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.
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.
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.
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.