.
Like the other "scary" "it causes cancer" studies, they probably stuffed a rat with its body weight of aspartame and when it developed cancer they figured it's carcinogenic.
Completely disregarding that a can of artificially sweetened coke will have less than 1g of aspartame, which is 0.0002% of average human's bodyweight.
Don't panic until the report officially locked out. We are very certain that smoking and pork cause cancer, but smoking has a huge possibility of lung cancer while pork only increases your chances of cancer by something like 20%. This could be one of those "We are 99.999% certain that it increases your risk by 10%" sort of things.
Same here. My wife and I only really drink water but her stepdad got bladder cancer after decades of drinking nothing but Budweiser and diet dew. He's cancer free now but lost his bladder and prostate.
At most 1.15 x risk. Bigger effects are on risk for diabetes, heart disease and metabolic syndrome. By itself aspartame doesn’t appear to be too bad. But it causes sugar craving which can lead to excessive and poor eating habits.
I could be wrong, and I’m too lazy to Google at the moment, but I swore this was made public information long ago. When I was young, aspartame was being phased out in favor of sucralose. I recall hearing stories about aspartame being banned in other countries as a child.
When I was a kid, there was a small warning at the bottom of the pink packets of aspartame from restaurants: "This product has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals." They've known for at least 30 years or so.
Hopefully there's more research done. It doesn't sound like it's "absolutely carcinogenic".
The "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" associated with using mobile phones are "possibly cancer-causing". Like aspartame, this means there is either limited evidence they can cause cancer in humans, sufficient evidence in animals, or strong evidence about the characteristics.
Yeah, they came out and branded it as a "possible cause for cancer". They've been studying aspartame for decades now and most they could label it with was a mere "possible". I'm not saying it's great to drink it when surely nowadays you can find alternative sodas sweetened with stevia or other "natural" sweeteners but I wouldn't worry too much about this news.
What makes you think that stevia or "natural" sweeteners are better?
At the very least, they have to go thought an industrial process of extraction that can leave unwanted chemical agents in the final product. And anything naturally grown is a subject to be contaminated with pesticides and other unwanted substances.
Is there a reason the natural sweeteners should be trusted over aspartame? From what I've read, you would need to drink a case of diet soda every day before it maybe even starts to be cancerous.
Am glad they publish this, though. "Possible" still tells me to be careful.
If I consider "possible" as no harm until it's 100% proven, I might cause serious harm to myself in the process when and if it's 100% clear.
Better on the side of caution, IMO.
Do you drink hot coffee or tea or soup? Cause hot beverages are considered more likely to cause cancer than this designation for aspartame.
Do you eat meat? Cause that's two levels higher than this designation for aspartame.
Also the studies this ruling is based on indicates you would have to drink ~30 aspartame sweetened sodas a day to be at any risk.
Do you drink hot coffee or tea or soup? Cause hot beverages are considered more likely to cause cancer than this designation for aspartame. Do you eat meat? Cause that’s two levels higher than this designation for aspartame.
Sure, these things on their own, at the amount they're generally consumed, may not cause issues. But when you are combining these things, the sum total can be worrisome. Maybe red meat alone isn't much; maybe hot coffee alone isn't much; maybe aspartame alone isn't much; maybe alcohol alone isn't much. But when you have hot coffee for breakfast, red meat for 2 meals, aspartame drinks all day, and alcohol at night, you are at a completely different level of risk. Knowing which small things contribute to this sum is important. Or, from another angle: maybe someone really likes alcohol, even acknowledging the potential cancer-causing aspect. So to somewhat offset that known risk, they're wanting to minimize other sources of potential-cancer.
If you're drinking 30 cans a day, I'm going to guess that switching to water won't be the easiest of the things to change from that list. And it would be the least significant impact.
That's not the point I was trying to raise.
My point was that people love to pile on anything artificial because they see it as unnatural and they claim it's cause they just want to be aware of the risks, but those same people usually don't know and don't care that things they partake of everyday are also cancer risks and much higher ones than the artificial stuff.
My point in asking OP was because id wager (and wanted to see) they didn't know those were cancer risks and won't change their habits or they did know but hadn't changed their habits.
Red meat and alcohol have much higher links to cancer than aspertame. Hope you're a vegetarian teetotaler.
Stuff that has been sweetened by it kind of taste like there is something wrong. Yet still it tastes decent enough and much better than stevia. I would rather have option to drink stuff that just outright hasnt been sweetened at all.
Dammit… I’ve been drinking that shit every day for years. I actually crave the flavor of it.
Well, I didn’t much before reading the article, but after reading it I don’t trust the FDA at all.
You don't trust the FDA after you've read that they conclude that aspartame is safe, which is in line with over 100 other countries' regulatory agencies?
Wait until you read what the FDA has to say about water.
I don’t trust them because they rejected aspartame in the 70s and it was only approved by Reagan in the early 80s because he had an executive from the manufacturer in his entourage. That’s shady crony-capitalist bullshit. Downvote me all you want.
I’ve read some of the studies and talked about them with some nurses who’ve done the same. The harm is due to the quantity you consume. The study’s found it cancerous after giving it to mice in high doses, like dozens of 2 liters of diet soda each day. Most people who drink a few cans are going to be fine.
We’ll have to see what the new report says and some people might have to adjust the amount they drink it but I doubt it will say any amount is cancerous.
Didn't they suggest that aspartame could cause cancer way back in the late 80s or early 90s?
I remember growing up hearing about something like that when sweet and low was the go to sugar.
It seemed to kind of just fall of the face of the earth and is resurfacing now?
According to the article, yes, comprehensive studies showed it was strongly correlated to brain tumors back in the 90s. However big companies lobbied and did their own "research" to bury the studies that quite conclusively showed aspartame caused cancer.
Well, I guess it's time to throw those lawsuits at the big companies that buried it with their conflicting studies, similar to big tobacco.
The shit we seem to put up with by corporations so their shareholders can gain some more on their millions. Humans suck.
Saccharine (Sweet 'n Low) was the big scare back then.
It turned out it did cause cancer... in rats... if you force fed them some crazy amount like 400x normal.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185898/
"humans would need to drink the equivalent of 800 twelve-ounce diet sodas with saccharin daily to reach the carcinogenic doses that induced rat bladder cancer."
If they conclude that even a small amount is harmful, inagine the backlash all the soda/food insutry giants will create The food industry is a fearful monster that cares more about profit than health. Now think about that.
For anyone who likes diet soda, check out Zevia. It's sweetened with Stevia instead of aspartame. Doesn't taste too bad either. Makes a great vodka mixer since it's 0 calories.
Unfortunately I've never tasted anything with Stevia that I like. Weird, weird aftertaste.
Aspartame has an aftertaste but I got used to it after maybe three tries. I've never gotten used to Stevia.
Too bad, because in other ways Stevia is superior.
I like fizzy drinks, so lately I've been mostly drinking unsweetened, like La Croix or Spindrift.
To be clear, saying this can cause cancer is similar to saying that water will be classified as toxic.
Cancer is a genetic/cellular lottery we play every day. Consuming certain substances can change those odds. We’re talking 1 in a Trillion (a number I pulled out of my ass, to be clear), and perhaps consuming aspartame changes that to 100 in a Trillion. 100x more likely to get cancer? Not really.
Just like how water is classified as toxic if you drink too much (cellular over-hydration) consuming too much aspartame can cause cancer.
Though I suppose it remains to be seen. I’m making broad assumptions and I’ll wait for the professionals and studies and scientific journals to tell me what’s what.
this guy always gives some good context for this kind of sensational diet/health claim: https://proxitok.pussthecat.org/@roblapham/video/7252049382957255942
No they aren't. There's no substantial proof for it, and the body of people who are behind this label (IARC) aren't even a food safety body. They once tried to say eating red meat is "possibly" cancer-causing as well.
They once tried to say eating red meat is “possibly” cancer-causing as well.
Because it is. Whether the effect size is significant to you or not is one thing, but there is good evidence that it has a nonzero effect. Which is similarly the case here: there is evidence of effect of aspartame, but whether the effect size is significant is up to you to decide (or legislators).
Is it too much to hope this community evolves into a porn community and a hentai community starts posting unbiased news
You're probably just dehydrated from drinking a small amount of soda instead of a larger amount of water.
I don't think it's this, only some fizzy drinks do it and it happens even if I drink a lot of water as well
Probably because many of them have a non-negligible amount of caffeine.
Aspartame does not cause headaches.
oh that's why some soda drinks give me headache 😐 i just realised all the ones that used to make my head hurt, were all zero/diet versions. i switched back to full sugar ones a while back, now i see why i did.
i guess it's a choice between teeth rot or cancer. i'll take the teeth rot lol
No, aspartame does not give you a headache. It's probably the caffeine that's present in many sodas, such as coke. There is no known biological mechanism for aspartame to give you a headache. It's just confirmation bias.
The main harm of sugary drinks are the incredibly harmful effects from huge insulin spikes and damaging your liver. Teeth is pretty low on the list.
Diet soda drinks are still harmful to your teeth because of their high acidity. Not as harmful as sugary drinks, but still. It's the only proven major health concern of diet sodas.
ah okay, i'm way out of my depth then. thanks for the advice
my specific problems are with fanta zero and coke cherry zero. if not the aspartame, then is there a possible cause that isn't confirmation bias, or caffeine? i don't have problems with other drinks with caffeine, and i should stress that i drink 2L of water a day regardless of whether i have a can of soda (in addition). i.e, it's not headaches from dehydration either.
i'm willing to accept the possibility that i am an idiot and it's just confirmation bias, but if anyone knows any other possible causes, i'd be happy to learn 🙂
another question i have regarding point #2, how much sugar is too much to cause the effects you mention (i.e in one can?). for context, i live in the UK, and most cans of soda are restricted to 16.5g of sugar for the whole can, because of a sugar tax. is 16.5g in one go enough to cause liver damage?
thank you for reading
I can't really think of a reason those specific drinks would give you a headache.
I compared the ingredients of coke cherry zero with regular coke zero, and the ingredient lists are almost literally identical. The only difference would be in the flavoring they use, both of which are just listed as "Natural Flavors".
The only other difference is coke cherry zero has marginally more Acesulfate Potasium or less Potassium Citrate. We can tell because their position on the ingredient list is swapped. It's not well known, but ingredient lists are sorted from highest to lowest content.
Potasium Citrate is found in many foods, in particular in lemons, grapefruit and pomegranates. It's added for preservation and flavor.
Acesulfate Potasium is another artificial sweetener, with sweetness on par with Aspartame. Like aspartame, it's a very well studied food additive and is deemed completely safe by regulators.
But again, both drinks contain them, so even if we disregard that they are safe, the small difference in content is very very unlikely to cause any effect.
And you don't have to be an idiot to be susceptible to confirmation bias. Our brains are built to look for patterns, but sometimes they see them where they don't exist.
As for #2, really any amount of sugary drinks is bad for you. This includes fruit juices (including "no sugar added" and freshly pressed). The problem comes from how fast your body absorbs the sugar. Sugar dissolved in water is very quickly absorbed and causes a rapid spike in blood glucose. These spikes put you at risk of developing a range of nasty conditions - in particular Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Of course drinking one can won't immidiately give you those conditions, not unlike how smoking one cigarette won't immidiately give you lung cancer. But like there is no "healthy" number of cigarettes you can smoke, there is no healthy amount of sugary drinks you can consume.
It's best to avoid, but of course nobody is expected to live perfectly healthy lives, so drinking a can now and then will probably not harm you.
If you want to have a sugary drink, make sure you do not drink it on an empty stomach. Drinking it with a meal will slow down how quickly sugar is absorbed. For the same reason, eating sweet fruits like apples is perfectly healthy despite relatively high sugar content. The sugar is locked inside the solids of the fruit and is absorbed slowly.
Artificial sweeteners are usually 200-1000 times sweeter than sugar, so their content is tiny compared to sugar. A can of coke zero contains 87mg of aspartame. Aspartame has no effect on blood glucose or insulin levels. Even if it did, such a tiny amount could not cause a spike.
This is why I get agitated with headlines like these. WHO announces some study that they haven't even published that says aspartame "might be carcinogenic" which flies in the face of decades of research and widespread usage. And thousands of fear mongering articles will push the already misinformed public to drinking sugary drinks that in contrast are practically poison.
thank you so much for this 🙂 i shall make sure to have soda with food from now on. and also, i can give fanta zero and coke cherry zero a go again (with full stomach) and see what happens lol. appreciate the work 💪
Also causes memory lose.
For those that downvote because you didn't want to do so basic research. Here https://www.amenclinics.com/blog/can-diet-soda-increase-the-chances-of-dementia/#:~:text=Aspartame%20overstimulates%20neurotransmitters.,as%20learning%20and%20pain%20perception.
But again this is one source. There are others first heard about it from Reddit. But I also have first hand knowledge of the effects because my brother and father were heavy drinkers of the stuff and definitely effected their memories.
Can Diet Soda Increase the Chances of Dementia? June 12, 2019
Share:
Can Diet Soda Increase the Chances of Dementia The artificial sweeteners used in diet sodas—and thousands of other processed foods—are anything but sweet. In fact, they can be toxic to the brain. Consuming these sugar substitutes on a regular basis is not a recipe for a healthy memory.
Sherry, who weighed over 200 pounds on her 5’5” frame, guzzled diet soda thinking it would help her lose weight. It didn’t. Even worse, she started experiencing a host of symptoms—digestive issues, arthritis, forgetfulness, and confusion. In fact, Sherry’s diet soda habit was hurting her brain and putting her memory at risk.
That’s what a growing body of evidence shows. For example, a study in the journal Stroke found that drinking diet soda was linked to an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia.
4 Ways Artificial Sweeteners Steal Your Mind
Also my brother and dad were heavy drinkers of diet Coke I saw first hand experience of ut affecting their memory. With my dad we literally thought he had dementia. Then we cut it off and over time he got better.
Then do you research because its out there and it's a fact. Scientists are just discovering it.
The 2nd point in the blog post you present as a source is factually incorrect:
- Artificial sweeteners contribute to chronically high insulin.
The link (bolded by me) in the following text
One of the most commonly used artificial sweeteners in diet sodas, aspartame is particularly damaging to the brain.
Goes to a page titled "Can Sugar Affect Your Cognitive Ability?". They didn't even link to the thing their text is claiming.
How can you take this trash seriously?
And personal anecdotes are absolutely worthless in discussions like this. Artificial sweeteners are consumed by a massive portion of the population. Any person who falls ill is likely to have consumed artifical sweeteners, so they will have incredible correlation with every disease on the planet.
Ah yes the noted scientific journal amenclinics.com/blog
Unassailable source there, bud.
But he knows 2 people who drank some diet soda and later had memory issues! You can't dispute those numbers!