Sucralose and aspartame are both reliable migraine triggers for me, and have been at least since my early 20s. Stevia and monkfruit are fine. The only other even semi-consistent migraine trigger for me is alcohol.
I've successfully avoided migraines for years by carefully avoiding sucralose and aspartame (and drinking little to no alcohol), but even a small serving of something "sugar-free" and within a few hours I'll get a crippling migraine. In college, I spent a while testing, and the link between both sucralose and aspartame and my migraines was perfectly reliable.
Alcohol in general has been harder to nail down. A single beer won't normally trigger a migraine, while sometimes a single glass of wine or small cocktail will. If I drank to excess it was hard to tell the difference between a hangover and a migraine; I wasn't that invested in social alcohol consumption, so I've mostly just been a teetotaler since college. Absinthe uniquely reliably gives me an acephalgic migraine with aura around 12 hours after drinking.
Edited to add: I've just stayed away from ace-K and sugar-alcohols as a precaution. I'm past the point in my life where I have any real interest in risking crippling migraines for the sake of personal curiosity.
I think I've read somewhere that drop in blood glucose can cause headaches. Maybe sweetners trick your body into releasing a lot of insuline to deal with "sugar" but there's no new sugar in your blood so glucose level drops giving you a headache?
Just a theory but you could test it by monitoring glucose after ingesting something with sweetner.
According to this theory ingesting sweetner together with sugar should cause you less or no discomfort.
Maybe you could try doing something like drinking normal Coke after accidentally ingesting sweetner to see if it helps?
Alcohol might be a different issue. After all it's just a straight up poison that metabolizes into another poison.
My anecdotal experience is that this is true. I can often (but not always) subvert a looming headache by eating something sweet. Yogurt in particularly is remarkably effective.
Generally speaking, the more sugary the drink the worse the hangover. You seem to be unlucky enough to get the migraine before drinking enough for a hangover, but the mechanism may be the same?
I recently learned that anesthesia is the same. Not only has no anesthesia ever been developed except through "serendipity." Not only that, but anesthesia that works for humans also effect a wide range of things including plants and bacteria. But why is an active area of research. There are even speculations that there may be quantum effects involved. Biology and chemistry are insanely complex.
Quantum Mechanics is why atoms and molecules exist and form bonds. QM is the physics of chemistry. Without QM, chemistry does not happen. The universe would just be a big churning mess of particles and you would never get little lego pieces that snap together according to repeatable rules that, when repeated, form macroscopic substances of innumerable description up to and including life itself.
So QM is no doubt involved, but on this scale it is either a trivial fact or an indication that someone tried to lean on a classical approximation, it broke, and they had to revise it (which arguably says more about the approximation than it says about the underlying behavior).
Apologies for the nitpick. It's a pet peeve of mine that discussions of QM tend to focus so hard on the strange behavior that they forget to mention where QM fits into the bigger picture and leave people with the impression that it only matters under special circumstances when in fact it matters so much that you can hardly have "matter" without it.
------------
Re: anesthetic, a large fraction of simple halocarbon compounds have intense neural effects, so anyone doing halocarbon chemistry would quickly be put on the "scent" even if they weren't tasting everything in the Sigma Aldrich catalog.
I would say everyone understands that "quantum effects" refers to situations in which classical approximations break down.
Likewise when we say "numerical issues", it's understood that we're talking about situations in which the usual approximation of real numbers by floating point representations breaks down. "Disk corruption" doesn't necessarily mean anything is physically wrong with the disk, only that its contents have become inconsistent with the filesystem abstraction it normally supports, etc.
which promotes a similar confusion of concepts, even if the true meaning is understood by experts.
That said, I think the QM/not QM lingo from the molecular dynamics community is considerably worse because it stokes a common misunderstanding: that the universe runs on classical mechanics except in lasers, particle accelerators, and other "exotic circumstances." By contrast, nobody thinks that the universe runs on float32s except in lasers and spaceships where it runs on float64s. Where confusion does not exist, we do not need to fight it, but where it does, we should probably try.
>Likewise when we say "numerical issues", it's understood that we're talking about situations in which the usual approximation of real numbers by floating point representations breaks down.
Guys, try this in your desktop or mobile app calculator:
do square root of 2.
then subtract from it the result that you see on screen.
for me:
√2−1.41421356237
i get:
3.095048801E−12
i.e. not 0.
I discovered this on a physical Casio electronic calculator long back, and also verified it just now on a stock Android mobile calculator app.
As a non-physicist and non-chemist who keeps running into quantum mechanics only through headlines, extra thanks for pointing this out. It's quite obvious in retrospect to acknowledge that quantum mechanics is the physics of chemistry, and I don't know why I didn't see that before. It certainly helps to view a lot of things in a new light.
Unfortunately I'm not finding anything related to anesthesia except for hand-wavy pieces about "quantum consciousness" (anyone, please do correct me with a link or two if I'm wrong). I blame Sir Roger Penrose, if only because him talking speculatively about it (even in a sophisticated, informed way) seems to give so many others leeway to speak far more casually about the same topic, with far less coherence. This is why we can't have our cake and eat it too I guess
More discussion in "Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology." I can't recommend the book unreservedly, but it's worth checking out reviews.
Will take a look--thanks. Also, re: anesthesia, appreciate that you linked to the "Electron spin changes..." paper in the other comment, will check it out!
Only if you can stand the format. Even when (maybe especially when) they cover a topic that I'm interested in, I find it infuriating to listen to.
It's filled with endless repetition and rephrasing of the same thing over and over again. For example here's a snippet from a transcript:
JENN: ... to see if he can find anything in the interstitium that's happening that could explain this. And he finds ...
QIUSHENG CHEN: Telocytes.
INTERPRETER: Telocytes?
QIUSHENG CHEN: Telocytes.
INTERPRETER: Telocytes.
JENN: ... these cells ...
JENN: Oh, telocytes.
QIUSHENG CHEN: Yeah.
JENN: Telocytes, yes.
JENN: ... called telocytes, which are a newly-discovered cell ...
The whole thing is like that, where they take something that could have been a single sentence and stretch it out over 3, 5, even 10 minutes of repetition and unnecessary detail and throughout all of it they randomly insert stock audio and sound effects of things that don't matter to the content at all. Like someone will say they went into work and the audio abruptly cuts to 15-30 seconds of nothing but the ambient sounds of an office environment.
The transcript might be easier for some to tolerate. The anesthesia episode doesn't seem to be too bad in terms of the number of sentence fragments, repetitions, and pointless interjections as some episodes. Even as transcripts some are extremely frustrating to extract information from.
I'd expect a lot of interjections (yeahs, okays, ums, rights, etc) in normal conversation, but people don't keep repeating back everything that's said for the "benefit" of an audience. Not in my experience anyway, although I suppose there are probably some people who do... maybe as a vocal tic or something. You'd get none of the pauses for sound effects or music in normal speech either. The podcast comes off as being very "produced" as opposed to having a natural conversational tone, and some people love that aspect, but the low information density is what gets to me the most.
I mean, here's an except from another transcript and even ignoring that they're using a ton of sound clips to explain something simple, the amount of repetition would be insane in a normal conversation:
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Grief often comes in five stages.
RACHAEL CUSICK: I'm not sure when or how exactly I came across it, but...
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "SCRUBS")
DAVE FOLEY: (As Lester Hedrick) You're going to go through what we call the five stages of grief.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Five stages of grief.
RACHAEL CUSICK: It was this five-part checklist.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: There are five stages of grief.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: What are you talking about?
RACHAEL CUSICK: You might have heard of these stages. The idea is pretty simple. It's basically that in the wake of losing a loved one, you'll go through a series of feelings.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
RACHAEL CUSICK: First...
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Stage one.
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "SCRUBS")
DAVE FOLEY: (As Lester Hedrick) Denial.
RACHAEL CUSICK: Denial.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Denial.
RACHAEL CUSICK: Then stage two.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Step two, that's anger.
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "SCRUBS")
DAVE FOLEY: (As Lester Hedrick) Anger.
RACHAEL CUSICK: Then bargaining.
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "SCRUBS")
DAVE FOLEY: (As Lester Hedrick) Bargaining.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: OK.
RACHAEL CUSICK: After that is...
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Depression.
RACHAEL CUSICK: ...Depression and...
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "SCRUBS")
DAVE FOLEY: (As Lester Hedrick) Finally, acceptance.
RACHAEL CUSICK: ...Last but not least, acceptance.
This is traditional, leisurely paced “slow media”. Nothing wrong with it. You can get the same content in short form by reading an encyclopedia if that’s preferrable.
I belive methoxetamine could be considered an anesthetic and it was invented expressly for the purpose of mimicing the effects of ketamine at a lower dosage threshold to avoid the ketamine associated bladder damage.
I believe the chemist was an amputee as a result of a terrorist attack and spent his life wirking to develop an analgesic as effective as ketamine for nerve pain without the side affects.
mxe was a very beloved "researcg chemical" (read:designer drug) prior to like 2016 when supply dried up.
I don't think they measure if plants/bacterium are anesthetized, but in exposing them to things that cause anesthesia in humans, other potentially unrelated effects are noticed.
Many compounds/mechanisms, especially hormones and neurotransmitters, are widely "re-used" across different biologies for completely different things. They're essentially generic semaphores, and the action caused by raising the semaphore can be basically anything. There's a lot of variance in effect even among different instances of human species, often quite unpredictable, contradictory, and profound.
It's sort of like "hey we already have this testosterone thing, it's currently used to call [function A] but we could refactor that to use it to initiate [function B] instead" (testosterone causes growth in many mammals but inhibits growth in lizards, so female lizards are larger than male lizards)
or "hey we already have the genes to make serotonin for gastrointestinal regulation, but it's not used for anything in the brain. The blood-brain-barrier already prevents somatic serotonin from reaching the brain so we could have a completely different function for it in the brain and regulate gut and brain serotonin in isolation of eachother"
or "hey we have this cholesterol thing that we've been using as a signaling hormone ever since we were on version Plant, maybe we could write a factory that modifies the cholesterol we eat and use it to produce new semaphores like estrogen and testosterone to support a more complex messaging system and handle all the new effects rather than overloading the existing semaphore".
Edit: Probably slightly better to think of them as the coefficients for activation functions, but nothing here is meant to be anywhere remotely close to a direct analogy. Taking any of this literally would be a misreading.
Considering how we all seem to be the product of millions of years of hit-or-miss natural selection, it feels almost natural that our advancements have also had a great deal of luck/improbability.
Some homebrewers will wax nostalgic about how the human sense of smell/taste can detect almost all of the ways that fermentation can go wrong and make it toxic.
But we also keep pushing back earliest dates for precursors to civilization, I start to wonder if maybe there aren't graveyards of people who couldn't distinguish thymol from ethanol and selected themselves out of human history via acute liver failure.
To give some more context, Fleming's job was an antibacterial researcher, and also molds were also previously known to have these properties. In some ways, the lucky part was others finding his work and developing it. I found this video on the development of Penicillin a pretty interesting watch:
Also, if you're in constant pain you'll try all kinds of random stuff to make the pain go away. If necessity is the mother of invention then desperation is its father.
Tea and beer are pathogen-depleted and so it makes a ton of sense that they were both imbibed 'to excess'.
History of the World in Six Glasses claims that tea and coffee more or less caused the enlightenment. One, it stopped day drinking by the intellectual class. And two, they were foil for socialization.
More like: This plant has no insect parasites, it must be special somehow, let's try and use it in different, increasingly "close approach" ways. I mean, humans must have figured quite early that on average, inhaling smoke of a poisonous plant has a fraction of the effect of chewing the same. Someone gets really sick after chewing some leaves, their family burns the rest of the "crop" and they get high.
It seems likely to me that any form of smoking was discovered incidentally by burning stuff that smelled nice, repelled bugs, repelled evil spirits, etc. and happening to inhale some of the smoke.
For mushrooms it was probably desperation, but my head cannon for mushrooms is Trial by Mushroom: You can be expelled from our community for stealing, or you can eat this mushroom and if you survive, you get to stay.
The cool thing about tea leaves is that the caffeine is stored in crystals that are not particularly soluble. There's an organelle that contains an enzyme that breaks the crystals down into a soluble form.
There are a couple varieties of tea that are actually fermented, but for most teas it's a misnomer. You aren't causing fermentation, just autolysis (latin: self digestion), which is more akin to the malting phase of beer production. Black tea is left to process longer, while green tea is interrupted sooner. The switch is turned on by bruising the leaves, and off by desiccating them.
From a caterpillar's perspective, a tea leaf is booby trapped. Waiting for mandibles to mix the ingredients and create the insecticide.
I mean history suggests that’s the case. Took centuries for Copernicus to exist.
AI has been an idea for decades. It wasn’t until transformers in the last few years we had big gains.
Google and giant institutions focus on fiat revenue stability over the long term, in line with political ideology. Few big ideas come out of that. I think what Adam Smith is said to have written applies; division of labor taken to the extreme will result in humans dumber than the lowest animal.
We iterated on our current political system over the Boomers lives. Next generations are tired of the threat of brute force from the elders who the kids now see as in no position to back up those threats given their age. They’re abandoning norms of the last 30-40 years, which IMO, is enabled by abandonment of thousands of years of obligation to preserve religion.
There are shorter iterative periods too; 15 years ago comic movies went crazy with Iron Man, iPhone blew up; now we’re iterating on AI generated content and spatial headsets. 15 years prior (with some wiggle room for margin of error) “information super highway” was coming.
On the shorter scales there seems to a pattern of 3-5 year warmup and 7-10 year plateau, with a cooldown of 2-3 years as the masses lose interest. This aligns with neuroscience experiments that show our brains devalue old patterns after roughly 15 years.
Generational churn and lack of generalized sense of obligation to the past (via abandonment of religious buy in by westerners) could free the future to live in cycles that align with scientific measurement versus obligation to be parrots that recite past memes.
Copernicus is a bad example. He proposed a heliocentric system based on vibes. Actual progress required decades of cutting-edge precision measurements by Brahe and then analysis by Kepler. Objections to heliocentrism were on scientific grounds which were resolved by the discovery of inertia, Airy disks, and stellar aberration.
I think it feels serendipitous only if you think of "sweet" taste (or for that matter any taste) as occurring in this giant continuum of tastes where hitting a specific spot on that continuum is probabilistically impossible.
Ultimately, we experience tastes thanks to chemical receptors on the tongue, and as long as a substance triggers those receptors we experience a certain taste.
Now of course if triggering needs a very very specific combination of atoms, then it is not very probable, but we know especially from drug research that you can use similarities in molecular structure or sometimes in say the electron cloud of the molecule to perform this triggering. Caffeine for eg is a selective adenosine antagonist that fools the body and binds to adenosine receptors. Now of course int the case of caffeine the structures are somewhat similar, but you could imagine similar stuff happening with other molecules too
If you think of it as that sort of problem, it's not that surprising that many different types of molecules might achieve the same effect.
That artificial sweetener they mention halfway through, the one that gorillas are evolving not to taste, man that amused me when I first heard about it a few years ago. Chalk one up for hominidae.
One interesting thing in this context is that you can taste the difference between water and heavy water, even though they look the same as ball-and-sticks. Also heavy water is said to taste sweet
> Molecular structures of sucrose and aspartame, looking very different
I can’t imagine someone looking at these two molecules and thinking “surely they taste the same”.
They don’t taste the same. Aspartame has a very nasty aftertaste as compared to sucrose.
Re stevia, apparently how you taste it is determined by how sensitive your bitter taste receptors happen to be. It’s somehow also related to why some people can’t stand cilantro, for example.
For me, stevia is simply sweet with no aftertaste so I guess I’m lucky in this regard.
You are! As one who identifies as keto, I have experience with a wide range of artificial sweeteners. Stevia is one of my favorites but I can definitely taste the bitterness. Which is why I only use it either in combination with other sweeteners (e.g. Erythritol), or in places where only a slight amount of sweetness is desired.
Edit: I just had a thought: are we talking about putting it in coffee here? Because the bitterness of coffee and the bitterness of Stevia are pretty close and I can see the former masking the latter easily.
Stevia and monkfruit both taste awful to me. Not bitter specifically, but unpleasant in a way that I can't really describe, and do not at all enjoy eating. It also tends to make my stomach hurt.
Meanwhile I have no problem with cilantro or cucumbers.
I wonder if people have different genetic predispositions that influences how sugar taste to them. Like I have with cilantro (a bit, a tiny tiny bit is okayish but more than that and it's.. ugh... it's not even soap it's.. bleh..).
I'm left curious as to why our taste receptors are so attuned to sweetness if high sugar foods weren't historically correlated with being high in energy.
Perhaps because the high sugar foods that occur in nature contain nutrients we don't get elsewhere and help us fight disease. These sugars are also naturally packaged in a way that makes them behave quite unlike added sugars, they don't lead to the same insulin spikes or high blood pressure, and consuming fruits like berries alongside more processed, artificially sweetened foods can even reduce the insulin spikes of those foods.
I have thoughts about that, but IANAN (nutritionalist). Not all energy is the same, as in fructose (in sucrose, which we sense as sweeter) versus glucose (what composes carbs, and also in sucrose), two simple sugars. Glucose goes more directly into the bloodsteam during digestion. Fructose does not go straight to the bloodstream but is processed by the liver. Although it gets into the bloodstream slower, it gets stored by the liver faster, and we use this as an energey resevoir when we are not getting energy directly thorugh digestion. So maybe we crave this somtimes when we need to rebuild our energy stores. Or at least it seems that way for me. I crave sugar/fruit sometimes, particularly after exercising. I don't generally even eat sweets/desserts, so my body apparently isn't fooled into always wanting sugar. I would guess from my experience sugar plays a specific role and I want it at a certain time and not others.
Incidently, I get a headache when I eat processed sugar, but not fruit. (However, fruit will also give me a headache if I carmelize it, cooking it at a high temperature for a long time.) Anyway that is one reason I avoid sweetened foods and maybe why I don't get sucked into eating sugar all the time. And people think I am trying to be super healthy...
The references he gives in that section suggest that it boils down to a convenient way to try to gauge poison by contrasting sugars to bitterer phytochemicals. Plants with sugar may be less nutritious on average, but that's just counting calories/macronutrients, not taking into account poisonous substances.
1) Its still very, very high in energy. We're built to use it.
2) Fruits contain all sorts of good vitamins and minerals along with sugar. Two birds with one stone.
3) I don't know if we are any less "attuned" to it than fat or protein. Most people would eat a good steak over a bag of candy.
If nothing else: It's certainly useful that mother's milk tastes good to babies. Imagine what an evolutionary disadvantage it would be if it tasted bitter.
To make it explicit for those who haven't tasted it, mother's milk tastes distinctly sweet (literally), in a way cow milk does not.
So yeah, there's a probable purpose for sweet receptors. An interesting question is whether seeking sweet foods in modern adult life, which would probably not have been available in our evolution, guides us to a healthy diet.
This poses the opposite question: What might we have missed? Maybe there are some reverse-accidents, some significant random discoveries that, due to their randomness, didn't happen.
There was an SF story I read years ago where the core concept was that humanity had somehow "missed" an obvious power-source/FTL drive, which meant that the "solution" to the Drake Equation is that the galaxy is full of intelligent, star-spanning empires that are effectively stuck at a late-1800s tech level (with starships), because getting to there was easy, and doing all the complex 20th century stuff humanity has done is really hard. Hijinks and hilarity ensues when they reach earth.
i have been searching for a science fiction short story i read ~25 years ago - it was in a short story anthology book, probably not very famous because i've tried to plug it in and got nothing.
---
synopsis (since its a beautiful story and i may as well share it in case someone else here has read it and/or can prompt engineer chatgpt better than me):
- Humanity reached abundance but also got overpopulated - so the solution was to shard humanity by days. 1/7 of Humanity wakes and works on one day of the week, sleeps in cryopod the other 6 days.
- Main character is happily at work on a Monday tightening the screws on the planetary solar panels, when he notices a sleeping woman in another pod (another day, say Saturday idk) and falls in love on sight (i'm not 100% sure if it was physical-only, he may have read more about her or exchanged letters or something but cant fathom in-world reason how that would work)
- After a lot of personal cost and effort, he manages to get a once-in-a-lifetime exemption from the government to switch days, and wakes up on Saturday for the first time in his life.
- Goes over to see the woman... only to find she's asleep, because she just transferred to Monday because she also fell in love with him. He's barred from switching back because it was a onetime deal.
- Goes back to work to his new Saturday job... loosening screws on the planetary solar panels.
---
(above MAY be a hallucination of two stories, its been so long that i'm not sure anymore)
Read this a long time ago, then re-read it a couple of years ago. They called the pods "stoners" and it made me laugh. Can't remember the name though. It must have been in a collection of short stories.
It suggested Vernor Vinge's "A Deepness in the Sky", which has some vaguely related concepts but doesn't match the description at all, as far as I can tell.
Are compounds that might be seen in a clinical trial drawn from the same distribution as compounds that a lab chemist might accidentally taste? Is it weird that there's no overlap of a compound that is both very sweet and medically active?
I think this is because all newly-discovered knowledge inherently reflects the miracle of new life. The point at which an "unknown-unknown" piece of information is birthed into our awareness and becomes a known fact is always going to be a fascinating and surprising story. The excitement of informational peek-a-boo, the pulling back of the universal curtains on a discovery we never expected - we might be a little older, but the reaction never changes. Entrepreneurs call it their business pivot, chemists call it serendipity.
I can’t imagine someone looking at these two molecules and thinking “surely they taste the same”.
I think that's more of a shortcoming of our method of diagramming molecules. It might be more apparent if we had 3D visualizations of the molecules and the receptors.
Ace-K was developed by rational investigation of sucrose derivatives, undermining it as an example of 'serendipity'.
I looked at some of the sources linked on Wikipedia for the other anecdotes.
Ace-K: Newton, D. E. (2007). Food Chemistry (New Chemistry). Available on libgen. Also describes the other serendipitous discovery stories, but with no citation or evidence. For Ace-K, there are conflicting accounts of whether the chemist was licking his fingers to pick up a piece of paper or rubbing out a white spot on his sweater or shirt.
Sucralose: Eurekas and Euphorias: The Oxford Book of Scientific Anecdotes. Available on libgen. Also describes the same anecdotes for other drugs. The only supporting evidence for any of them is is a direct quote from James Schlatter on the discovery of aspartame:
"I was heating the aspartame in a flask with methanol when the mixture
bumped [boiled abruptly] onto the outside of the flask. As a result some of
the powder got onto my fingers. At a slightly later stage, when licking my fingers to pick up a piece of paper, I noticed a very strong, sweet taste. Initially, I thought that I must have had some sugar on my hands from earlier in the day. However, I quickly realised this could not be so, since I had washed my hands in the meantime. I therefore traced the powder on my hands back to the container into which I had placed the crystallised aspartylphenylalanine methyl ester. I felt that this dipeptide ester was not likely to be toxic and I therefore tasted a little of it and found that it was the substance which I had
previously tasted on my finger."
The book chalks up the 'test'/'taste' mixup with Ace-K to a language barrier (Phadnis's first name was Shashikant).
Processed Foods and the Consumer claims that Schlatter licked his finger to 'provide friction before reaching for a thin piece of laboratory equipment.'
The story about the discovery of saccharin is from The 100 Most Important Chemical Compounds: A Reference Guide, which also does not cite a source for the story.
An American Chemical Society Molecule of the Week article also reports the "tasting his hand after dinner" story for the discovery of saccharin, but notes that "in another version of the story" he tasted it on his cigarette, just like in the cyclamate discovery story. Of course, the NY Times obit for Sveda, discoverer of cyclamates, is that "he brushed his lips without having washed his hands and found that his fingers tasted sweet," rather than that he put his cigarette into the chemical.
Is it just me, or is this article way too contrived and all over the place? I grok'd the article because of its high engagement in HN, but I just could not find the point of this article, nor the value of it.
I am asking this question genuinely because I have been told that I am unable to "read between the lines" and that I am considered "transactional" in nature where I need things spelled out for me. I don't necessarily agree with this assessment... could it be that I'm not capable of extracting the content "between the lines?"
I think the author suggests that chemical-psychological research is quite inefficient, given that so many discoveries were random discoveries rather than products of systematic search and invention.
The point is that chemists are tasting a lot of the novel stuff they synthesize, if it doesn't look like it's going to cause instant cancer, even they they aren't supposed to.
Watching NileRed regularly, it does not at all surprise me.
I don't think there's some huge point beyond exploring an interesting question, and raising it in a forum where it's possible some people with more specific domain knowledge might offer some insight.
I don't think it's meant to imply a conspiracy, rather that lab safety around novel compounds is probably not as tight as people assume it is.
I will put forth another (possible) explanation: fake sugar has to be widely marketed, and "we were doing Important Science when we accidentally discovered this fake sugar" is a more marketable, easy-to-understand story than "we added/removed groups on a range of compounds determined likely to be sweet based on a literature review, in order of how amenable the reactions are to mass production, then tested each of them in rats".
Unfortunately, the chemists merely tasted, not ingested. Otherwise they would have known that their newly found artificial sweeteners cause nasty bowel issues.
I’m sure this is fascinating but sometimes I wish people would put the bottom line at the top of super long posts like this. It would be nice to transmit knowledge even to people who don’t have time to follow along on your multi thousand word voyage.
I've successfully avoided migraines for years by carefully avoiding sucralose and aspartame (and drinking little to no alcohol), but even a small serving of something "sugar-free" and within a few hours I'll get a crippling migraine. In college, I spent a while testing, and the link between both sucralose and aspartame and my migraines was perfectly reliable.
Alcohol in general has been harder to nail down. A single beer won't normally trigger a migraine, while sometimes a single glass of wine or small cocktail will. If I drank to excess it was hard to tell the difference between a hangover and a migraine; I wasn't that invested in social alcohol consumption, so I've mostly just been a teetotaler since college. Absinthe uniquely reliably gives me an acephalgic migraine with aura around 12 hours after drinking.
Edited to add: I've just stayed away from ace-K and sugar-alcohols as a precaution. I'm past the point in my life where I have any real interest in risking crippling migraines for the sake of personal curiosity.