Aspartame is also linked in some studies to weight gain, GI disorders, mental health issues and more:

According to some studies, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners can lead to weight gain instead of weight loss 12. Aspartame has been linked to increased appetite, diabetes, metabolic derangement and obesity-related diseases 2.

One study showed that aspartame causes greater weight gain than a diet with the same calorie intake but no aspartame 1. Another study found that even acceptable daily intakes of aspartame might make you hungrier and lead to weight gain 3.

…some research suggests an association between aspartame intake and metabolic damage to the central nervous system (CNS), such as changes in enzyme and neurotransmitter activities 2. Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brain’s vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health 3.

There is also some evidence that high-aspartame consumption may lead to weaker spatial orientation, irritability, depression, and other neurobehavioral conditions 14. However, these studies are limited in scope and further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of aspartame on human health.

Worth researching more, especially if you eat/drink anything with this stuff - and it’s in a lot of food products.

  • Zpiritual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Worth point out is that it doesn’t even reach the same classification as red meat which is classified as probably causing cancer.

    • sock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      theres a lot of things that MIGHT cause cancer i feel like if youre drinking enough diet coke to cause cancer its not the sweetener its your impulse control

  • Don Corleone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t freak out (yet) people…

    They put aspartame in the “possibly carcinogenic” category which is their least certain one. Also in this category we have… Radio waves (sigh)… Yeah right…

    • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Radio waves are known to be harmful, that’s why the FCC maintains Maximum Permissible Exposure limits and every technician HAM has to learn about safe distance from a transmission source in relation to power and frequency. It is not a stretch that such RF exposure could potentially have carcinogenic properties, but that needs context, the likelihood of a cell phone is pretty much nil.

      • Ocularias@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But this line of logic ultimately also ends at “how much aspartame do you need to ingest before it’s bad for you?” A lot of these things end in “you need to consume an unreasonable amount for it to affect you negatively”.

        • YellowtoOrange@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          If 100mg causes cancer in 80% of test cases in one year, then it will be very difficult to study how 1mg will affect a group of people, as at lower doses, interactions may become more important.

          If you have a shit diet, don’t exercise, then a smaller dose of aspartame may be more potent- the effect may be additive. It would be too difficult to exclude confounding factors in such a study.

          But luckily no one has the trio of a shit diet, drinks soda and doesn’t exercise :/

          I’m an MD and don’t touch the stuff.

        • YellowtoOrange@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          If 100mg causes cancer in 80% of test cases in one year, then it will be very difficult to study how 1mg will affect a group of people, as at lower doses, interactions may become more important.

          If you have a shit diet, don’t exercise, then a smaller dose of aspartame may be more potent- the effect may be additive. It would be too difficult to exclude confounding factors in such a study.

          But luckily no one has the trio of a shit diet, drinks soda and doesn’t exercise :/

          I’m an MD and don’t touch the stuff.

    • TheFreed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or you will need extreme quantities for it to be something. But with that said, the few times my daughter get a soda I buy her a regular even if I drink with sweetener.

  • notatoad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    For context, this is the same designation that bacon currently has, amongst a whole bunch of other things we all eat.

    • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but bacon is probably like the unhealthiest meat you can eat. Its packed with sodium nitrites to retain its pink hue and is absolutely off the charts for actual sodium content as well as saturated fat, which makes up nearly 70% of its calories. If you were eating a 1kg pack of bacon the way I see people chugging a daily liter o cola, it would be incredibly unhealthy.

  • Zorro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Full disclosure I’m going completely tangential for this one.

    I find it believable at best that aspartame can cause cancer, but causing weight gain just makes no sense to me.

    I used to be FAT. 250 lbs. I didn’t really make that many changes to my diet, except for cutting refined sugars way back.

    I switched to Diet Coke, got off the little debbies, and I slimmed right down and now I’m hovering around 135.

    It would make sense to say that I would maintain that weight or maybe gained more if aspartame was as harmful as this article says, but I’m not seeing it.

    • YellowtoOrange@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      "While aspartame is a low-calorie artificial sweetener that’s often used as a sugar substitute in diet drinks and “sugar-free” foods, there is some research suggesting that consuming artificial sweeteners might paradoxically lead to weight gain. However, the evidence is not definitive and the topic is controversial. Here are some proposed mechanisms:

      • Altered Metabolic Response: Some research suggests that artificial sweeteners may interfere with the body’s mechanisms for metabolizing sugar. Essentially, because your body expects sugar (and the corresponding calories) when it tastes something sweet, the consumption of low-calorie sweeteners may lead to increased food intake and a desire for sweet foods because your body is trying to get the calories it’s expecting.

      • Changes in Gut Bacteria: There’s also some evidence that artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, might alter the bacteria in the gut in a way that promotes weight gain and fat accumulation.

      • Increased Appetite: Some studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may increase appetite, leading to increased calorie consumption.

      • Psychological Factors: Some people may consciously or unconsciously consume more calories elsewhere in their diet because they believe they are “saving” calories by using artificial sweeteners."

    • younity@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it helps you lose weight, sure, but I think there is more going on when you realize cancer risk down but mortality up…

      Mortality
      High consumption of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with a 12% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 23% higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in a 2021 meta-analysis.[64] A 2020 meta-analysis found a similar result, with the highest consuming group having a 13% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% higher risk of CVD mortality.[65]

      Zhang YB, Jiang YW, Chen JX, Xia PF, Pan A (March 2021). “Association of Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages or Artificially Sweetened Beverages with Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies”. Advances in Nutrition. 12 (2): 374–383. doi:10.1093/advances/nmaa110. PMC 8009739. PMID 33786594.

      • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m entertained by this sentence from your source (great source, by the way): “No significant associations were found for cancer mortality.” Lol

        Also from your source, though, to dig deeper past the study title:

        “Of note, participants in the highest levels of ASB intake were more likely to be overweight/obese, hypertensive, and hypercholesterolemic in most studies (8, 10, 11, 17, 28), and thus reverse causation was possible” meaning people already experiencing health-damaging overweight/obesity are also more likely to be replacing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) with artificially-sweetened beverages (ASB) which confounds the result that higher ASB intake is associated with higher all cause mortality. It may simply be that people who already had high mortality risk from their weight were also more likely to be consuming large amounts of ASB.

        “Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials found that low-calorie sweeteners modestly but significantly reduced body weight, BMI, fat mass, and waist circumference (23), but had no effects on blood glucose and blood lipids compared with saccharides (39)”

        “Although biological mechanisms remain inconclusive, some studies indicated detrimental effects of low-calorie sweeteners on the regulatory mechanisms of appetite and satiety, release of gastrointestinal hormones, gastric motility, and balance and diversity of gut microbiota, which may further increase energy intake and disrupt blood glucose homeostasis (40). Taken together, ASBs might be optional alternatives for SSBs only when they are consumed in small quantities for weight management, and the long-term adverse associations of high amounts of ASBs with cardiometabolic diseases and mortality should be considered”

        “Based on current evidence, SSB intakes should be avoided, and if ASBs are considered as optional alternatives for SSBs, they should be consumed in small quantities (i.e., <1.5 servings/d). Nevertheless, further high-quality studies are still warranted, particularly on the long-term impact of ASB intakes, because of limited studies and low-to-moderate quality of the current evidence.”

        So overall, a little more nuanced and not quite the knock-out punch the study title might suggest.

    • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m convinced that sugar companies pump bullshit about other sweeteners to sell more sugar in America.

      Like we already have sugar in fucking everything, you don’t need to ALSO propagandize the stupidest and most propagandized people in the first world.

      • EnglishMobster@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We actually don’t have much in the way of sugar. Usually high fructose corn syrup is the substitute in the US, since the government subsidizes corn production. High fructose corn syrup (obviously) comes from corn, so it’s cheaper than sugar due to those government corn subsidies - meaning that not a lot of American food has sugar in it.

        • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          HFCS and sugar are almost identical, to the point where it’s not worth distinguishing from a nutritious standpoint, or in the context of what I’m trying to say here.

    • YellowtoOrange@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is not even looking at the other issues with aspartame, including possible weight gain, exacerabtion of mental health issues:

      According to some studies, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners can lead to weight gain instead of weight loss 12. Aspartame has been linked to increased appetite, diabetes, metabolic derangement and obesity-related diseases 2.

      One study showed that aspartame causes greater weight gain than a diet with the same calorie intake but no aspartame 1. Another study found that even acceptable daily intakes of aspartame might make you hungrier and lead to weight gain 3.

      . However, some research suggests an association between aspartame intake and metabolic damage to the central nervous system (CNS), such as changes in enzyme and neurotransmitter activities 2. Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brain’s vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health 3.

      There is also some evidence that high-aspartame consumption may lead to weaker spatial orientation, irritability, depression, and other neurobehavioral conditions 14. However, these studies are limited in scope and further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of aspartame on human health.

    • YellowtoOrange@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28938797/ https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/75/9/718/4101228

      The existing animal studies and the limited human studies suggest that aspartame and its metabolites, whether consumed in quantities significantly higher than the recommended safe dosage or within recommended safe levels, may disrupt the oxidant/antioxidant balance, induce oxidative stress, and damage cell membrane integrity, potentially affecting a variety of cells and tissues and causing a deregulation of cellular function, ultimately leading to systemic inflammation.

      There is controversy regarding how aspartame was passed as “safe” last century - essentially lobbying.

      The lobbying pressure pro-aspartame is significant, due to the enormous sums - profit - involved.


      CONCLUSION

      Current scientific knowledge about the safety of aspartame, as reviewed here, is based mostly on animal studies. These studies suggest that aspartame, even at recommended safe dosages, might not be safe. Several of these studies (in vitro as well as in vivo) that investigated both higher and safe dosages indicate that aspartame or its metabolites cause an oxidant/antioxidant imbalance, induce oxidative stress, and damage membrane integrity (lipid, protein, and nucleic acid), possibly affecting most cells and tissues. Aspartame is directly involved in the development of oxidative stress, which is a hallmark of systemic inflammation (Figure 3). Several animal studies have also reported a deleterious effect of aspartame exposure on body weight, adiposity, and/or glucose tolerance and insulin levels. These are summarized in a 2016 review by Fowler.125 Thus, there is a need for additional detailed human studies and comprehensive characterizations of the physiological processes affected by aspartame. This is of particular importance, as diabetic and other individuals with gut dysbiosis may already be at increased risk of systemic inflammation because of the inflammatory nature of their conditions. Data reviewed in this paper suggest that aspartame use could not only exacerbate existing systemic inflammation but also cause inflammation if healthy individuals ingest it on a regular basis.

    • kabat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I need my caffeine, but loathe the taste of coffee. So I drink tons of coke. If I drank the sugar variation, my size would be measured in football field units. With diet, I at least am not morbidly obese.

    • DigitalPortkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because I like cold carbonated drinks, I like the taste of cola, but I don’t like the thick, sugary, syrupy taste of actual Coke?

      Surely you realize it’s not because we have “aspartame cravings” or that we somehow think it’s healthier (there’s nothing healthy about Coke in any form anyway)…

        • DigitalPortkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, that’s cool, no disrespect from me, I drink coffee, fruit juice, and water as well, but I think it would be nice if you recognized that it’s not that “people are so determined to consume that shit” as though it’s a mystery or they’re stupid or something… :/

          Your comment makes it sound like people start jonesing for Aspartame, when I’m quite positive most people who like Diet sodas don’t care what the artificial sweetener is, they just know they don’t like the taste of full-sugar sodas.

          If I misread the intent of your comment, I apologize, but it just feels…a little aggressive, that’s all.

    • Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s always the problem with research, or rather with insufficient consumer protection laws. It needs time to run studies and provide reliable and definitive scientific results in an academic setting, and in the meantime, millions of human beings are exposed to toxic compounds. But because research cannot really be accelerated that much without a loss in quality, we should really push for better regulation of “experimental” products.

  • danhasnolife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    So let’s say we stop playing semantics to the degree of harm and say that aspartame is not good for humans. Ok. What sweetener currently on the market is the least damaging option for me to pursue?

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably regular sugar in moderation. Unfortunately moderation doesn’t seem to be a word that food companies understand when it comes to sugar or sweetener. But if you drink coffee and add your own sugar, then that’s probably the safest. At least your body knows what it is and how to deal with it.

      • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve found a better solution. Bypass the soda and just get sparkling water or seltzer and toss in your own flavor from natural sources. Lemon, grapefruit, mint, strawberries, cucumber, frozen grapes, etc.

        I’ve basically completely over soda except in the case of a maybe once a month craving for something like a float.

    • farsightxr20@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Feels like there are 2 classes of sweeteners:

      • Proven to be bad for your health
      • Not yet proven to be bad for your health

      And whenever one in the second category becomes popular, it inevitably transitions to the first category.

  • nymwit@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I sort of cringe (more of a nose wrinkle really) at OP’s “it’s known in some circles to be bad” You see beliefs and correlative evidence constantly misrepresented as proof and truth in food and medical science (reporting and discussion).

    I get it. The body is a hugely complicated system, it’s hard to figure these things out. What does even figuring them out mean with the amount of complicating factors of this affects that which affects this which causes this.

    I’m open to the idea that lobbying and such means Aspartame (and other industrial food products) has really been pushed through.

    It’s also obviously been studied quite a bit and it’s hard to believe all the studies saying it’s safe at recommended levels are bunk or fraudulent.

    This news was on another instance where the discussion included that the IARC carcinogen classifications do not take into account exposure/dosage. A whole bunch of things can be carcinogenic depending on exposure. Haven’t we all read how the rats that got cancer from saccharine had epic doses? It was just magnitudes more than a human would consume.

    If an observational study won’t cut it (I see you, @xthedeerlordx, and appreciate your comment and explanation), how does one prove the causation? Don’t you need randomized controlled trials which would be extremely onerous controlling for various factors and basically making the (ideally large number of) participants live in a lab for whatever amount of time the study takes to really prove causation? I’d genuinely like to know. It seems like for a lot of things correlation after correlation after correlation is the best we’re going to get.

    • YellowtoOrange@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s going to be difficult to fund a large enough RCT to find a stat signif effect - it would be very expensive to follow people for 20-40 years and keep them in a study (10 000 people?). Similar to supplement studies - they may be effective, however big pharma won’t pay for RCTs for products that are already on the market and with little profit margin.

      Unfortuantely, it’s not all 100% science - politics has a large hand to play here.

      As I wrote elsewhere, there was one review showing potential biochemical and physiological mechanisms. It doesn’t prove anything, however due to the amount consumed, it is worth investigating further and keeping an open mind:

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28938797/ https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/75/9/718/4101228

      CONCLUSION

      Current scientific knowledge about the safety of aspartame, as reviewed here, is based mostly on animal studies. These studies suggest that aspartame, even at recommended safe dosages, might not be safe. Several of these studies (in vitro as well as in vivo) that investigated both higher and safe dosages indicate that aspartame or its metabolites cause an oxidant/antioxidant imbalance, induce oxidative stress, and damage membrane integrity (lipid, protein, and nucleic acid), possibly affecting most cells and tissues. Aspartame is directly involved in the development of oxidative stress, which is a hallmark of systemic inflammation (Figure 3). Several animal studies have also reported a deleterious effect of aspartame exposure on body weight, adiposity, and/or glucose tolerance and insulin levels. These are summarized in a 2016 review by Fowler.125 Thus, there is a need for additional detailed human studies and comprehensive characterizations of the physiological processes affected by aspartame. This is of particular importance, as diabetic and other individuals with gut dysbiosis may already be at increased risk of systemic inflammation because of the inflammatory nature of their conditions. Data reviewed in this paper suggest that aspartame use could not only exacerbate existing systemic inflammation but also cause inflammation if healthy individuals ingest it on a regular basis.

  • HjFUN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gonna try to cut a line down the middle and say I’m not seeing very convincing evidence one way versus another. Lotta finger pointing and honestly getting way more intense about diet soda than I thought anyone would.

    Gotta say that my family (and me until high school) drink wayyy to much diet soda. Like sugar, or aspartame it’s a bit worrying and when you drink caffeinated sweetness all day you’re probably going to feel defensive about someone saying it’s gonna kill you.

    I am a bit of the mind that it may only be significantly carcinogenic at super high doses, but who knows if anyone is getting those doses either from commercial beverages or mixing it in the same proportions as sugar in their iced tea

    • YellowtoOrange@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, let’s wait and see what they say.

      If you drink soda, do look more into the weight gain, GI issues and anxiety side effects from aspartame.

  • Pietrasagh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Barbecue sausages are also carcinogenic. What matters is how much and in what doses. Hey WHO: Show me scientific, peer revieved, reproduced in independed labs papers with solid proofs. Not preliminary results of “one research”. Then I will weigh pros and cons and decide if I should use it. Strangely decades of use under supervision of FDA and other reputable institutions had no remarks like WHO. Don’t forget that dihydrate monoxide also promote cancer, and we all drink it like water.

    /edit typo, grammar/

  • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Aspartame just like about anything is not good for you in large quantities. This probably doesn’t concern you if you just drink moderate amounts of sugar free drinks.