The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Lo-Carb Monster - Carcinogenic?
Zeromus
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, I have this Lo-Carb Monster Energy drink, and it claims to have only 10 calories per serving. To me, this shouts "artificial sweeteners and possible cancer-causing agents." When I look at the ingredients list, though, I don't see aspartame or saccharin, or any other chemicals that I'd associate with low-calorie soft drinks (it does contain sucralose, or Splenda, but based upon what I've read that is tested by the FDA and doesn't seem to contain any risk). Because I'm extra paranoid, however (though not paranoid enough to not drink this as I prepare for a lengthy microeconomics study session), I'm curious about these other ingredients. To Google them would be somewhat time consuming, so I was wondering if any of you might recognize one of these as potentially dangerous right off the bat, or could just provide more info on Lo-Carb or diet drinks in general. I also figured this might be helpful info for others. Thanks!
Ingredients: Carbonated water, glucose, citric acid, natural flavors, taurine, sodium citrate, color added, panax ginseng root extract, caffeine, sorbic acid, sucralose, benzoic acid, l-carnitine, niacinamide, acesulfame K, sodium chloride, glucuronolactone, inositol, guarana seed extract, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, maltodextrin, cyanocobalamin.
Ingredients: Carbonated water, glucose, citric acid, natural flavors, taurine, sodium citrate, color added, panax ginseng root extract, caffeine, sorbic acid, sucralose, benzoic acid, l-carnitine, niacinamide, acesulfame K, sodium chloride, glucuronolactone, inositol, guarana seed extract, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, maltodextrin, cyanocobalamin.
Zeromus on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
The ones I don't recognize are:
acesulfame K, sodium chloride (nacl? table salt?), inositol, pyridoxine hydrochloride, cyanocabalamin, l-carnitine and sodium citrate
The rest I'm pretty much absolutely sure aren't cancer causing, because I know I've seen them a hundred times over on label.
Sucralose also I've never heard anything about in negative terms besides that it might result in a chlorine buildup in your system, but I think that's a mostly unfounded concern. Really, the asstastic flavor is enough to keep me away from anything containing it :P
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Other than that, looks fine to me. :P
Yeah, this drink is kind of anti-delicious with an wretched after taste, but hey.
I read up a little on acesulfame K. Apparently it's bound to other artificial sweeteners to make it taste better. There have also been claims that it is possibly more toxic and worse for you than saccharin or aspartame.
I'm sure one drink isn't going to ruin me, but having lost someone close to me from cancer... well, I just over think these things, I guess.
Inositol: building block of some cellular chemical messengers.
Sodium chloride: table salt.
Pyridoxine HCl: Oral form of vitamin B-6.
Cyanocobalamin: Form of vitamin B-12.
L-carnitine: Transport molecule that helps move fatty acids into mitochondria to be consumed for energy.
Sodium citrate: Anticoagulant, normally, does nothing orally.
Depending how well these and the rest are absorbed orally (for some listed compounds, I'm not sure), it's somewhere between colored water and a diet shake. I'd keep an eye on intake, just for the ginseng.
Even Saccharine only caused cancer in rats when they were force-fed ludicrous amounts of it - something like the equivalent of a human surviving on nothing but Saccharine.
http://www.thelostworlds.net/
I'm cramming for a test in my economics class that bears a significant weight on my grade as of right now.
Perhaps the energy drink isn't the smartest option, but it's pretty much what I'm left with right now.
For caffeine - most people say that Coffee and/or Tea is pretty safe.
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
But to be perfectly honest, it's probably 100% harmless. Every publication I've ever read about the stuff says that you piss about 90% of it within a day, and the remainder comes out the other side. It was discovered in 1976, and its been tested pretty much since then until it was approved for use 30 years later by the FDA.
That being said, there are a ton of scare-tactic webpages out their trying to indicate that Splenda and sucralose are the second coming of Satan in tiny, single-serving packets. I wouldn't believe that hype. It's most likely harmless.
I'm not a chemist and I agree with this.
Honestly, almost ANY food additive you can think of has a couple hundred web pages for it claiming that it's gonna kill you. At the same time you have the same amount saying it's pretty much harmless.
The key is to look at where this information is coming from.
While I have problems with a lot of shit the United States government is doing currently, one thing holds true, the FDA has a pretty good track record. If the FDA says it's okay I'm gonna need some VERY solid research to back up claims that differ from their policy.
Even lipton green tea has it.
However, SB only becomes carcinogenic under certain temperatures, or so say sources on the web.
Now this could be simply the result of my disease, but usually if I eat lots of lovely fruit and veg and fish and real food I'm fine. But when I eat crap then I get trouble. So I kind of think I'm a canary. The things that mess me up affect others too, just less obviously than me.
So sweeteners=Satan's sputum, in my immensely unscientific opinion.
Can I ask why? Yes, it's made partly from chlorine. So is salt (and salt is also made from sodium!). Maybe I'm missing something though, since I only took one semester of chemistry.
http://www.thelostworlds.net/
Yeah, it's a little non-intuitive, but the chlorine in sucralose is not ionically bound, as it is in salt. Ionic chlorine is easy for the body to get rid of - you just piss it out because it is water soluble. Covalently bound chlorine is a different story. When you start to add Carbon-Chlorine bonds to a molecule, suddenly (usually) it loses the ability to dissolve in water. That means it builds up in your fat instead, and typically it's very difficult to get rid of chemicals that deposit there. This is why most chlorocarbon compounds are toxic.
Also, the chlorine atoms are on what are know as primary carbons. This makes them very reactive in theory. The worry would be that sucralose would start doing all kinds of unpredictable reactions in your digestive / circulatory system. This is the main reason that most (organic) chemist's eyes bug out when they see the structure. Primary halogens are easily reacted - That's like Organic Chemistry 101.
In reality, according to testing, sucralose is actually not water soluble enough to be broken down, but is water soluble enough to be excreted. It doesn't wind up in your fat, it doesn't appreciably react, and that's actually the opposite of what a lot of people thought would happen. Hence why they tested it for about 30 years before approval.
Sorry if that's a long winded explanation. For more detailed info and the actual structure of sucralose, check out Wikipedia.
It's a derivative of the sucrose molecule, except three of the hydroxyl groups are replaced with chlorine groups. It is by no means a "natural" sweetener.
My personal opinion is to stay away from 'engineered' or 'refined' foods and eat naturally. But it's all a matter of personal opinion and tastes really. Just keep in mind what happened with aspartame - released as the 'miracle sweetener' with no calories. Just a little more than a decade after its release, the true effects of this sweetener came to head. I'm sure most everybody knows that story.
I honestly don't know a whole lot about this aspartame controversy.
I checked wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame), but I don't really see where they outright say it's dangerous.
I think the only thing I ever remember learning is that it's carcinogenic, but only in huge quantities.
I don't. Link?
If you're drinking soda, I wouldn't worry too much about the sweeteners as you consume very, very tiny amounts of stuff that has undergone extensive investigations yet there's been no real evidence that it's bad for you. I'd worry more about the other stuff that go in there that you never really hear about.
I'd definitely choose these sweeteners over sugar, as sugar is definitely not good for you in the amounts found in soft drinks. If that's not an option, stick to water.
While I concur that "natural food" is better, it is also full of toxin and carcinogens. I mean those vegetables can't run away and yet don't want to be eaten. In fact more "natural" foods are the more likely they are to kill you (e.g. wild vs. cultivated almonds).
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Okay this is fucking retarded. Half of this conversation is completely off topic and ignore Than because he's not helping either.
This is the line. If you're not making a direct contribution towards the answer to the question posed in the original post (which of those ingredients might be a potential carcinogen) that is factual rather than opinion based in nature, then don't bother posting. Just don't.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Most of the other ingredients are amino acids, vitamins, or stimulants. Of all the ingredients, the stimulants and salt are probably the most "dangerous", but not because of the risk of cancer.
http://www.thelostworlds.net/
PLEASE don't believe for one second that aspartame is safe. My older sister was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and then lupus. She had massive joint pain and VIOLENT mood swings. I noticed that she was drinking 3 diet mountain dews a day and did some research. There are a lot of studies where patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia and lupus had complete relief of their symptoms once aspartame was removed from their diet. My big sister is now almost completely better and my family thinks I'm House.
JD Smith, CM Terpening, SO Schmidt, and JG Gums. "Relief of fibromyalgia symptoms following discontinuation of dietary excitotoxins" The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 702-706
Four out of four patients had complete resolution of their problem after eliminating MSG and aspartame from their diet.
Alan C. Logan. "Dietary Modifications and Fibromyalgia" Complementary Health Practice Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 234-245
Another study where cutting out aspartame eliminated symptoms of fibromyalgia.
Some people are going to have bad reactions to some chemicals. Some people die if they eat peanuts. Some people are allergic to water, for fuck's sake; does this mean that everyone should avoid eating peanuts, or coming into contact with water?
I can understand everything else, but water? How the heck can someone be allergic to what their body is mostly composed of? O_o
Also, this is not D&D.
To the OP, from my (admittedly atypical) experience I'd say drinking this kind of stuff is fine for a while, but to be avoided long-term.
Also, the next thread that gets created here because someone is too fucking lazy to google for themselves is just going to get locked off the bat.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH