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.
It's sugar, just absorbed faster because it's already fructose and glucose. Table sugar (sucrose) has to be digested to break it down into fructose and glucose.
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.
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
Per the study they tested saccharin, sucralose and aspartame.
But the sucralose and aspartame were secondary in the testing, most of the testing was straight glucose vs. sucrose + saccharin vs plain sucrose. From what I read so far.
If artificial sweeteners are actually giving some people diabetes by disrupting their sugar absorption, then that is indirectly leading to their weight gain through the problems caused by diabetes or at least a diabetes-like state in their blood stream. It doesn't mean that the artificial sweetener itself is directly causing the weight gain.
Disappointed this submission didn't link to the article in New Scientist which does a better job explaining the paper.
Actually...that might well be the case! I've seen stories trying to debunk this study but it sure looks solid from my perspective.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
sugar: 50% fructose, 50% glucose HFCS: 55% fructose, 45% glucose
zomg, clearly hfcs is the reason people are getting so much fatter.
Most of the glucose one ingests goes directly to "blood sugar", where insulin (if you still have sufficient of the latter **) mops up any unused glucose, converts it to a storable molecule, and stores it in muscle or fatty tissues until needed. Fructose, on the other hand, mostly gets converted to fats in the liver, which are then stored until needed.
OK, "needed" does not only refer to exercise ONLY, but also to metabolic processes (e.g. breaking up more complex sugars/starches for digestion), thinking, etc. - it's a general cell fuel. So glucose is more readily available in the blood and thus gets used more and stored less. Fructose in the presence of glucose gets stored more than fructose alone.
Sorry, no citations, as I was hard pressed to find sufficient details (in layman's terms) on the internet to confirm this when I read it in an article. I had to track down a dietitian to confirm it - apparently it's common knowledge in that field.
** = Diabetics usually do not produce sufficient insulin, as you may know. The excess glucose in the blood damages proteins in a process called Glycosylation (layman's description, it's not that simple in reality) - including a lot of important tissues like coronary veins. HbA1c is glycosylated hemoglobin which can be easily tested via blood tests - a blood percentage HbA1c against "normal" hemoglobin above about 6.4% represents a sudden increase in risk of cardiovascular disease.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
If you own your own property, that neighboring tract housing would likely result in a tremendous increase in property value for you, at which point you'd be able to sell and relocate to an affordable area that's free from the blight of little damn kids and freeloading farmers. I recommend Maine if you don't hate cold.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
HFCS is more of a "super sugar" than a sugar substitute. Fructose is a natural sugar, and HFCS in its pure laboratory form is only a highly concentrated fructose derived from corn. (high fructose corn syrup).
For me at least, it is a health concern since if I eat or drink some things that contain HFCS I am more prone to asthma attacks. This may not be due to the HFCS itself; it may be some impurity in food quality HFCS, or it may be some other additive that is commonly used with HFCS. I don't care: I know if I avoid HFCS I don't have asthma; otherwise I often have exercise induced asthma which really limits my bicycling.
HFCS is used in foods and drinks for a couple of reasons: it has a sweeter taste than sucrose; it has a documented affect on depressing satiation so people consume more of the product than if sucrose was used; and I think because it is a liquid that is often shipped in railway tanker cars its delivery costs to the food factory are cheaper.
Fructose is a form of sugar that has to be converted in the liver to a different form before it can be used. HFCS puts a strain on the liver, and the blood glucose regulatory mechanisms, that does not occur with any natural foods. Anyone with a history of hepatitis, hypoglycemia, or diabetes maybe would want to avoid HFCS.
Will
High Fructose corn syrup is called HIGH fructose because it contains a higher concentration of fructose
Higher than what?
I'll answer that for you. It's called high-fructose corn syrup because it has more fructose than the preexisting product "corn syrup" (from which it is made). Corn syrup is all glucose (and water), made by hydrolyzing corn starch. High-fructose corn syrup is made by using an isomerase enzyme to convert glucose to fructose.
Meanwhile, fructose in sucrose is bound to glucose at 50 to 50 mix which must be broken in the body through the use of a(n) enzyme(s).
This is true, and there are probably subtle metabolic effects between sucrose and a mixture of glucose and fructose. However, sucrose is not "sugar later". While it needs to be hydrolyzed into monosaccharides, that's a fast process. "Sugar later" is more like starch, which is a glucose chain that actually takes some time to digest.
On top of that, fructose which occurs naturally tends to be bound to fiber, i.e. indigestible cellulose.
Bound to? Not necessarily. "In the presence of?" Sure, often, but that's the difference between natural foods and processed foods. Soda is flavored sugar water without any of the other products that normally come along with sugar -- regardless of whether you make it with beet sugar, cane sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, or honey.
That's like saying salted almonds occur naturally.
High-fructose corn syrup is a 1:1 solution of glucose and fructose (except for the 80-20 kind). You'll find 1:1 solutions of glucose and fructose in honey, figs, and grapes (yes, along with a bevy of non-sugar chemicals). It's corn starch that's processed by enzymes into sugars that you find everywhere in the natural world. Chemically speaking, there's nothing strange, sinister, or synthetic about it.
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
Well the other wrinkle is the effect that insulin has on the body storing or burning fat. When insulin levels spike, the fat cells are unable to release fatty acids back into the blood stream for consumption.
So, if a person eats fruit, sure the fructose is converted into 'fat' by the liver, but the body is able to use it for fuel immediately. When glucose (and insulin) levels spike, the fat cells in effect take up the nutrients, but don't release anything back into the blood stream to meet the body's energy needs. If a person is gorging themselves on high carb food; it's completely understandable why they'd continually feel hungry, despite putting on fat. =/
Personally I think this explains why fat people are always hungry, and why high carbohydrate meals lead to hunger so quickly after eating. The difference between individuals isn't in willpower, or that trope 'calories in vs calories out', but in how sensitive different tissues are to insulin.
(Also why exercise leads to weight loss, since training makes muscle tissue more sensitive to insulin, and fat cells less so. Seriously the amount of calories burned through exercise is laughable.)
From your reply I can only assume that you are deliberately being dense.
I.e. You are trolling.
Or, you would not have acted like you haven't realized that when I'm talking about there being 30% more fructose, and then saying that there is 4:3 mix in favor of "sugar for later" - that I'm not talking about sucrose but of fructose as "sugar for later", i.e. FAT.
In fact, if you weren't trolling you could NEVER EVEN THINK that I was talking about sucrose, because you apparently acknowledge that you know that sucrose needs to be hydrolyzed into glucose and fructose to be used for energy by the body.
I.e. You know what I'm talking about but you still choose to be obtuse.
Nor would you spout the 1 : 1 nonsense.
HFCS 55 is a 55 : 42 fructose-glucose mix.
Which, as I've explained above, comes out to 2 : 1 ratio in consumption of fructose and glucose through HFCS, compared to 1 : 1 ratio when consuming sucrose.
Because the human body ends up eating twice as much of fructose when ingesting HFCS than when ingesting sucrose, while trying to raise the glucose in the blood to the same level.
I.e. Your brain is hungrier for glucose longer.
It wants two spoons of HFCS where a single spoon of sucrose would suffice.
But then again... you are trolling.
Or you would not equate cheap HFCS used in Coke and Pepsi with VERY EXPENSIVE insect juice used in practically NOTHING commercially - because it is expensive and not "roundup ready".
And it is also not a 55 : 43 mix, nor is it a 50 : 50 mix, but a whole other ball game which includes various antibacterial properties, a different mixture of mono- and polysaccharides and various other stuff which bees dump into their insect juice.
Which can be gleaned from the link above.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens