Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Link Between Artificial Sweeteners and Glucose Intolerance
onproton (3434437) writes The journal Nature released a study today that reveals a link between the consumption of artificial sweeteners and the development of glucose intolerance [note: abstract online; paper itself is paywalled], a leading risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes, citing a critical alteration of intestinal bacteria. Paradoxically, these non-caloric sweeteners, which can be up to 20,000 times sweeter than natural sugars, are often recommended to diabetes patients to control blood glucose levels. Sugar substitutes have come under additional fire lately from studies showing that eating artificially sweetened foods can lead to greater overall calorie consumption and even weight gain. While some, especially food industry officials, remain highly skeptical of such studies, more research still needs to be done to determine the actual risks these substances may pose to health.
Does HFCS count as a sugar substitute, or real sugar ?
A while back Mt Dew had a 'Throwback' drink that had 'real sugar'. Haven't seen it lately.
I won't stand for it! And I won't put up with it!
Saccharin isnt used in diet drinks anymore for the most part
and who consumes pure gluecose in any quantity?
They should have tested sugar vs hfcs vs Aspartame vs Sucralose
That weight gain claim stems from a study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health back in 2008. It was refuted the very next year in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, who found all sorts of problems with the study and the conclusions drawn by it. The glucose intolerance angle could be interesting, and have ramifications, but it was one study. After some more review, and more studies, we might be able to draw some real conclusions, but not right now.
Biology systems are a bunch of signal processings and feedbacks. Someone just had to read the proper math books.
I read up on this yesterday when it was posted to ArsTechnica. I'm a type 1 diabetic so studies like this catch my interest. The interesting part is that the mice that were given artificial sweetners had higher glucose levels than those with regular sucrose diets. The theory is that the artificial sweetners are affecting the bacteria in the gut of the mice, which is affecting how glucose is absorbed into the bloodstream.
One should not though that the human trial only included 7 volunteers, which is hardly enough for a good sample. I'm interested to see the findings of a test conducted on a larger sample group.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
As for why bacteria would react towards various artificial sweeteners in a similar way as they do with sugars, my semi-educated guess would be that maybe these bowel bacteria 'use' proteins similar to the ones in our taste buds, i.e. with binding preferences towards molecules which we percieve as sweet, in the regulation process of their metabolism.
Americans love this shit, and all the other chemicals they put into their sweet stuff. They think they stay lean and thin if they eat sweeteners instead of sugar. No wonder they have the highest rates of diabetes, obesity and cancer in the whole world. Stay away from this poisonous shit.
I had a steady weight for about 2-3 years and started drinking a lot of diet soda and gained 10 pounds. I have cut it out almost entirely (before I saw this study, in fact) and I'll see what happens. I still do like carbonated beverages, so I've switched to an unsweetened, naturally flavoured carbonated drink in a can ("Pure Life" by Nestle. Water, CO2, flavour). I was drinking soda water for awhile but the lack of taste eventually made me lose interest, plus there's salt in it.
Ultimately if you want to solve this problem, don't eat sugar OR artificial sweeteners. Don't put anything that could be found in a vending machine in your body. Good dietary tip right there. If everyone in the world just stopped drinking soft drinks, that'd be an enormous win for humanity's overall health. Sure, it would destroy a few of the most powerful companies on the planet in the process, but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Nothing else is involved.
I have lost 75lbs. Part of it was exercise, and the other part is cutting out Diet food from my Diet.
If I want something sweet, I eat something with Real Sugar.
If I want something fattening then I will eat something fattening, like with real butter.
I am not about organic and all natural. But you should focus more on foods that you know of. They will tend to fill you up and stop the craving.
Diet food, doesn't fill you up or solve your craving. So you eat more of it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Sucrazit (5% saccharin, 95% glucose), Sucralite (5% Sucralose), Sweet’n Low Gold (4% Aspartame).
and:
As saccharin exerted the most pronounced effect, we further studied its role as a prototypical artificial sweetener.
I wonder how stevia or erythritol compare.
"One concern is that people who use artificial sweeteners may replace the lost calories through other sources, possibly offsetting weight loss or health benefits, says Dr. Ludwig. This can happen because we like to fool ourselves: “I’m drinking diet soda, so it’s okay to have cake.”
WOW! What a biochemical analysis breakthrough! Oh wait, no, it's just puffed up nothing.
"Overstimulation of sugar receptors from frequent use of these hyper-intense sweeteners may limit tolerance for more complex tastes,” explains Dr. Ludwig. That means people who routinely use artificial sweeteners may start to find less intensely sweet foods"
So in other words, artificial sweeteners have no bearing on weight gain at all and eating high calorie foods does! I never would have thought!
As for the new study, mice and humans have different gut bacteria. The entire study is hyped up nonsense after you realize that. This is "aspartame causes cancer" all over again, which by the way, incorrectly used mice in their study as well.
... (1) Was the only altered variable the type of sweetener consumed? In other words, did the Participants change anything else about Their diets and exercises? (2) Is 7 People really a large enough sample to say this study is meaningful yet?
I know this is going to sound crazy, but instead of drinking diet soda or regular sugar sweetened soda, why not drink water?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Americans love this shit, and all the other chemicals they put into their sweet stuff. They think they stay lean and thin if they eat sweeteners instead of sugar. No wonder they have the highest rates of diabetes, obesity and cancer in the whole world. Stay away from this poisonous shit.
That's easier said than done.
Unless you're buying raw everything directly from a farmer, an incredibly large portion of food sold in the US is loaded with salt and/or real/fake sugar. Seriously, go to any supermarket and read the labels on the food they have there. You'll be surprised how many of them have sugar in them.
Eating artificial food isn't good for you.
The issue here seems to be an alteration of the gut-flora caused by artificial sweeteners (assumably by reducing sugars in the gut).
But might not this problem be addressed with pro-biotics? Gut flora seems an easy enough issue to address, no?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I trained with an exercise physiologist for 2 years and learned quite a bit about diet and exercise from him. While I wish I had the time to dig up all of the relevant papers, he summarized it this way (paraphrasing, of course):
"Your body gets into a routine and 'learns' how to function with your caloric intake and activity level. If you eat less but stay at the same activity level or become more active while eating the same, your body will go into starvation mode. It will make more efficient use of the calories you do take in and make more of an effort to store them as fat. It sees the change as a temporary thing, much like hibernation in the winter. If you change both your diet and exercise, your body will initially go into starvation, but will learn that it's a lifestyle change and will adjust accordingly. Usually that means losing weight."
It's actually a very simple concept. We as Americans tend to drink our calories (Grande Caramel Macchiato - 900 calories, mostly sweeteners) instead of just eating normal food. Our bodies have a natural response to "sweet", it was rare not that long ago, so it releases those endorphins as we eat processed or fake sugars. We also have a tendency not to pay attention to fast foods. A Carl's Jr (Hardee's) double westen cheeseburger is over 1000 calories and has over 50% of the typical persons daily requirements of sodium. Where we should be eating ~2k calories for a "normal" person (e.g. ~160 pounds, exercise about an hour a week), many of us are eating much more than that without realizing it.
Read food labels, don't eat processed/fast/crap food, don't drink your calories, leave a little bit on the plate, and get out for a walk for 20-30 minutes a few times a week. It'll make a difference.
Hi folks,
This is a fascinating study. But it is NOT appropriate to guide public policy yet. This is a study on mice. When we get studies on humans, then I'll be more interested.
Mind you, I'm all for cutting out artificial sweeteners. I am suspicious of putting synthetic chemicals in people on the assumption that it's healthier than sugar. I'd rather people eat and drink other healthier foods. Diet sodas with artificial sweeteners have been proven not to promote weight loss or the other improvements in health that we doctors usually hope for.
I hope this study prompts work on humans and real outcomes.
--JS
that any of the critters they are talking about are available in your average pro-biotic. Most of them have 3-12 different strains of bacteria. I haven't seen a definitive count of the number in the average gut, but it is a lot higher. Many of them can't be easily placed in a pill, and we don't know what they do or do not do anyway.
would do anything to lower the profits of the sugar companies and corn growing agribusinesses.
7.
Nothing to see here at this time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Then why drink 7UP, Sprite, Sierra Mist, or any other caffeine-free carbonated soft drink?
It is great to see some serious research on the aspartame/splendas type of artifical sweeteners based on amino acids. But you can do your own research. Go down to your local supermarket and look at all of the people who are 100+ lbs overweight who have a case or more of diet soda in their shopping cart. These people are severely disabled. Their quality of life is poor, their mobility is restricited, their life expectancy is greatly shortened, and the high blood sugar levels have severely affected their neurological function and cognitive processes. Worse, it is not their fault, even though their friends and families probably have castigated them about it from time to time. If there is one single person to blame, it would be Donald Rumsfeld, who as the new head of GD Searle, was instrumental in getting the federal government to approve aspartame back in the 1980s. That opened the floodgate of these sweeteners and, the rest, is history.
Same reason that people drink other sodas, because it tastes good.
Plus, corn is used extensively as feed for cattle. But since they really can't digest it for long without getting sick, Big Beef lays on the antibiotics.
Subsidized Corn: making people fat, draining aquifers, and creating superbugs - what can't it do?
The other part is satiation, and insulin response. Higher levels of fructose do not trigger a normal insulin response, and while food sweetened with sugar vs HFCS will have a similar caloric value --- you wont "feel" satiated due to the unbalance and irregular insulin response. Thus you are more inclined to continue to consume more.
Coca-cola for example, anywhere else in the world, except the U.S. is made with sugar. You will (should) feel satiated after consuming a bottle of a sugary beverage. Whereas with HFCS you will be more inclined to have another.
This information has been known for more than a decade. This article Consumption of sugars and the regulation of short-term satiety and food intake, is from 2003.
I imagine the Corn Industry lobby has done their best to suppress this information. The corn industry is heavily subsidized in the US, along with Sugar having import tariffs.
Hell, a few years back know their was a campaign to rename HFCS to Corn Sugar --- as HFCS has gotten too much bad press. I think it didn't get past the FDA
One of the world’s greater mysteries, as far as I’m concerned. Also, what’s up with caffeine-free diet Mountain Dew? Might as well just drink antifreeze. The color’s right, and it probably tastes better...
If you look at the charts on nature's site, they only mention ONE sugar substitute - SACCHARINE! Good grief, we've known for decades that stuff is not too great. No mention of the more modern sugar substitutes. Basically a junk article, but it's being quoted all over the internet as if it were fact.
The problem is that even if you get off of the artificial sweeteners, you still need to purge the "bad" gut bacteria that have taken up in your gut to reverse the effect.
Just a thought.
Also, what’s up with caffeine-free diet Mountain Dew?
No sugar, no caffeine, might as well call it Mountain Don't. But seriously, some countries ban caffeinated beverages that are light in color. All Mountain Dew citrus soda sold in Canada, for instance, was caffeine-free until early 2012.
I am type 2 and never touched sweeteners until I was told by my team of care givers that I should never ever, consume added sugar to anything. Get your sugar from your foods and add a sweetener to foods you want sweetened like coffee etc. you are better off using artificial sweeteners (even though they are suspect, than adding sugar to your diet) I starting to believe no one knows what is better, until it's too late, or they have made enough profit.
This isn't the first study to suggest that taking artificial sweeteners in drinks is bad and correlated to obesity (though they didn't actually test a direct connection to obesity in this study). Previously the theory was that the artificial sweeteners caused greater hunger later on by priming the body to expect a rush of sugar calories and getting nothing instead. One implication of that theory was that artificial sweeteners in conjunction with a real meal might still cause less weight gain than real sugar.
This study might change that if the negative effects on the gut bacteria happen even in the presence of other food.
Does anyone know if there's artificial sweetener studies that tackle the question of whether taking them in conjunction with real food makes a difference?
I stole this Sig
in 2000 years or so
At 25 years per generation that's only 80 generations or so.
In comparison, rats reach sexual maturity after 5 weeks, gestate for 21 days, and have about 5 litters with 7-14 baby rats per litter.
That's about 6 generations of rats per year. Conservatively.
We will "evolve" in 2000 years about as much as rats "evolve" every 13-14 years.
Not squeaking much.
On the other hand, it is also optimistic considering how pessimistic people tend to be regarding our survival on this planet at all.
Which IMHO has become a ridiculous notion for quite some time now.
There's too many of us at too many places at the same time for most things to wipe us out as a species.
Many things could fuck us up significantly... say a nuclear war... but we are too dispersed to be completely wiped out by anything that would not wipe out all life on Earth almost instantly.
But people love their antiquated 19th century ideas... After all that's only about 5 generations ago.
My parents' grandparents' time. Well... except on my mom's side.
She had a grandmother who lived to be 102.
Not much room for evolution there. Of genes OR ideas.
But in 2000 years... we'll get some shit done on the ideas front. That we've shown that we are capable of.
Unlike rats.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I was told several years ago that I had Type II Diabetes and never believed it. I was put on medications, Glimepiride (Maximum Dosage Daily) and Januvia. My A1C was 5.0 one month, then went to 7.5 which is when they diagnosed me with Diabetes. I took those medications for years and my A1C stayed at 5.5 every 3 months. I gained weight like crazy that I still can not shed.
I decided to test my own theory that I was not diabetic by eating nothing but sugar loaded junk. Candy, Cake, Ice Cream, all the drinks were regular and not diet or sugar free, I ate junk food galore day in and day out. At my next visit which was 6 months and my A1C was still 5.5 I told the nurse practitioner and she of course yelled at me but she couldn't deny the results so she stopped the Glimepiride and continued the Januvia.
I continued the very same course of eating nothing but junk and sugar loaded sugar coated food and drinks. My next visit 6 months later my A1C was still only 5.5 I was then taken off the Januvia.
Once again I ate nothing but junk and sugar loaded foods and drinks as well as candy, cookies, chips, you name it and I ate it. Understand prior to being diagnosed with diabetes I never ate much junk at all. I was a picky eater and ate a lot of baked potatoes plain, baked hamburger with grilled onions and green peppers, and a veggie. Never was a snack eater and never ate between meals. I was always small. Eating the very same way on the medications I gained weight.
My next visit six months later my A1C was yet again 5.5 so I had been given medication, I did not need, for years that made me ill, gain weight and had a lot of side effects all based on one A1C of 7.5. While on the medications my A1C was always at least 6.0 or higher and I was eating like I was told to eat. When I decided to take matters into my own hands and eat what I wanted my A1C dropped even after dropping the medications I continued to eat the same way and my A1C stayed constant at 5.5 and one or two times it was 5.3
Personally based on my own test I have to believe that the medications along with the diet diabetics are told to eat causes the A1C to go up.
Now my little experiment has left me with extra weight that is difficult to get off but at least I am not putting medications I do not need into my body nor do I count carbs or do sugar free anything.
Is my experiment a fluke? Possibly, however as I sit here eating a bowl of Doritos I am very happy I do not have to take any medications that was making me ill from the side effects that are not reversible.
Yes I do know that an A1C of 5.5 or anything over 5.0 is considered pre diabetic. Given I am 52 years old and my sugar levels have been all over the place since I was a kid, mainly on the low end and considered a borderline diabetic I was able to control it with eating habits. Doctors are far too quick to hand out medications that do more harm than good especially if the medications are not necessary.
The Faint had it spot on with their song Symptom Finger
My goal is to learn at least one new thing before going to sleep and to wake up after each sleep cycle.
Drink hot water whenever/wherever possible.
Casteism
I fear that it is the other way round.
Which can be noted from your conflation of several unrelated issues into a single one, without actual definition of a concrete question or an argument, because conflation is not based on logical reasoning but on a personal foregone conclusion you are working from.
Ergo, paragraphs like this, littered with stacked, incomplete, shotgun questions, extended into other questions:
Using the math you just listed, you honestly believe that people maintain this rate of weight gain purely through the difference in consumption vs output? Do Zucker rats become monstrously obese (at the expense of organs and muscle) on a calorie restricted diet because of ??? (Do they lack the willpower to resist food like other rats? and if not, why wouldn't their genetic make up have some corollary to human obesity?)
As you are not setting up theses with those questions (no argumentation following to prove or disprove) those are clearly just inquiries.
But, there is no single answer to all these questions, nor is there a way to provide argumentation which would answer them as a whole, as they are unrelated and even incomplete.
Seems to me that you have some personal belief about those rats and the issues regarding calories and obesity in general, which do not correspond to reality.
Which is clouding your reasoning regarding those subjects, by providing some kind of a reasoning shortcut known only to you, which allows you to treat those issues as a single, generalized one, while allowing you to ignore the obvious issues of such reasoning.
Like the fact that the Zucker rat argument carries no weight whatsoever as it is both an exception and an ENGINEERED exception to boot.
Those rats are tailored by the researchers through gene manipulation TO BE FAT and to be hungry, along with their brothers who are genetically tailored TO BE THIN.
On top of that, humans not being genetically manipulable laboratory animals... Zucker rats can't be used even as an analogy.
Which is why all your argumentation boils down to a single "Aaah, you don't get it" line.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
No one has mentioned the fact that the major artificial sweeteners, aspartame and others, also are used as mood control of the masses. They cause serious brain damage and are thought to contribute to Alzheimer's. These sweeteners dull the senses and have a sedative effect on the brain. Stay asleep little sheep... Alternative sweeteners like agave and stevia are much better for you.