You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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.
Artificial sweeteners give themselves away with the nasty dry/bitter/chalky aftertaste. I don't like it.
Even when mixed it's detectable.
grinding wheat to make flour for bread or pasta is processing it (and makes it more calorific)
preparing food in any way will change how it is digested by your body
theres a genetic element to it too, your gut flora is a big influence on colorectal cancer risk, which is partly genetics partly diet - types of cancer varies a lot by ethnicity and geography
Just drink full fat with limitation. If you are riding you will burn off the sugar within 30 min - 1 hour. Your body needs sugar, just not excess.
Hemlock isn’t considered to be food though.
I didn't say it was - the point is that natural = good / synthetic = bad is miles away from reality.
grinding wheat to make flour for bread or pasta is processing it
Which I guess is why the term ultra-processed food is being increasingly used. I reckon most people accept that there is substantial difference between minimally processed foods and ultra-processed foods.
This article suggests that there are 4 categories of foods:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/what_is_ultra-processed_food
I didn’t say it was – the point is that natural = good / synthetic = bad is miles away from reality.
Yeah but I said "natural food". Hemlock isn't considered to be food, even if it is natural.
I work on the default assumption that all substances which do not form part of a natural diet are probably harmful.
There are a lot of naturally occurring toxins and carcinogens, the word "natural" has zero connection to something being healthy or not. For example, sugar and salt are naturally occurring part of a natural diet, but it you consume these in excess, you will do terrible things to your health. Same with eating liver - do not eat the liver of dogs or polar bears, they contain so much vitamin A that they will make you sick or kill you, even though vitamin A is part of a natural diet.
It is almost impossible to know exactly what the long term harmful effects of any one thing are due to the fact that people eat hundreds of different things over a long term. I am with Ernie on ultra processed foods which is where many things are added to the food which don't actually need to be.
For example you could eat some bread made of the basic ingredients required (could even be organic ingredients to remove any non required stuff in the production of those ingredients) or you could make bread and add preservatives, emulsifiers, colouring etc,.
Which one feels like the better choice? To me the first one. Apply that to everything you eat (and a lot of food have got much more added than the simple bread example) and you can see the problem.
grinding wheat to make flour for bread or pasta is processing it (and makes it more calorific)
You don’t add calories to a grain of wheat by smushing it up into flour. A calorie is just a description of the amount of potential energy something contains. If anything, you would lose some of the energy during the milling process.
The difference is in the time it take your body to absorb it and the percentage of that potential energy that makes it into your blood stream.
Fibre slows absorption down by blocking gut transporters.
That’s why fructose in fruit isn’t as bad for you- it’s insulated in fibre so you don’t absorb it as fast.
And of course, if you ate straight wheat grains, you’d pass almost all of it un-digested.
People can have more or less carbohydrate transporters in their gut too, it’s why pro cyclists condition themselves before big events or races and it’s why two people on the exact same diet won’t necessarily get the same outcome. For example, teens who had a high fructose diet in early childhood were found to absorb nearly 100% of the fructose they were given during a study whereas those who had grown up with a healthy diet might only absorb 75%.
Whether consuming pre-digested rocket fuel is good or bad depends on how it is metabolised- which depends on what you are doing.
Even standing V sitting immediately after consuming can elicit a different insulin response.
The risk to most folks most of the time are the increased risks associated with obesity. Most of the ill health effect that society is experiencing with food (which include cancers) is largely down to over consumption because it's relatively easy to do, and in the past food was either relatively scarce because it was either expensive or didn't contain the calories, sugar and salts that it does now.
(for most folks) It doesn't really matter what you eat, just make sure you stay a healthy weight. Along with getting enough sleep, avoid smoking and drinking, and get some exercise are the best things you can do to avoid cancer. Avoiding items like aspartame or processed meat - solely because of the increased cancer risk is probably less worthwhile than just making sure you're not overweight.
For example, sugar and salt are naturally occurring part of a natural diet, but it you consume these in excess, you will do terrible things to your health.
Most people understand that processed foods are not part of a natural occuring natural diet, the term processing refers to changes made from its natural occurrence. I am not sure why there is any confusion with the term.
And I have already pointed out that even water and oxygen, which are very much naturally occurring, in excess quantities can be harmful to health.
Mine question was asking if there was any natural foods, ie non processed foods, which increase the risk of cancer. Kimbers has answered that question by pointing out that yes overcooked starch (crisp) can be carcinogenic.
Like most people I consider cooked food fairly natural as it predates the evolution of modern humans. Indeed it might have been instrumental in the evolution of modern humans by aiding their digestion.
Getting back to my original point, I work on the premise that nonnatural substances entering your body are quite possibly harmful even if research hasn't yet shown it to be the case, it is a fairly easy rule of thumb to live by.
It is reasonable to assume that our bodies evolved only to deal with what exists naturally and in natural quantities. It took a huge amount of research to prove the link between smoking and cancer, and that wasn't established until the 50s/60s. More recently the harmful effects of trans fats has been established despite decades of use in foods. For those reasons I am not always comfortable waiting for the research, especially when avoiding stuff like artificial sweeteners and ultra-processed foods needn't necessarily be that difficult.
The very latest research suggests that erythritol is potentially harmful:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/health/zero-calorie-sweetener-heart-attack-stroke-wellness/index.html
"The degree of risk was not modest,” said lead study author Dr. Stanley Hazen, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Diagnostics and Prevention at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute.
Based on that claim is it worth bothering with erythritol?
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.
Where can I read this peer reviewed study?
Avoiding items like aspartame or processed meat – solely because of the increased cancer risk is probably less worthwhile than just making sure you’re not overweight.
I am 66kg at age 55 and most I have ever been in my life was 73kg. So worthwhile to me, yes.
Most people understand that
People don't understand shit, is the problem. Though plenty think they do.
In the area of nutrition, the long-term effects of a lot of things are poorly understood even by those folk we consider to be experts. But we've seen this movie on STW before, people wang around words like "natural" or "chemicals" or "processed" or "organic" as though they're self-evidently good / bad and it's all utter nonsense. Now we have "ultra-processed," for when merely "processed" doesn't sound scary enough any more, yet few readers would blink at the prospect of hoovering down a sausage butty after six pints of Tortoise the night before. Red or brown sauce, sir?
People also don't understand relative risk - "eating more X will double your risk" vs "eating more X puts your risk at 2 in a million vs 1 in a million if you don't". Yes those are made up numbers but having the information to make properly informed decisions would help rather than knee jerk reactions to media headlines (57, 60kg never been over 68,never smoked & barely drink these days if we're scoring points - but eat sossies and bacon in moderation and prefer diet fizzy pop when I have it)
What knee jerk reactions to media headlines? WHO is recommending that people stick to the current guidelines for aspartame, where is the knee jerk reaction?
I reckon most people simply ignore the latest guidelines concerning food, they seem to change too often for many people to take them very seriously.
Side note- Anyone who remembers "super sized V super skinny" knows you can be "fat person bad" at a cellular level (insulin resistant, metobolic disease, high blood pressure, high non-HDLP etc etc) whilst having a low body weight 😉
(40 y/o, 95KG, never smoked, barely drink, strong as an ox, 340w ftp 🤣 🤣)
WHO is recommending that people stick to the current guidelines for aspartame, where is the knee jerk reaction?
Everywhere else. Cf. this thread, for starters.
The traditional media whips up a frenzy out of a non-story because it sells newspapers, meanwhile social media gives trumpets to cretins. Film at 11.
Ultimately you eat what you want. I will choose organic ingredients and make my own meals from raw ingredients over meals made in factories with all sorts of things added that don't need to be added to the food when I make it.
Looking at the state of the majority of people, eating what they want may not be the best move, but again up to them.
Aspartame tastes disgusting and I can't stand diet drinks. but it's probably the safest of all the artificial sweeteners
Aspartame is made of the two naturally occurring amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, which are also components of proteins in our body and in food. The phenylalanine in aspartame has been slightly modified by adding a methyl group which gives aspartame its sweet taste.
Proteins in our foods are digested once they reach our intestine. Enzymes break down the ingested proteins into smaller molecules (peptides) and the individual amino acids that make it up. These amino acids are then absorbed by the body. They can then be put back together to produce new proteins in our body or used to generate energy for the body. The exact same process occurs with aspartame.
Aspartame is fully broken down in our gut to aspartic acid and phenylalanine, which are absorbed and enter our body. In addition, the methyl group from the modified phenylalanine is released in the gut to form methanol. Methanol is also absorbed by the body and most of it used to produce energy.
All the scientific studies to date in animals and human volunteers have shown that the breakdown of aspartame in the gut is very rapid and complete. No aspartame has ever been found in the blood or any organ after ingestion. This finding has important implications on how scientists assess the safety of aspartame. Any effect reported to occur in the body following ingestion of aspartame will be caused by one of more of the three constituents, aspartic acid, phenylalanine or methanol.
European Food Safety Authority
Realised years ago that aspartame seemed to flair up my eczema. Also think it might be a trigger for migraines- but not as sure on that. Avoid it in everything, had resulted in drinking more water as not much else doesn’t have it now!
I like the fact it is in the same group as being a hairdresser
TBF some of the bleaches, dyes and other chemicals that hairdressers deal with are quite powerful. Also imnshe they drink a lot of Diet Coke and smoke heavily...
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 just like the metallic taste of Diet Coke over the sickly sweet taste of Coke.
sickly sweet taste of Coke.
To be fair Coca-cola (other soft drinks are available) is so saturated with sugar it would be be reforming back into sugar chrystals if they put any more into it.
Slightly different subject, but related, the so called sugar tax... Full fat coke and coke zero or.. (insert soft drink of your choice here)
Are the same price whether they are full of sugar or full of E numbers, and sometimes both.
So as an uniformed shopper, what is the healthy choice if a discering gentleman wanted a fruity mixer with his rum?
Given that consensus is now aligning behind the notion that there is no healthy level of alcohol consumption- I'd be inclined to drink the fat coke and pour the rum away 😉
(Or consider it a worthwhile trade off to improve your overall mental wellbeing and just drink the Rum and Coke regardless 😀)
It is reasonable to assume that our bodies evolved only to deal with what exists naturally and in natural quantities.
As a serious point, I don't think this is necessarily the case. Evolution often doesn't produce perfect systems - pandas are an example. They eat bamboo because in their natural habitat it's all around them and they barely have to move to get it, but it's pretty nutritionally poor and they are of course vulnerable to habitat loss which could easily happen naturally over time. Many animals *can* manage eating all sorts of foods, but they may not be getting the ideal combinations in the wild. Ancient humans spread all over the world into environments that did not really provide the perfect diet, and they survived but were probably less healthy.
I'm OK with it, the only fizzy drink I have is Pepsi Max Cherry as it's the only one I've tried where I can't really taste the artificial sweetener (and the last thing I need is more actual sugar in my diet from regular versions).
I do wish they'd make a version with Xylitol instead though, I have that (Brown Shuga) in coffee and on cereal and like it, it's actually good for your teeth to. It is expensive but I'd be happy to pay a premium for fizzy drinks that use it.
There may or may not be weight loss benefits but not drinking sugary drinks regularly during the day is probably good for your teeth.
One of my former colleagues drank something like eight or nine cans of Monster a day - his dentist must absolutely despair!
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.
What foods do most people eat that aren’t processed? Raw, freshly picked fruit and vegetables, and freshly caught fish and raw meat, and that’s about it, because most foods are processed in some way or another. It’s the heavily processed packets of things with lots of added ‘extras’ that are really the issue.
Many things can be problematic if consumed to excess, even water.
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
I'd agree except drinking low-sugar drinks does absolutely nothing to prevent obesity and rots your teeth. The affect on your gut microbiome is also poorly understood, although it seems unlikely to be positive.
My main feeling on diet drinks is they've allowed the drinks industry to promote a "healthy" alternative to sugar drinks when really they're both expensive and shite . They should be treats, not a staple part of kids diets.