211
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 41 points 2 years ago

Good to know, I’ll stick to sodas full of sugar, no problem can come from that 👍

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 27 points 2 years ago

The article says that sugar based drinks are far worse for your health than diet versions.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago

Your average pseudoscience obsessed health hobbyist is never going to notice that particular detail though.

[-] Marcbmann@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

What kind of sugar? High fructose corn syrup or sugar?

HFCS is metabolized in the liver making it far more damaging to the body. And soda that uses real sugar typically has a lower sugar content. Soda with real sugar also imparts a feeling of fullness, typically resulting in people drinking less.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I am going to need a source that HFCS is worse than sucrose for your liver.

People hear "high fructose" in High Fructose Corn Syrup and assume it's in comparison to other sugars, it is not. High Fructose corn syrup is a name to differentiate it from regular corn syrup, which is almost entirely glucose.

Let's look at the real differences between HFCS and sucrose or table sugar. Sucrose is 50/50 glucose and fructose. HFCS is usually 55% fructose in beverages and 42% in most other HCFS sweetened products. This means that typically the High Fructose corn syrup has less fructose than regular sugar.

You could focus on beverages, but 5% isn't a huge difference, and if your going to talk about the dangers of sugary beverages it's always important to remind people that fruit juice has A LOT of fructose (go figure).

Sugar itself is the problem, monitor intake. HCFS is only an issue because the price drove down the cost of sweetening foods to everyone's detriment.

[-] Marcbmann@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

My brother in Christ, why is sucrose bad for your liver? Because it is metabolized into glucose and... Fructose

The metabolism of sucrose into glucose and fructose happens in the small intestines. Fructose enters the bloodstream and is metabolized by the liver.

[-] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 6 points 2 years ago

(Here's a study on the liver effects.)[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6549781/]

It doesn't specifically say that fructose has a worse effect on the liver than sucrose, but it does say that fructose is 2x sweeter than glucose, which makes it more addicting, which causes you to drink more because you crave it. So I went looking up sweetness scales and fructose is also sweeter than sucrose (which is still sweeter than glucose), sometimes by a significant margin.

So if both are bad on the liver, fructose could possibly be worse because of a higher level of addiction due to sweetness level, which causes you to consume more than you might with just sucrose.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

But sucrose is 50/50 fructose and glucose. And HFCS is either 42/58 or 55/45. They are basically the same thing.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 41 points 2 years ago

Does it have atomic mass? Then it probably can cause cancer.

[-] batmaniam@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

This is a good rule, especially for things that change their own atomic mass.

[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Does it interact in any way whatsoever with the electromagnetic spectrum?

Yeah that'll give you cancer alright

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] garretble@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Here’s another year old article that came out in response to this.

TLDR: You should not worry, and the only people who might think about worrying are those drinking 12 cans of diet soda a day — so basically no one.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/07/13/1187284010/world-health-organization-is-aspartame-carcinogenic

"Our results do not indicate that occasional consumption should pose a risk to most consumers," said Dr. Francesco Branca, director of the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety at the WHO, during a press conference in Geneva. He said the problem is for "high consumers" of diet soda or other foods that contain aspartame. "We have, in a sense, raised a flag here," Branca said, and he called for more research.

But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says it disagrees with this new classification, pointing to evidence of safety. In a written statement, an FDA official told NPR that aspartame being labeled by the WHO "as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' does not mean that aspartame is actually linked to cancer."

The WHO has long set the acceptable daily intake, or ADI, of aspartame at a maximum of 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. So, a person who weighs 60 kilograms (about 130 pounds), could consume up to 2,400 milligrams per day, which is roughly equivalent to 12 cans of Diet Coke — much higher than most people consume.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

I beg to differ I know for fact my dad drinks 12 cans or more a day. Hell I did at one time but with regular Dr Pepper. It not hard to go through a 12oz can of soda.

[-] garretble@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Oh I do a ton. I was referring when I was younger.

[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Regular Coke, sure not hard. Diet, though?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

In Mexico and other countries there are cities where you cannot drink the water so you end up drinking soda your entire life. Coca-Cola buys the good water and pollutes the rest so that they are the only safe drinking option.

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago

The Vox article comes to the same conclusion.

[-] weariedfae@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago

I came in here ready to defend delicious aspartame from people who aren't science literate and was surprised to see many really good arguments and comments already posted. Lemmy, you're pretty cool as a community right now.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

Realistically what it means is that millions of people will react with "meh, still gonna use it." I mean, have you met humans? We knew lead was toxic since at least the Roman era, but that didn't stop us from using it in everything - including food and drink.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The difference is that you can completely avoid lead poisoning if you eliminate exposure to lead, but you can't completely avoid cancer even if you eliminate exposure to carcinogens.

And eliminating exposure to aspartame would have only a minimal effect, at best, on your overall risk of cancer.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

And they'll do that while standing in bright sunlight without sunscreen, drinking beer, eating red meat, processed food, candy with real sugar and driving in fossil fuel cars which are in the same or higher category of cancer risks.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] gitamar@feddit.de 13 points 2 years ago

So according to WHO, aspartame is more cancerous than glyphosate

[-] rei@piefed.social 12 points 2 years ago

A few months ago, Ann Reardon released a good video covering this

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Mexican coke > regular Coke

Mexican coke Lite > Diet coke

Sorry y'all that's just coke math.

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

EDIT: This is, in fact, false information! Please refer to @FlowVoid@lemmy.world's comment for the facts.

Mexican coke has been found to have no sugar in it, it also uses High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Any flavor enhancement over regular coke appears to be placebo, possibly an effect of the glass bottle.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The paper cited in that video had serious flaws in their methodology.

A repeat analysis by the same group found that Mexican Coca Cola actually does contain table sugar (sucrose) as well as fructose, whereas American Coca Cola contains no table sugar and more fructose than the Mexican version.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Haagel@lemmings.world 8 points 2 years ago

I never trusted the stuff. We use to say this matter-of-factly when I was a kid, about thirty years ago. I'm glad to see that my unfounded confidence and speculation turned out to be right!

[-] weeeeum@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

Ehhh, not so much. Honestly the rating for carcinogenic substances is very shaky and can be very misleading. Like many things, poison depends on the dose and the same with carcinogens. Bacon is a group 1 carcinogen, and cigarettes are a group 1 carcinogen. Despite the same rating, cigarettes are BY FAR much more carcinogenic.

For group 2b "possible carcinogens", it usually coincides with the frequency of the product. For this rating they review what a cancer victim typically eats/consumes/interacts with. Aspartame and many other ingredients, are labeled as possibly carcinogenic, as many victims have eaten them, but there is no strong correlation.

The problem is however, many of these ingredients are so common that almost everybody eats them. It's like saying "everybody who drinks water dies, it's poisonous!".

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago
[-] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago

Not exactly. In this context "possibly causes cancer" translates to something like 'we have no credible evidence that it does, but we can't prove that it doesn't.'

[-] Mereo@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

In the early days of YouTube, after I saw a video where they boiled a can of Coke and found 13 spoons of sugar. I stopped drinking that stuff. Aspartame or not, I'd rather drink water.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] qaz@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
211 points (100.0% liked)

science

28343 readers
247 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS