Possible link between sweeteners and cancer?

This was sent to me in the DCUK newsletter
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/202...cancers-by-up-to-13-per-cent-study-finds.html
There is no means of responding to it, so I open it up for discussion here.

First point, the article mentions that the actual cancer incidence rate they saw was 3 in 10,000 participants. Somehow this translates to a 13% risk increase. sounds scary, but this is some statistical magic I guess.

Second point. The article says artificial sweeteners alter the gut biome. Yes, becasue the micrpbes that munch on sugar get bored and leave. Our gut biome is constantly updating to cope with changes to diet. Going vegan from omnivore also forces a similar cartwheel in the gut. It is put forward as possibly being a causal factor, without any supporting evidence so is conjecture from the study team scrabbling desperately in the dark to make their study more interesting/ important so they can apply for follow on funding IMO.

Aspartame is a known health hazard for some who are allergic to one of the ingredients. Any product using Aspartame must by law declare a warning, I think all the soft drinks manufacturers have replaced this sweetener since I am not aware of seeing any warnings recently. Again, possible scaremongering.

If sweeteners replace sugar, are there any benefits that could possibly outweigh the small risk of cancer. I note that the average age of the participants was 42, but the age at which cancer was measured had an average age of 59, so obviously some of the cancers were already enabled prior to the study.

Interesting that the study does not examine saccharine, which is the grandfather of artificial sweeteners. It is derived from petroleum, and is definitely a chemical concoction. In the 1970's a study into rats proved that it caused bladder cancer, and a worldwide ban followed. This was rthe original sweetener in coca cola et al who switched to aspartame instead (now also switched out I believe)

However studies in humans showed no correlation to cancer, and investigation into rats showed that their bladders reacted differently to humans, and that the effect was not a valid read across. Saccharine is now available again and classed as fit for human consumption. It has been removed from the WHO cancerous substances list and is Non Hazardous according to FDA

It is commonly used in the food industry under its E number E 954 and it bakes well. It is marketed as Sweet 'n Low Food labelling may refer to it as cyclamate.

I was brung up on saccherine and used to raid the box for 'sweeties'.

Larissima said:

Thanks for pointing this out. I've recently read that sucralose (Splenda) "kills half of your gut microbiome". This was in Steven Gundry books (I didn't have the chance to follow up the studies he cited), and he is very big on our "gut buddies" that produce postbiotic short-chain fatty acids that are then used by our own mitochondria. But if we eat meat and dairy, surely some SCFA will come from food already?

I sometimes use a protein powder sweetened with sucralose, and was feeling guilty about ruining my gut bacteria - but it's not that simple, is it?

Click to expand...

Actually it seems we do not use any fatty acids 'off the shelf'. Our bodies run a very sophisticated cut and shut operation where incoming lipids get cut to shreds, and then reassembled back into fatty acids specific to our requirements, and carrying our own indentifier codes (remember that incoming proteins and fats are aliens to our body, and represent enemies until rebranded with our own 'smell' So any SFA in our bloodstream cholesterol is manufactured by us, and is not direcly related to any fats we eat. What we use sat fat for is a short cut for the cut and paste editing operations thus saving energy. Our bodies create SFA mainly because it is the most efficient way to store fats. Even vegans have SFA in the blood.

Talking about the gut biome. another interesting snippet I picked up during my research is that when manufacturers or nutritionists recommend probiotics, studies found that there are very few that survive the stomach acid trip through the duodenum. They get shredded too. Apparently the only one thes that survive to do something useful are in the lactobacillus family, which is why yoghurt is used as the transport mechanism.

PS I think Gundry is wrong with his Plant Paradox Diet Whilst most plants contain lectins (~which are forbidden in the diet) there is vitrtually no experimental evidence to support this hypothesis. However, there are people here doing Carnivore Diet which is close to his diet and we should get useful supporing info from that regarding long term use.

Since we are talking gut biome here, I am reminded of some research involving poop transplants. It has gone very quiet since that sudden splurge of headlines. I wonder if they are getting anywhere near to the bottom of it. Or is it just one of those topics noone talks about? Maybe that celebrity on I'm a celebrity Get me out of Here who had such a fascination in their co- maroonees poop was conducting their research. After all, they did it to the monarchs throughout the ages called it Keeper of the Kings Stool. Amazing what **** one fills one's mind with as we age. And why is it things like that which we remember, but forget why we came into the room in the first place? [ramble over .ramble on]