8 ms·
> An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda daily to exceed the limit and pote
by chomp 3y ago
> An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda daily to exceed the limit and potentially face health risks.
Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? It's a ludicrous amount of aspartame/soda to be sure, but there -is- something potentially an issue with aspartame somewhere in there.
Yes, "everything causes cancer" but I don't disagree with the WHO's decision. Something's there, even if it's negligible.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago> Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. > Something's there, even if it's negligible. Then what is the point of wasting everyone’s time with publicizing it? Just last weekend, I was with a parent who would not let her kids have sugar free popsicles, but was okay with them regularly eating sugary popsicles. For some reason, they think that a tiny bit of aspartame has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm than a ton of refined sugar.
- habitue 3y agoTbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar
- lotsofpulp 3y agoTrue. But the decision is usually between consuming a food with low calorie sweetener or with added sugar, which is what I meant to compare.
- neaden 3y agoI mean, yeah, don't drink 14 cans of any kind of soda a day.
- worik 3y ago> Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar Evidence?
- habitue 3y agoall the bad parts of sugar are from the sugar part of it, not some magic poison added by "refining"
- chimeracoder 3y ago> For some reason, she thinks that a tiny bit of aspartame has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm than a ton of refined sugar. Cancer isn't the only risk associated with aspartame.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoWhich are? I assume any molecule introduced to the body in excess will have a variety of effects. It just seems after decades, there seems to be nothing substantially risky about consuming any of the low calorie sweeteners in a non crazy amount. Especially since the alternative seems to be people consuming a ton of excess carbohydrates, which have near guaranteed risks.
- loeg 3y agoI believe (acute) GI distress is relatively common at higher doses.
- chomp 3y ago> No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. I don't think anyone is talking about diabetes. > For some reason, she thinks that a tiny bit of aspartame has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm than a ton of refined sugar. Agree that sugar is absolutely terrible for you, and aspartame is much less bad. What the WHO's talking about is strictly "possible" cancer risk. Based on my understanding, it's highly likely it's more worth it to face possible cancer risk thank the 100% definitive high risk of disease from sugar in the diet. The main thrust of my point is that there's no reason it shouldn't be on group 2B, and the FDA claiming otherwise is silly.
- worik 3y ago> For some reason, they think that a tiny bit of aspartame has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm than a ton of refined sugar. Or they think like me that when you taste sweet it should be sugar Human biology is very complex. What we do not know about it is more important than what we do know. I do not trust novel chemicals that trick a body into thinking it is getting sugar, but it's not. Better a bit of sugar for real than telling the body that it is getting a lot of sugar and giving it none
- lotsofpulp 3y agoMost people are choosing between “a lot of sugar” or “a little bit of low calorie sweetener”. The former has known problems. The latter does not.
- habitue 3y agoYeah, there are absolutely people who drink this much aspartame. Probably we should think of its danger level like Advil: normal sparse amounts are fine. But if you are doing it constantly you're going to have issues.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoIt doesn't even mean that. 14 cans doesn't cause issues, it is when the FDA thinks risk kicks in. That might still be a 1 in a million chance, after hitting the 14 can limit
- habitue 3y agofair
- pc86 3y agoI wonder what the time-frame for this is. If I drink 14 cans of diet soda once, have I permanently increased my odds of cancer? That seems likely. If I drink 14 cans of anything other than water or maybe coffee every day for 30 years I would expect negative health effects. It would be great if they had some sort of time-frame.
- tedunangst 3y agoIf you plan on living 200 years, I guess you'd have to restrict yourself to five cans per day to stay under your lifetime limit.
- kelipso 3y agoCancer risk is accumulative I'm assuming. So you would want to reduce risk as much as possible because there are plenty of other things you're exposed to that increases cancer risk. Can't just look at one substance and it's risk alone.
- pc86 3y agoMy point is there is a big difference between and X% increase in cancer being associated with 2-3 cans a day for a year compared to a decade. And who knows if 2-3 cans a day for a year is any safer than 1 can a day for 5 years or a can every other day for 20 years?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI think hot water is also on the carcinogen list.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- withinrafael 3y agoProbably obvious to many, but I wanted to throw out there: after quick audit of my kitchen, I found aspartame in or added to other products (e.g., chewing gum, coffee, smoothie mixes, cereal, ice cream, etc.). So lets make sure we keep that in mind when quantitatively measuring aspartame consumption!
- anonporridge 3y agoEven still, if all of that is replacing sugar and plummeting your risk of diabetes, a small increased risk of cancer after a lifetime of consumption seems like a very acceptable tradeoff.
- worik 3y agoHow many processed foods in your kitchen? I have zero aspartame. Certainly none in my coffee It should be food in your kitchen