6 ms·

Sucralose (Splenda) has been linked to cancer quite convincingly last week. It's the only artificial sweetener that I used, and now there are no options except

Sucralose (Splenda) has been linked to cancer quite convincingly last week. It's the only artificial sweetener that I used, and now there are no options except sugar alcohols. Monk Fruit has also been linked to cancer.

valval 3y ago
Why use artificial sweeteners in the first place? Honey is a great sweetener.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  Sure, in the right things - but I wouldn't want the taste. Besides, honey doesn't really do what the artificial sweeteners does. "Just use honey" is horrible advice for diabetics, for example. It isn't going to help folks that are looking to avoid carbs. And so on. Realistically, if you aren't supposed to be eating added sugar, honey isn't going to do the job either. It is just a different form of sugar.
  - valval 3y ago
    Carbs are essential for good health and any sort of exercising. Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?
    - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
      Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. I mean, good luck avoiding them and liking chewing gum. Or good luck if you are diabetic and want a soda from time to time. Folks on keto diets avoid a lot of carbs, and diabetics tend to watch them. Artificial sweeteners help folks do this. Honey has similar woes to actual sugar, and if you are using the artificial stuff to avoid the effects of real sugar, honey is no solution. Choosing between the two - artificial or "natural" - is really just a question of risk. You aren't in the position of considering that a soda might kill you. Or trying to explain your diabetic grandmother with memory problems that she simply can't have soda at all: I'm not sure giving an artificially sweetened drink really is going to be what puts them in an early grave.
      - valval 3y ago
        I suppose you can exclude metabolically unhealthy people from the span of my advice. To be fair, the diabetes was probably caused by not following my advice in the first place too.
    - 542354234235 3y ago
      >Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? People aren't literally eating zero carbs, they are minimizing their carb intake for various reasons (like being diabetic). With almost any variety in your diet, you are getting enough carbs to function. People "avoid carbs" because with our modern world of abundance, it is too easy to over consume carbs. If you are diabetic, honey is more likely to put you in an early grave than artificial sweeteners. >Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist? Just because something is "artificial" doesn't mean bad. And rarely is one thing universally "better". it depends on the situation. Again, a diabetic looking for a soda-like drink is looking for different things than a vegan looking for dessert recipes. >Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Source?
      - valval 3y ago
        > Just because something is "artificial" doesn't mean bad. I’d be willing to bet in more than 50% of cases it does. > Source? Didn’t WHO or some similar organisation just start officially recommending against them? I haven’t actually read any of the research on this, I’ve just taken my advice from people who have. My personal source is an argument from nature along the lines of “if we didn’t need artificial sweeteners for 300,000 years, we probably won’t need them now”.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Honey is sweet because it has sugar in it, the same reason people would be using an artificial sweetener in the first place.
  - valval 3y ago
    Sure, it just doesn’t have the health disadvantages of the alternatives. It might even be good for you.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      It has the health disadvantages of sugar, because it contains sugar (fructose). Don't be fooled by sugar in a different form.
      - valval 3y ago
        Evidence [0][1] suggests that the fructose in honey acts differently from fructose in table sugar, and seems to have some unexplained metabolic benefits. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421854/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421854/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21621801/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21621801/
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        Your first study is testing three different diets only specifically for high triglycerides and the second doesn't mention honey.
        valval 3y ago
        That looks like some very lazy criticism. Care to provide contradicting studies?
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        very lazy criticism It's literally true and fundamental to what you're claiming. Care to provide contradicting studies? That sugar is bad for you? Here is a presentation with lots of studies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
nostrademons 3y ago
Would be interesting to see sugar linked to cancer too. Alcohol already has been (with a much stronger link than aspartame).
- Frost1x 3y ago
  Sugar being a readily metabolized energy source is almost undoubtedly a cancer source because increase in energy results in increase in cellular production one way or another, which leads to higher risk of mutated cancerous cells, period. Hence the link of obesity to cancer as well. The fact is that anything that increases the amount of you or the rate of you over time over the bare minimum needed for survival is an increased cancer risk... there are other causes like exposure to radiation that actually damage cells and so on as well. Ultimately the question isn't if there's a link to cancer, it's how much something is increasing your risk of cancer relative to the alternatives. I suspect artificial sweeteners are in general for most less risk than consuming vast amounts of sugar, gaining lots of weight, becoming inactive, and increasing their cancer risk that way but who knows. Obviously if you ommit everything but consume the bare minimum sugar you need for survival you'll have a lower risk... good luck with that in modern society and diets
  - tracker1 3y ago
    Fructose often in concert with Glucose is generally less readily metabolized (only by the liver) and can have the same/similar negative effects of heavy alcohol consumption on the body.
  - jiggywiggy 3y ago
    Diet drink consumption gone up, but doesnt seem to have made a dent in the obesity crisis. Your point is only valid if it actually lowers sugar and other carbs intake. Which isn't the case for most people. Next to that. With diet drinks people drink more since they feel like they can get a way with, some do with sugar variants as well, but seems like more people binge drink diet versions which could lead to higher exposure relatively. The has been processing sugar for millennia, these chemicals are pretty new.
elif 3y ago
My Peruvian climbing guide turned me onto stevia which doesn't fall into any of your categories. It is really a wholesome plant extract instead of something chemists have invented which leads me to have confidence in its (so far as we know) lack of carcinogenicity.
- selcuka 3y ago
  > It is really a wholesome plant extract instead of something chemists have invented which leads me to have confidence in its (so far as we know) lack of carcinogenicity. This sounds like the naturalistic fallacy [1]. A naturally occurring substance is not automatically less carcinogen, or harmful, than a manufactured one. Coffee is associated with elevated risk for bladder cancer. Cycad trees are known to be highly carcinogenic. Mycotoxins (mold) are toxic and carcinogenic. Aflatoxin from peanuts is found to be carcinogenic. I'm not saying that stevia is not safe, but safety has nothing to do with being natural or not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Cocaine is a natural plant extract as well.
    - elif 3y ago
      Actually he was recommending stevia to chew with coca leaves at the time. As I said, this was high altitude climbing in Peru where that is a cultural norm.
      - happymellon 3y ago
        It's also the cultural norm in Hollywood. Doesn't make it a good idea.
    - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
      yeah and it aint that bad for you until you extract the pure cocaine from it. the leaf is fine, I think
tjohns 3y ago
> Monk Fruit has also been linked to cancer. Do you have a citation for that? Google search is telling me the exact opposite, that it seems to reduce cancer growth.
- astrange 3y ago
  That's not a good reason to eat something either - reducing cancer growth typically means something is poisonous.
  - hgomersall 3y ago
    Or it's an immunomodulator in some sense.
  - maksimur 3y ago
    Any way (or source) for you or anybody else to back up this claim?
    - astrange 3y ago
      It's obvious. That's how chemo works, by poisoning the cancer before the rest of you. Similarly though, antioxidants are often sold as a health food but can promote cancer because they benefit the cancer more than the rest of you, and some of them directly shut off chemo drugs. There's plenty of evidence of that one.
andrew_ 3y ago
What about Stevia?
annexrichmond 3y ago
Source? Perhaps this is outdated but this page says otherwise: “range of studies have found no evidence that sucralose causes cancer in humans” [1] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet#:~:text=A%20range%20of%20studies%20have,cancer%20in%20humans%20(7) https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d....
- genki 3y ago
  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2... I think this is the source of the more recent concerns around sucralose.

valval 3y ago

Why use artificial sweeteners in the first place? Honey is a great sweetener.

Broken_Hippo 3y ago
Sure, in the right things - but I wouldn't want the taste. Besides, honey doesn't really do what the artificial sweeteners does. "Just use honey" is horrible advice for diabetics, for example. It isn't going to help folks that are looking to avoid carbs. And so on. Realistically, if you aren't supposed to be eating added sugar, honey isn't going to do the job either. It is just a different form of sugar.
- valval 3y ago
  Carbs are essential for good health and any sort of exercising. Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?
  - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. I mean, good luck avoiding them and liking chewing gum. Or good luck if you are diabetic and want a soda from time to time. Folks on keto diets avoid a lot of carbs, and diabetics tend to watch them. Artificial sweeteners help folks do this. Honey has similar woes to actual sugar, and if you are using the artificial stuff to avoid the effects of real sugar, honey is no solution. Choosing between the two - artificial or "natural" - is really just a question of risk. You aren't in the position of considering that a soda might kill you. Or trying to explain your diabetic grandmother with memory problems that she simply can't have soda at all: I'm not sure giving an artificially sweetened drink really is going to be what puts them in an early grave.
    - valval 3y ago
      I suppose you can exclude metabolically unhealthy people from the span of my advice. To be fair, the diabetes was probably caused by not following my advice in the first place too.
  - 542354234235 3y ago
    >Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? People aren't literally eating zero carbs, they are minimizing their carb intake for various reasons (like being diabetic). With almost any variety in your diet, you are getting enough carbs to function. People "avoid carbs" because with our modern world of abundance, it is too easy to over consume carbs. If you are diabetic, honey is more likely to put you in an early grave than artificial sweeteners. >Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist? Just because something is "artificial" doesn't mean bad. And rarely is one thing universally "better". it depends on the situation. Again, a diabetic looking for a soda-like drink is looking for different things than a vegan looking for dessert recipes. >Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Source?
    - valval 3y ago
      > Just because something is "artificial" doesn't mean bad. I’d be willing to bet in more than 50% of cases it does. > Source? Didn’t WHO or some similar organisation just start officially recommending against them? I haven’t actually read any of the research on this, I’ve just taken my advice from people who have. My personal source is an argument from nature along the lines of “if we didn’t need artificial sweeteners for 300,000 years, we probably won’t need them now”.
CyberDildonics 3y ago
Honey is sweet because it has sugar in it, the same reason people would be using an artificial sweetener in the first place.
- valval 3y ago
  Sure, it just doesn’t have the health disadvantages of the alternatives. It might even be good for you.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    It has the health disadvantages of sugar, because it contains sugar (fructose). Don't be fooled by sugar in a different form.
    - valval 3y ago
      Evidence [0][1] suggests that the fructose in honey acts differently from fructose in table sugar, and seems to have some unexplained metabolic benefits. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421854/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421854/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21621801/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21621801/
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        Your first study is testing three different diets only specifically for high triglycerides and the second doesn't mention honey.
        valval 3y ago
        That looks like some very lazy criticism. Care to provide contradicting studies?
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        very lazy criticism It's literally true and fundamental to what you're claiming. Care to provide contradicting studies? That sugar is bad for you? Here is a presentation with lots of studies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

nostrademons 3y ago

Would be interesting to see sugar linked to cancer too. Alcohol already has been (with a much stronger link than aspartame).

Frost1x 3y ago
Sugar being a readily metabolized energy source is almost undoubtedly a cancer source because increase in energy results in increase in cellular production one way or another, which leads to higher risk of mutated cancerous cells, period. Hence the link of obesity to cancer as well. The fact is that anything that increases the amount of you or the rate of you over time over the bare minimum needed for survival is an increased cancer risk... there are other causes like exposure to radiation that actually damage cells and so on as well. Ultimately the question isn't if there's a link to cancer, it's how much something is increasing your risk of cancer relative to the alternatives. I suspect artificial sweeteners are in general for most less risk than consuming vast amounts of sugar, gaining lots of weight, becoming inactive, and increasing their cancer risk that way but who knows. Obviously if you ommit everything but consume the bare minimum sugar you need for survival you'll have a lower risk... good luck with that in modern society and diets
- tracker1 3y ago
  Fructose often in concert with Glucose is generally less readily metabolized (only by the liver) and can have the same/similar negative effects of heavy alcohol consumption on the body.
- jiggywiggy 3y ago
  Diet drink consumption gone up, but doesnt seem to have made a dent in the obesity crisis. Your point is only valid if it actually lowers sugar and other carbs intake. Which isn't the case for most people. Next to that. With diet drinks people drink more since they feel like they can get a way with, some do with sugar variants as well, but seems like more people binge drink diet versions which could lead to higher exposure relatively. The has been processing sugar for millennia, these chemicals are pretty new.

elif 3y ago

My Peruvian climbing guide turned me onto stevia which doesn't fall into any of your categories. It is really a wholesome plant extract instead of something chemists have invented which leads me to have confidence in its (so far as we know) lack of carcinogenicity.

selcuka 3y ago
> It is really a wholesome plant extract instead of something chemists have invented which leads me to have confidence in its (so far as we know) lack of carcinogenicity. This sounds like the naturalistic fallacy [1]. A naturally occurring substance is not automatically less carcinogen, or harmful, than a manufactured one. Coffee is associated with elevated risk for bladder cancer. Cycad trees are known to be highly carcinogenic. Mycotoxins (mold) are toxic and carcinogenic. Aflatoxin from peanuts is found to be carcinogenic. I'm not saying that stevia is not safe, but safety has nothing to do with being natural or not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
- XorNot 3y ago
  Cocaine is a natural plant extract as well.
  - elif 3y ago
    Actually he was recommending stevia to chew with coca leaves at the time. As I said, this was high altitude climbing in Peru where that is a cultural norm.
    - happymellon 3y ago
      It's also the cultural norm in Hollywood. Doesn't make it a good idea.
  - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
    yeah and it aint that bad for you until you extract the pure cocaine from it. the leaf is fine, I think

tjohns 3y ago

> Monk Fruit has also been linked to cancer. Do you have a citation for that? Google search is telling me the exact opposite, that it seems to reduce cancer growth.

astrange 3y ago
That's not a good reason to eat something either - reducing cancer growth typically means something is poisonous.
- hgomersall 3y ago
  Or it's an immunomodulator in some sense.
- maksimur 3y ago
  Any way (or source) for you or anybody else to back up this claim?
  - astrange 3y ago
    It's obvious. That's how chemo works, by poisoning the cancer before the rest of you. Similarly though, antioxidants are often sold as a health food but can promote cancer because they benefit the cancer more than the rest of you, and some of them directly shut off chemo drugs. There's plenty of evidence of that one.

andrew_ 3y ago

What about Stevia?

annexrichmond 3y ago

Source? Perhaps this is outdated but this page says otherwise: “range of studies have found no evidence that sucralose causes cancer in humans” [1] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet#:~:text=A%20range%20of%20studies%20have,cancer%20in%20humans%20(7) https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d....

genki 3y ago
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2... I think this is the source of the more recent concerns around sucralose.