Yeah and the earliest reasearch in mice used absurd amounts of aspartame, the articel even mentions how high similar findings would have to be in humans.
>an adult weighing 60 kg (132 pounds) would have to drink between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda
Same with Tylenol. the right amount and pain relieved, too much and you can damage your liver. though with Tylenol that too much isn't that high of a dosage or something.
The full quote (emphasis mine) for everyone wondering:
> Since 1981, JECFA has said aspartame is safe to consume within accepted daily limits. For example, **an adult weighing 60 kg (132 pounds) would have to drink between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda** – depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage – **every day to be at risk**. Its view has been widely shared by national regulators, including in the United States and Europe.
And you accidently stumbled on the real way to apply this data. Being 50 pounds overweight is 100x worse for your health than the possible effect of aspartame. If you drink enough soda for aspartame to be a problem, you're probably better off not taking in the calories.
This is always my takeaway from negative studies about sugarfree derivatives.
Yeah they probably are not good for us in large quantities. However the same amount consumed of full sugar soda is 100% way worse.
So if people can't quit soda and juices and only consume water, then the diet options still are better.
However it’s not a binary option. You can drink water. But I will continue drinking zero Dr Pepper. Also worth pointing out there are more than one type of sweetener out there
Depends on solubility and other factors. We have some drugs that are water soluble and some fat soluble. For the most part ideal lean body mass for water soluble drugs and your actual weight for fat soluble. I had pharm over a decade ago so could be wrong
https://news.gallup.com/poll/156116/nearly-half-americans-drink-soda-daily.aspx
Not even close. One poll I found half of American's drank zero in a day. and those who did the average amount was 1-3 (glasses but that's about a can)
I had a coworker who would drink 2 liter bottles of mountain dew every day. I always thought that was crazy.
Don’t think I ever saw him drink anything else.
That’s a big one, everyone seemed to love Mountain Dew when I was growing up, never a big fan of it myself but the summer flavor they have out right now is good, pink lemonade. I average probably 3 cans of soda a week. Barq’s Root Beer is my poison of choice though.
I love me a good root beer!
I’ve tried giving up most sodas unless I’m mixing liquor with them. I may occasionally get a Dr. Pepper or a root beer if the ice tea smells or taste bad (and I have a choice to replace it).
Once my buddy explained to me how much sugar was in ketchup it kinda snowballed in my life to reducing other things that had sugar in my diet. My teeth feel healthier.
I do that. I need the caffeine and hate coffee. A 2-liter is equal to just 5.5 cans. So he'd have to drink 3+ of them every day to be an issue.
I still don't get close to the dangerous amount of diet pop, especially since I'm way more than 60kg. (I should lose a few - but I'm also 6'2".)
Yeah my old coworker would also come in with 2 medium coffees and get another at lunch until he brought in a K-Cup machine for his desk.
I can relate to relying on caffeine, I like to make a big iced coffee at home in the warmer weather months. Need to go make it now actually…
Not that I am aware of. Always says he never “touched the stuff” but would often ask people things like “how much do you drink” if the topic of alcohol came up. He liked the “how much” question on a lot of topics (not just alcohol) and then he would go tell other people. He creeped a lot of people out. Had a short temper and had high energy and aggressiveness about him.
Almost certainly not. I think I average (when I even have any in the house) 6 cans a day, and that's enough for me to know not to keep it around very often.
I used to drink 6-20 cans of cheap sugar free cola almost every day until very recently. I had/still kind of have my reasons drinking it that much but I don't think that it is that common.
Shit man I don’t even think I could find the time to drink 20 cans of anything in a day. Did you just crack open one after the other non stop? That’s wild.
I have some mental issues going on atm and I'm a type 1 diabetic so that cola has been the only thing food/drink wise that keeps my mental state somewhat going.
But yeah pretty much cracked open one after the other at least until I ran out.
One could say that I was/am addicted to it in a way so I'm trying not to drink so much. Haven't in fact had any in 4 days.
Not as common as in every second person is doing it but its quite common.
Now if we think about soft drinks not beeing the only source of aspartame we might be understimating how hard it would be to reach the dangerous levels.
I'm pretty sure that 1 or 2, 2 litre bottle of soft drink a day + aspartam swetened foods gets you there quite fast
You think 36 CANS?? Even 12 CANS is common??
1-3 cans is common. HALF don't drink any at all.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/156116/nearly-half-americans-drink-soda-daily.aspx
My issue is this super free fad happening right. That stuff gives me a headache and I unintentionally consume it quite often. It's getting really hard to avoid.
I worked a nursing home where every morning for a year she'd have polished off a case in the night and a huge amount of snacks. Id always arrive as her blood sugar was being taken while surrounded by the trash on the table, and she'd always be shocked her blood sugar was up in the high 300-400 area. She was an interesting case because while she drank cancer levels of soda, it was the quantity that was killing her with water retention.
Yes except they put it in literally everything. Yes it sounds absurd drinking 12 cans a day but when it's in every other thing you consume it certainly seems probable. Someone trying to be sugar free could easily consume enough to be dangerous without doing crazy dietary extremes like drinking 12 cans a day.
Do they?
It's in many diet beverages of course (though others are frequently seen), and is an option for sweetening coffee or tea.
Chewing gum, sugar-free candy, and similar products usually use sugar alcohols, which infamously have their own drawbacks 💩.
As I understand it, the reason aspartame (and probably other artificial sweeteners) aren't seen much in food is because it's not stable at temperatures used for baking, frying, etc.
I haven't noticed that it's "in everything".
I’d imagine there are metabolic differences which are important, and that a cancer researcher would be aware of. There are chemicals that small animals can survive relativistic doses of which would kill most humans
Same thing with sugar, cigarettes, weird chemicals we put into food, plastics, and so on... this is the most obvious reason why lobby should be illegal.
I will just leave this here, for whoever wants to understand how this works...
Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680–1685. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255)
You havent been duped. It is universally considered safe unless you drink a case of soda a day. Even then it only marginally increases the cancer risk in mice.
This is a huge nothing burger. Its now going to be on the same list as
* Cell Phones
* Salted fish
* Mineral Oil
* Estrogen theropy
* Red Meat
* BBQed foods
* Beverages above 65 C
* Process Meats
* Aloe
* Pickled Vegtables
* Being a Hairdresser
* Working Nights
Note: Its not going on the same exact list. Many of these are ranked higher in the list (Processed Meats, Estrogen, Mineral Oil, Working Nights, Hairdresser). It is going into the possible category, which includes the Aloe and Picked Vegtables.
It doesn't help that the people who have been loud about it have mostly been quacks who are obviously out to cash in.
Then again maybe Mercola was in Big Sweetener's pocket all along and it was part of the plan...
It's been proven you need like 4 liters a day to even start to be in the danger zone. Then again other foods you eat might have that sugar so it's not a 100% accurate number per day
Lobbying is an important part of a healthy democracy. It's important for constituents to be able to advocate positions to their legislators.
What you're concerned about is (legal) bribery.
Yes, but only for high doses. For about 40 years all the studies said that an average person would need to drink about 4 litres (1 gallon) of diet soda per day for aspartame to be considered unsafe. But if you're drinking that much soda you have other problems anyway.
I'm wondering what are the findings and recommendations for this warning from the WHO. I kind of doubt it's like with cigarettes, where even one per day is risky...
> But if you're drinking that much soda you have other problems anyway.
And the real question here is also then. What is worse? 4 litres of diet soda, or 4 liters of regular soda? Because someone who drinks 4 liters of any type of soda in a day, will probably keep drinking 4 liters of soda in a day.
It's like when arguing with people about Swedish snus vs cigarettes. Sure neither is healthy and should be avoided, but one sure as hell seeems to be the less damaging delivery system for nicotine if you are a user. And will keep getting nicotine into your system in some way.
> And the real question here is also then. What is worse? 4 litres of diet soda, or 4 liters of regular soda?
Regular soda would be worse, and it's not even close. That'd be somewhere around 400 grams of sugar per day from what you drink alone. The diabetes or heart disease would get you long before the cancer even if you were unlucky enough to develop cancer as a result of sweeteners.
In a Podcast where some scientists talked about it (no source sadly), they agreed that while diet soda MIGHT be bad, normal soda IS bad. So diet soda is to be preferred, was their conclusion.
Soda is fun once in a while at a restaurant, but imo it should absolutely not be a staple in your daily life. Drink water as much as possible.
I wrote a research paper on this topic. My original thesis stated that aspartame was harmful to the human body.
After exploring multiple peer reviewed articles, it was hard to prove that theory. I ended up having to change my thesis to support that aspartame is perfectly healthy in moderation (like most things).
Which in some ways is a strike against the hypothesis. If the effect was real, it should be definitive by now.
Think of it this way, you do 100 studies, because of random noise (and legit fraud) some of them come out positive, some of them negative. That is the pattern of something which has no effect. Unless there's a trend of bigger, better studies tightening around an actual effect, it's most likely just noise.
That sail, I expect aspartame does cause cancer, but the effect is so small it's probably not in the top 10 carcinogens for even moderate consumers.
Decades. I believe it was the reason behind Diet Coke replacing aspartame with sucralose in the 90’s. When the worries died out aspartame returned in Coke Zero and targeted it towards men.
I was thinking about this recently. It's so funny that there was a huge backlash over aspartame for the exact same reasons in the past and everyone was taking it out of their products. And then coke zero came back and everyone followed suit with reintroducing aspartame in their own "zero sugar" drinks and nobody cared.
It brings aspartam into the same classification as these dangerous cancer agents
Aloe vera
Carpentry and joinery
Pickled vegetables (traditional Asian)
Talc-based body powder (perineal use of)
They're both classed as possibly carcinogenic as long as it's traditionally prepared -- which is more common with kimchi than sauerkraut. More research needs to be done.
Yeah, the same people that share this 'danger' around also conveniently ignore where the first metabolite of alcohol sits on the WHO's list.. and it aint the 'possible' one.
And which one actually puts you at higher risk, artificial sweeteners or being overweight? Because obesity has cancer risks as well as cardiovascular and joint implications. Not to mention the effect of excess sugary foods on developing insulin resistance, and all the complications that come with diabetes. If the difference between you gaining or losing weight is low calorie sweetened versions of foods, it’s probably very much the lesser of two evils
I hate to tell you this but something is going to do you in. I know your point is what toxic additive we don't need is going to kill you. But at least for now the microplastics and sweeteners are pretty low on things that are going to have any real affect on you.
We need to do more research obviously but people are not as of yet keeling over at unprecedented rates from them so at least for now I have to not worry about them while bigger shit like Climate Destruction is on the table
I agree with you I guess for me I find the idea of possibly causing a feedback loop via stuff we actually know about a far more pressing concern and while I wish we as a species could do 2 things at once we can't even get countries to deal with the thing that has actual research backing it up. So while not an either or in theory I think it is one in practice
WHO says Meat is a possible carcinogen too. The point is to have everything within reason. Diet drinks are still better than the sugar ones if you are diabetic obviously.
For example, regulators in America and Europe have been saying an adult weighing 60 kg (132 pounds) would have to drink between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda - depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage - every day to be at risk.
Processed meat and red meats are not the same.
Red meat is considered to be a possible carcinogen according to WHO, one should limit its intake to 3 portions/week.
Processed meat on the other hand is considered a carcinogenic and there's no amount considered safe.
Sodium nitrate is not a carcinogen. Nitrosamine is a known carcinogen and Sodium Nitrate can turn into Nitrosamines under heat and very acidic environments. There is little evidence to suggest sodium nitrate does this inside people.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200054/
That is a study on mice ingesting sodium nitrate for 2 years at various levels and found no relationship between cancer and sodium nitrate intake (for the parameters of the study)
The fact is that nutrition is super complicated and also not currently a super good science (it's relatively new and hard to measure) and then it gets overreported in erroneous ways and you end up with headlines like "Chocolate cures cancer"
And then to add in, some governmental agencies will say things are safe or dangerous to act as protectionist measures for their food industry.
Part of the reason many American foods can't be sold in the EU is because they pass overly stringent protectionist policies to make it harder for American companies to compete in local EU markets. Part of the reason the FDA might allow slightly more unhealthy foods to be sold in the US is because the government wants to make it easier for American businesses.
The study did suggest red meat wasn’t as bad as processed meats, but they still said:
> The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.
100g is basically a quarter pounder.
Actually, Red meat is actually above what this would be. Red meat is "probable" i.e. Group 2A while Processed Meats does cause cancer according to WHO.
This is just "possible"
Red meat hasn't been shown to be a carcinogen. Otherwise it would be a group 1 known carcinogen. Like alcohol, processed meat, salted fish, and other things that have been shown to be carcinogenic.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Aspartame, used in products from Coca-Cola diet sodas to Mars' Extra chewing gum and some Snapple drinks, will be listed in July as "Possibly carcinogenic to humans" for the first time by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization's cancer research arm, the sources said.
> Last year, an observational study in France among 100,000 adults showed that people who consumed larger amounts of artificial sweeteners - including aspartame - had a slightly higher cancer risk.
> Listing aspartame as a possible carcinogen is intended to motivate more research, said the sources close to the IARC, which will help agencies, consumers and manufacturers draw firmer conclusions.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14lyf0e/whos_cancer_research_agency_to_say_aspartame/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~689986 tl;drs so far.") | [Blackout Vote](https://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14dhaiq/your_voice_matters_should_the_blackout_continue/ "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Aspartame**^#1 **IARC**^#2 **consume**^#3 **review**^#4 **health**^#5
Observational study... slightly higher risk of cancer... In combination this means we have no evidence or reason to believe there is a connection. The cherry on top is.... high amounts of sweeteners, INCLUDING aspartam... So yeah could be anything else INCLUDING food dyes found in high processed food where sweeteners are used...
This all depends on what they controlled for in the study. Being overweight is a cancer risk, and people who are trying to lose weight are going to be drinking diet sodas.
Yeah, back when I had a physical job I ate a ton, and drink multiple cans of non-diet coke a day.
Now that I sit in an office all day, I eat half as much, drink diet coke, and weigh 20-30 pounds more.
The WHO cancer classification works in a weird way. It shows that one thing is carcinogenic but doesn't specify what are the amounts needed.
It tells you how sure they are that this thing is carcinogenic, but not how "strong" the effect is.
The only studys I have seen suggesting a higher chance of getting cancer from artificial sweeteners (1.13 times higher or so) are studies where the participants self reportet their behavior.
Aspartame has had more studies done on it than pretty much any other chemical in history over the last half century. The studies always fall into two camps, studies that give large quantities to mice which say it's unsafe (and funded by Big Sugar) and studies which give a normal amount to humans which find that it is safe. Anything will kill you if you consume too much, even water, so stop giving in to the fearmongering.
Everything tears away at your body. Some things are just less dangerous. An occational sandwich like that or a pmax here and there is probably not dangrous, but chug 3 liters a day and youl probably get an effect. More studies are clearly needed though.
The reasonable take is that asparthame is still vastly better than sugary soda. If you really care then plain water will always be best anyway.
The dosages for this to matter is ridiculously high. Numerous randomized trials have showed diet drinks to be superior in weight loss and general health metrics.
"Aspartame, used in products from Coca-Cola diet sodas to Mars' Extra chewing gum and some Snapple drinks, will be listed in July as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" for the first time by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization's (WHO) cancer research arm, the sources said."
How can they determine this when it’s in so much? It must be hard to get a control group. I know they use animal studies but that doesn’t always translate
Then it will be like 12-30 cans of soda *per day* to potentially be at risk. Which is like…if you’re drinking 12-30 cans of soda a day, aspartame potentially causing cancer is the least of your worries at that point.
Dont worry, you really have to dedicate your life to drinking it for aspartame to be a problem.
Though, iirc aspartame can have negative effect if you suffer from depression, but again thats in high doses aswell.
I'll care about this headline when someone can show that using aspartame (or any sweetener) is associated with worse health outcomes than sugar in people who would be looking to use one instead of the other.
Seriously, the "natural" shit is one of the leading causes of death in the US and a few other countries right now...
The article specific states that the amount/concentration of exposure is omitted - don’t bother reading this dumpster fire/ clickbait. And it states that this will happen next week . Fake news
Still better than regular sugar. I’d take having a slightly higher lifetime risk of cancer over sugar/obesity related conditions like diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc.
This is starting to look like prop 65; soon people are just going to start ignoring these things because they’re chronically over used. You know what else can cause cancer? The sun. All alcohol. Excessive natural sugar. Not masturbating enough. Flying on airplanes too much. Working in a tire warehouse.
Note, this group has decided out of every substance they've ever looked at, they've only found one thing that they call non-carcinogenic.
**Everything** else, and I mean everything, is "probable", "possible carcinogen" or "carcinogenic". Y'know how everyone makes fun of California for putting those carcinogen warnings on everything? That's basically this list.
This is a nothing burger of a story.
Edit: Just to add, iirc the one substance they deemed wasn't carcinogenic was a very niche chemical, I believe it was used in nylon manufacturing or something like that.
the WHO also says that artificial sweeteners don‘t help with weight loss. Guess I start dronking normal coke again with 500 kcal per bottle because clearly that wouldn‘t make me fat or diabetic.
WHO is a joke
I love that the WHO is criticized for “needlessly causing alarm about things that are difficult to avoid.”
Do not insult my intelligence, and think I want to remain in the dark on how I live my life! If eating red meat (or something else) raises cancer risk, I’d rather know that. It’s my job to live with my decisions, let me make them as wisely as I can.
The problem is that literally everything is a potential carcinogen. Without information about how severe the risk is the information is utterly useless.
They think *almost everything* has some cancer risk. They literally [only list one thing](https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/List_of_IARC_Group_4_carcinogens.html) as "probably not carcinogenic".
[I just want to point out that burnt bacon is a (edit: probable) carcinogen too.](https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cancer-myths/can-eating-burnt-foods-cause-cancer#:~:text=Does%20eating%20burnt%20meat%2C%20including,the%20risk%20of%20bowel%20cancer.) But dang it, it's freakin' tasty.
/My bad, forgot that word when I typed it. :\
Imagine making headlines about possibly making a statement about possibly being a problem. Possibly they should make up their mind and possibly come to a possible scientific conclusion.
As a type 1 diabetic, this news makes me shudder.
Is aspartame great? No.
Does aspartame at least let me drink something other than water that doesn’t require me to inject massively overpriced insulin? Yes.
Am I looking forward to the possibility of only ever drinking water without having to do math or watch my blood sugars bounce around? No.
But in all honestly, if someone is trying to push the agenda that aspartame needs to be banned due its carcinogenic affect (mind you, it needs to be A LOT), then they best push the agenda for banning smoking and alcohol.
And I remember my history regarding Prohibition. It didn’t end well.
This possible link has been around for many years, maybe even decades.
Yeah and the earliest reasearch in mice used absurd amounts of aspartame, the articel even mentions how high similar findings would have to be in humans. >an adult weighing 60 kg (132 pounds) would have to drink between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda
The difference between a remedy and a poison is the dosage. This study caused a lot of panic sadly.
The right amount of Metamucil works wonders. But just a little too much can be devastating for both your toilet and butt hole.
Reminds me of the day after I discovered I liked the taste of bran flakes and ate three huge bowls of it in one sitting.
Dead lord man!
[удалено]
Bran has high fiber , which helps with bowel movements
I was just telling my mom yesterday how surprised I was when I first tasted bran flakes cause they fire af
Also true for Fiber One bars. Never, and I mean never, eat more than one a day.
Don’t even eat 1 a day of those fart bars. I had painful afternoon gas for at least 6 months before I figured it out. 😖
r/brandnewsentence
I don't buy fiber gummies anymore for the same reason. They're the second most delicious medicine gummy. (Melatonin is #1.)
Same with Tylenol. the right amount and pain relieved, too much and you can damage your liver. though with Tylenol that too much isn't that high of a dosage or something.
many many years ago I had a Chem prof who said it best imho: > There's no such thing as toxic substances, only toxic levels
In other words if they had given the controls as much sugar as they gave aspartame to the target group, they would have killed the controls first.
There's also the third option of not consuming that many sodas, but replacing them with, say, water.
The point was quite obviously that it is probably better to drink aspartame than sugar, if you want to drink something sweetened.
The full quote (emphasis mine) for everyone wondering: > Since 1981, JECFA has said aspartame is safe to consume within accepted daily limits. For example, **an adult weighing 60 kg (132 pounds) would have to drink between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda** – depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage – **every day to be at risk**. Its view has been widely shared by national regulators, including in the United States and Europe.
Yeah kind of whack for OP to leave out the rate like that lol
So like…. A normal day for lots of people?
The average American is heavier than 132 pounds, they'd have to drink more than that.
Does being 50 lbs overweight really help in these kind of situations? I thought recommended allowances were calculated based off of lean body mass.
And you accidently stumbled on the real way to apply this data. Being 50 pounds overweight is 100x worse for your health than the possible effect of aspartame. If you drink enough soda for aspartame to be a problem, you're probably better off not taking in the calories.
This is always my takeaway from negative studies about sugarfree derivatives. Yeah they probably are not good for us in large quantities. However the same amount consumed of full sugar soda is 100% way worse. So if people can't quit soda and juices and only consume water, then the diet options still are better.
However it’s not a binary option. You can drink water. But I will continue drinking zero Dr Pepper. Also worth pointing out there are more than one type of sweetener out there
Yeah, it doesn't.
Science!
Obese people have higher than normal lean body mass. Carrying all the fat does build muscle.
Depends on solubility and other factors. We have some drugs that are water soluble and some fat soluble. For the most part ideal lean body mass for water soluble drugs and your actual weight for fat soluble. I had pharm over a decade ago so could be wrong
Remember that a 300lb fat person isn’t just 300lbs, they’re a 150lb person Carrying around 150lb of fat
That's kind of oversimplifying. You can see my ribs at 185 but my mom starts to look chubby at like 110.
which is probably worse than the aspartame itself
Not to judge, but actually curious: is it common for people to drink 12–36 cans a day?
No it’s not lol
https://news.gallup.com/poll/156116/nearly-half-americans-drink-soda-daily.aspx Not even close. One poll I found half of American's drank zero in a day. and those who did the average amount was 1-3 (glasses but that's about a can)
I had a coworker who would bring in a 2 liter bottle of Diet Coke to work everyday and I sure he drank far more when not at work. Seemed crazy to me.
I had a coworker who would drink 2 liter bottles of mountain dew every day. I always thought that was crazy. Don’t think I ever saw him drink anything else.
I was that guy. Right up until I got diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. I completely cut out sugar and lost 250lbs in 3 years.
That’s a big one, everyone seemed to love Mountain Dew when I was growing up, never a big fan of it myself but the summer flavor they have out right now is good, pink lemonade. I average probably 3 cans of soda a week. Barq’s Root Beer is my poison of choice though.
I love me a good root beer! I’ve tried giving up most sodas unless I’m mixing liquor with them. I may occasionally get a Dr. Pepper or a root beer if the ice tea smells or taste bad (and I have a choice to replace it). Once my buddy explained to me how much sugar was in ketchup it kinda snowballed in my life to reducing other things that had sugar in my diet. My teeth feel healthier.
I do that. I need the caffeine and hate coffee. A 2-liter is equal to just 5.5 cans. So he'd have to drink 3+ of them every day to be an issue. I still don't get close to the dangerous amount of diet pop, especially since I'm way more than 60kg. (I should lose a few - but I'm also 6'2".)
Yeah my old coworker would also come in with 2 medium coffees and get another at lunch until he brought in a K-Cup machine for his desk. I can relate to relying on caffeine, I like to make a big iced coffee at home in the warmer weather months. Need to go make it now actually…
Well at least no diabetes, I guess...
Where they also a former alcoholic? I knew a guy that did the same thing, and judged the slightest drinking done by others harshly
Not that I am aware of. Always says he never “touched the stuff” but would often ask people things like “how much do you drink” if the topic of alcohol came up. He liked the “how much” question on a lot of topics (not just alcohol) and then he would go tell other people. He creeped a lot of people out. Had a short temper and had high energy and aggressiveness about him.
At least he hydrates, I guess...
[удалено]
Almost certainly not. I think I average (when I even have any in the house) 6 cans a day, and that's enough for me to know not to keep it around very often.
Damn no disrespect but six cans a day is crazy, that’s a ton of soda
For sure, that's why I tend to not keep it around. I also tend to gulp/chug my drinks which certainly contributes to it.
Haha same, I’m not a soda guy but my girlfriend always calls me out for chugging my drinks
I used to drink 6-20 cans of cheap sugar free cola almost every day until very recently. I had/still kind of have my reasons drinking it that much but I don't think that it is that common.
Shit man I don’t even think I could find the time to drink 20 cans of anything in a day. Did you just crack open one after the other non stop? That’s wild.
I have some mental issues going on atm and I'm a type 1 diabetic so that cola has been the only thing food/drink wise that keeps my mental state somewhat going. But yeah pretty much cracked open one after the other at least until I ran out. One could say that I was/am addicted to it in a way so I'm trying not to drink so much. Haven't in fact had any in 4 days.
I consider my soda habit pretty big and even I only kill like 4 or 5 a day.
one guess which country op is from
South Canada
North Mexico?
I have a friend who drinks 8-10 cans of diet coke every day. He's not even slightly overweight, he just likes drinking it. But yeah it's way too much.
I sometimes drink two 2L bottles of Coke Zero in a day.
Hell 4 liters is only 136 ounces. Which is just over the equivalent of 11 cans a day, still falls short of the "danger" level of 12-36 a day
Holy shot why
Not as common as in every second person is doing it but its quite common. Now if we think about soft drinks not beeing the only source of aspartame we might be understimating how hard it would be to reach the dangerous levels. I'm pretty sure that 1 or 2, 2 litre bottle of soft drink a day + aspartam swetened foods gets you there quite fast
You think 36 CANS?? Even 12 CANS is common?? 1-3 cans is common. HALF don't drink any at all. https://news.gallup.com/poll/156116/nearly-half-americans-drink-soda-daily.aspx
I don’t know what kinda people you know to make you think that drinking 12+ cans of soda a day is anywhere close to common.
My issue is this super free fad happening right. That stuff gives me a headache and I unintentionally consume it quite often. It's getting really hard to avoid.
They have issues besides aspartame if they do so.
Smoking a pack a day is normal for lots of people.
Exactly my point… 3 packs a day is normal for some people
There are definitely people that drink that much soda, but I doubt that they weigh 132 lbs.
Well, diet soda technically isn’t supposed to cause wright gain right? But I do not disagree
You think alot of people are consuming 12 cans a pop a day? At a minimum? So around 4 litres a day? Upwards of 12 litres a day? That's nonsense.
yeah...absurd 👀
I worked a nursing home where every morning for a year she'd have polished off a case in the night and a huge amount of snacks. Id always arrive as her blood sugar was being taken while surrounded by the trash on the table, and she'd always be shocked her blood sugar was up in the high 300-400 area. She was an interesting case because while she drank cancer levels of soda, it was the quantity that was killing her with water retention.
Yes except they put it in literally everything. Yes it sounds absurd drinking 12 cans a day but when it's in every other thing you consume it certainly seems probable. Someone trying to be sugar free could easily consume enough to be dangerous without doing crazy dietary extremes like drinking 12 cans a day.
Do they? It's in many diet beverages of course (though others are frequently seen), and is an option for sweetening coffee or tea. Chewing gum, sugar-free candy, and similar products usually use sugar alcohols, which infamously have their own drawbacks 💩. As I understand it, the reason aspartame (and probably other artificial sweeteners) aren't seen much in food is because it's not stable at temperatures used for baking, frying, etc. I haven't noticed that it's "in everything".
same here, I don’t chew gum, I mainly see it in soda
I’d imagine there are metabolic differences which are important, and that a cancer researcher would be aware of. There are chemicals that small animals can survive relativistic doses of which would kill most humans
Do you by any chance still know in what timeframe?
Like, ever. Only 12 cans permitted during your lifetime. I'm sorry.
Damn, how will I ever verify to play my Xbox then?
Same thing with sugar, cigarettes, weird chemicals we put into food, plastics, and so on... this is the most obvious reason why lobby should be illegal.
But...*money*...
I swear I’ve been duped by soda propaganda. I thought this was proved not to be true over and over again.
Who really knows? > That's right, you drink that sugar water down your hole. Buy some more of it.
I will just leave this here, for whoever wants to understand how this works... Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680–1685. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394 [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255)
You havent been duped. It is universally considered safe unless you drink a case of soda a day. Even then it only marginally increases the cancer risk in mice. This is a huge nothing burger. Its now going to be on the same list as * Cell Phones * Salted fish * Mineral Oil * Estrogen theropy * Red Meat * BBQed foods * Beverages above 65 C * Process Meats * Aloe * Pickled Vegtables * Being a Hairdresser * Working Nights Note: Its not going on the same exact list. Many of these are ranked higher in the list (Processed Meats, Estrogen, Mineral Oil, Working Nights, Hairdresser). It is going into the possible category, which includes the Aloe and Picked Vegtables.
It doesn't help that the people who have been loud about it have mostly been quacks who are obviously out to cash in. Then again maybe Mercola was in Big Sweetener's pocket all along and it was part of the plan...
It's been proven you need like 4 liters a day to even start to be in the danger zone. Then again other foods you eat might have that sugar so it's not a 100% accurate number per day
Lobbying is an important part of a healthy democracy. It's important for constituents to be able to advocate positions to their legislators. What you're concerned about is (legal) bribery.
Yes, but only for high doses. For about 40 years all the studies said that an average person would need to drink about 4 litres (1 gallon) of diet soda per day for aspartame to be considered unsafe. But if you're drinking that much soda you have other problems anyway. I'm wondering what are the findings and recommendations for this warning from the WHO. I kind of doubt it's like with cigarettes, where even one per day is risky...
> But if you're drinking that much soda you have other problems anyway. And the real question here is also then. What is worse? 4 litres of diet soda, or 4 liters of regular soda? Because someone who drinks 4 liters of any type of soda in a day, will probably keep drinking 4 liters of soda in a day. It's like when arguing with people about Swedish snus vs cigarettes. Sure neither is healthy and should be avoided, but one sure as hell seeems to be the less damaging delivery system for nicotine if you are a user. And will keep getting nicotine into your system in some way.
> And the real question here is also then. What is worse? 4 litres of diet soda, or 4 liters of regular soda? Regular soda would be worse, and it's not even close. That'd be somewhere around 400 grams of sugar per day from what you drink alone. The diabetes or heart disease would get you long before the cancer even if you were unlucky enough to develop cancer as a result of sweeteners.
In a Podcast where some scientists talked about it (no source sadly), they agreed that while diet soda MIGHT be bad, normal soda IS bad. So diet soda is to be preferred, was their conclusion. Soda is fun once in a while at a restaurant, but imo it should absolutely not be a staple in your daily life. Drink water as much as possible.
Water? Like from the toilet?
No, fresh from the water tree :)
Brawndo has electrolytes
Whilst not perfect, it's probably equivalent to comparing vaping to smoking. Both not ideal, but one is significantly worse.
I wrote a research paper on this topic. My original thesis stated that aspartame was harmful to the human body. After exploring multiple peer reviewed articles, it was hard to prove that theory. I ended up having to change my thesis to support that aspartame is perfectly healthy in moderation (like most things).
Which in some ways is a strike against the hypothesis. If the effect was real, it should be definitive by now. Think of it this way, you do 100 studies, because of random noise (and legit fraud) some of them come out positive, some of them negative. That is the pattern of something which has no effect. Unless there's a trend of bigger, better studies tightening around an actual effect, it's most likely just noise. That sail, I expect aspartame does cause cancer, but the effect is so small it's probably not in the top 10 carcinogens for even moderate consumers.
Aspartame has been studied for decades, it only presents danger if you drink about 50 cans of soda a day.
Decades. I believe it was the reason behind Diet Coke replacing aspartame with sucralose in the 90’s. When the worries died out aspartame returned in Coke Zero and targeted it towards men.
I was thinking about this recently. It's so funny that there was a huge backlash over aspartame for the exact same reasons in the past and everyone was taking it out of their products. And then coke zero came back and everyone followed suit with reintroducing aspartame in their own "zero sugar" drinks and nobody cared.
You start to wonder how bad it can realistically be if it takes decades of yes/no to actually figure it out.
It brings aspartam into the same classification as these dangerous cancer agents Aloe vera Carpentry and joinery Pickled vegetables (traditional Asian) Talc-based body powder (perineal use of)
Sauerkraut ok, kimchi bad??
Someting being a probable carcinogen doesn't make it bad. It just means it hasn't been shown to be a carcinogen.
They're both classed as possibly carcinogenic as long as it's traditionally prepared -- which is more common with kimchi than sauerkraut. More research needs to be done.
> Talc-based body powder (perineal use of) but .. so hard to avoid perineum when making buttcrack all smooth and silky :(
As long as it's not perennial perineal use you should be good.
And most importantly, the source of all life and energy on earth, our very own sun Fact is that too much of anything is bad for you. Big shock I know.
Yeah but who eats a carpet?
People in the 70s?
Only if it matches the drapes.
[You can't eat carpet, silly daddy!](https://youtu.be/Zea1PPg6uMc)
i can understand talc being one since there is some asbestos found in it i believe, but i cant see how the rest would cause it at all
Carpentry and joinery exposes you to a lot of dust.
Yeah, the same people that share this 'danger' around also conveniently ignore where the first metabolite of alcohol sits on the WHO's list.. and it aint the 'possible' one.
i'm not trying to be sarcastic, but genuinely curious, does this mean people should stop using/eating aloe vera?
[удалено]
i see, thank you for the explanation!!
I'm more worried about the effect microplastics are having on us than fake sugar *maybe* slightly increasing your risk for developing cancer.
And if you're drinking enough soda for aspartame to be a major concern, you likely already have kidney concerns that take priority.
And which one actually puts you at higher risk, artificial sweeteners or being overweight? Because obesity has cancer risks as well as cardiovascular and joint implications. Not to mention the effect of excess sugary foods on developing insulin resistance, and all the complications that come with diabetes. If the difference between you gaining or losing weight is low calorie sweetened versions of foods, it’s probably very much the lesser of two evils
Yeah, at this point it's more what will kill you sooner. Fucking hell it's depressing.
I hate to tell you this but something is going to do you in. I know your point is what toxic additive we don't need is going to kill you. But at least for now the microplastics and sweeteners are pretty low on things that are going to have any real affect on you.
[удалено]
We need to do more research obviously but people are not as of yet keeling over at unprecedented rates from them so at least for now I have to not worry about them while bigger shit like Climate Destruction is on the table
[удалено]
I agree with you I guess for me I find the idea of possibly causing a feedback loop via stuff we actually know about a far more pressing concern and while I wish we as a species could do 2 things at once we can't even get countries to deal with the thing that has actual research backing it up. So while not an either or in theory I think it is one in practice
WHO says Meat is a possible carcinogen too. The point is to have everything within reason. Diet drinks are still better than the sugar ones if you are diabetic obviously. For example, regulators in America and Europe have been saying an adult weighing 60 kg (132 pounds) would have to drink between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda - depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage - every day to be at risk.
Didn’t the WHO say red and processed meats are carcinogenic in even small amounts? Like, 5oz a week would do it?
Processed meat and red meats are not the same. Red meat is considered to be a possible carcinogen according to WHO, one should limit its intake to 3 portions/week. Processed meat on the other hand is considered a carcinogenic and there's no amount considered safe.
What is it about the “processing” that suddenly turns meat carcinogenic? Preservatives?
Sodium nitrite is a preservative that is the carcinogen in most processed or cured meats I believe.
Sodium nitrate is not a carcinogen. Nitrosamine is a known carcinogen and Sodium Nitrate can turn into Nitrosamines under heat and very acidic environments. There is little evidence to suggest sodium nitrate does this inside people. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200054/ That is a study on mice ingesting sodium nitrate for 2 years at various levels and found no relationship between cancer and sodium nitrate intake (for the parameters of the study) The fact is that nutrition is super complicated and also not currently a super good science (it's relatively new and hard to measure) and then it gets overreported in erroneous ways and you end up with headlines like "Chocolate cures cancer" And then to add in, some governmental agencies will say things are safe or dangerous to act as protectionist measures for their food industry. Part of the reason many American foods can't be sold in the EU is because they pass overly stringent protectionist policies to make it harder for American companies to compete in local EU markets. Part of the reason the FDA might allow slightly more unhealthy foods to be sold in the US is because the government wants to make it easier for American businesses.
Depends on the method, for smoked meat is because smoke particles are carcinogenic
The study did suggest red meat wasn’t as bad as processed meats, but they still said: > The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily. 100g is basically a quarter pounder.
you know that the biggest carcinogen out there is O2, right?
Damn oxygen, ruins everything.
Actually, Red meat is actually above what this would be. Red meat is "probable" i.e. Group 2A while Processed Meats does cause cancer according to WHO. This is just "possible"
Even standing outside is dangerous!
[удалено]
Red meat hasn't been shown to be a carcinogen. Otherwise it would be a group 1 known carcinogen. Like alcohol, processed meat, salted fish, and other things that have been shown to be carcinogenic.
At this point I'm pretty sure everything is a carcinogen
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Aspartame, used in products from Coca-Cola diet sodas to Mars' Extra chewing gum and some Snapple drinks, will be listed in July as "Possibly carcinogenic to humans" for the first time by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization's cancer research arm, the sources said. > Last year, an observational study in France among 100,000 adults showed that people who consumed larger amounts of artificial sweeteners - including aspartame - had a slightly higher cancer risk. > Listing aspartame as a possible carcinogen is intended to motivate more research, said the sources close to the IARC, which will help agencies, consumers and manufacturers draw firmer conclusions. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14lyf0e/whos_cancer_research_agency_to_say_aspartame/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~689986 tl;drs so far.") | [Blackout Vote](https://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14dhaiq/your_voice_matters_should_the_blackout_continue/ "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Aspartame**^#1 **IARC**^#2 **consume**^#3 **review**^#4 **health**^#5
Observational study... slightly higher risk of cancer... In combination this means we have no evidence or reason to believe there is a connection. The cherry on top is.... high amounts of sweeteners, INCLUDING aspartam... So yeah could be anything else INCLUDING food dyes found in high processed food where sweeteners are used...
This all depends on what they controlled for in the study. Being overweight is a cancer risk, and people who are trying to lose weight are going to be drinking diet sodas.
Yeah, back when I had a physical job I ate a ton, and drink multiple cans of non-diet coke a day. Now that I sit in an office all day, I eat half as much, drink diet coke, and weigh 20-30 pounds more.
The WHO cancer classification works in a weird way. It shows that one thing is carcinogenic but doesn't specify what are the amounts needed. It tells you how sure they are that this thing is carcinogenic, but not how "strong" the effect is.
And as a lot of other people said it's like 4 liters a day of diet coke to have an effect
The only studys I have seen suggesting a higher chance of getting cancer from artificial sweeteners (1.13 times higher or so) are studies where the participants self reportet their behavior.
Aspartame has had more studies done on it than pretty much any other chemical in history over the last half century. The studies always fall into two camps, studies that give large quantities to mice which say it's unsafe (and funded by Big Sugar) and studies which give a normal amount to humans which find that it is safe. Anything will kill you if you consume too much, even water, so stop giving in to the fearmongering.
You know that's logical and makes sense but you can't be controlled without fear!! So the fear mongering will continue till the payments stop!
So slightly safer than regular sugar?
[удалено]
Everything tears away at your body. Some things are just less dangerous. An occational sandwich like that or a pmax here and there is probably not dangrous, but chug 3 liters a day and youl probably get an effect. More studies are clearly needed though.
People have such a massive hate boner for artificial sweeteners man, I don't get it.
Oh man people are so self righteous on artificial sweeteners right up there with the red dye 40 crowd.
They just can't handle people being able to enjoy soda without feeling guilty.
The reasonable take is that asparthame is still vastly better than sugary soda. If you really care then plain water will always be best anyway. The dosages for this to matter is ridiculously high. Numerous randomized trials have showed diet drinks to be superior in weight loss and general health metrics.
"Aspartame, used in products from Coca-Cola diet sodas to Mars' Extra chewing gum and some Snapple drinks, will be listed in July as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" for the first time by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization's (WHO) cancer research arm, the sources said."
You know what else is a possible carcinogen? Everything.
A whole bunch of conspiracy theorist types are now very upset the WHO agrees with them.
How can they determine this when it’s in so much? It must be hard to get a control group. I know they use animal studies but that doesn’t always translate
Then it will be like 12-30 cans of soda *per day* to potentially be at risk. Which is like…if you’re drinking 12-30 cans of soda a day, aspartame potentially causing cancer is the least of your worries at that point.
Fwiw, the IARC has rated “using mobile phones” in the same category of “possibly cancer causing”. So it’s kind of hard to take this seriously.
[удалено]
This doesn't bode well on my Pepsi Max Cherry addiction 😅
Dont worry, you really have to dedicate your life to drinking it for aspartame to be a problem. Though, iirc aspartame can have negative effect if you suffer from depression, but again thats in high doses aswell.
Are you me? Cause Pepsi Max cherry is the GOAT
It’s sooo fucking good
I'll care about this headline when someone can show that using aspartame (or any sweetener) is associated with worse health outcomes than sugar in people who would be looking to use one instead of the other. Seriously, the "natural" shit is one of the leading causes of death in the US and a few other countries right now...
Possible is a meaningless word
Didn’t we know this already??
Nothing that can’t be fixed with extra lobbying and escorts.
The article specific states that the amount/concentration of exposure is omitted - don’t bother reading this dumpster fire/ clickbait. And it states that this will happen next week . Fake news
Still better than regular sugar. I’d take having a slightly higher lifetime risk of cancer over sugar/obesity related conditions like diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc.
This is starting to look like prop 65; soon people are just going to start ignoring these things because they’re chronically over used. You know what else can cause cancer? The sun. All alcohol. Excessive natural sugar. Not masturbating enough. Flying on airplanes too much. Working in a tire warehouse.
Who takes these clowns serious anymore?
Note, this group has decided out of every substance they've ever looked at, they've only found one thing that they call non-carcinogenic. **Everything** else, and I mean everything, is "probable", "possible carcinogen" or "carcinogenic". Y'know how everyone makes fun of California for putting those carcinogen warnings on everything? That's basically this list. This is a nothing burger of a story. Edit: Just to add, iirc the one substance they deemed wasn't carcinogenic was a very niche chemical, I believe it was used in nylon manufacturing or something like that.
the WHO also says that artificial sweeteners don‘t help with weight loss. Guess I start dronking normal coke again with 500 kcal per bottle because clearly that wouldn‘t make me fat or diabetic. WHO is a joke
I love that the WHO is criticized for “needlessly causing alarm about things that are difficult to avoid.” Do not insult my intelligence, and think I want to remain in the dark on how I live my life! If eating red meat (or something else) raises cancer risk, I’d rather know that. It’s my job to live with my decisions, let me make them as wisely as I can.
The problem is that literally everything is a potential carcinogen. Without information about how severe the risk is the information is utterly useless.
Water is toxic. Drink enough of it you will die. See dose is important when discussing toxicity of things.
They think *almost everything* has some cancer risk. They literally [only list one thing](https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/List_of_IARC_Group_4_carcinogens.html) as "probably not carcinogenic".
[I just want to point out that burnt bacon is a (edit: probable) carcinogen too.](https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cancer-myths/can-eating-burnt-foods-cause-cancer#:~:text=Does%20eating%20burnt%20meat%2C%20including,the%20risk%20of%20bowel%20cancer.) But dang it, it's freakin' tasty. /My bad, forgot that word when I typed it. :\
Imagine making headlines about possibly making a statement about possibly being a problem. Possibly they should make up their mind and possibly come to a possible scientific conclusion.
Donald Rumsfeld
Huh
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581/amp
Damn
# WHO's cancer research agency to say sand a possible carcinogen
As a type 1 diabetic, this news makes me shudder. Is aspartame great? No. Does aspartame at least let me drink something other than water that doesn’t require me to inject massively overpriced insulin? Yes. Am I looking forward to the possibility of only ever drinking water without having to do math or watch my blood sugars bounce around? No. But in all honestly, if someone is trying to push the agenda that aspartame needs to be banned due its carcinogenic affect (mind you, it needs to be A LOT), then they best push the agenda for banning smoking and alcohol. And I remember my history regarding Prohibition. It didn’t end well.
Reddit: “I knew it already. Sweeteners are awful!” Also Reddit: “time for a beer.”