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.
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.
The main difference is it is cheaper because it can be produced from corn.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You're half right. Most diet food is low in fat and high in refined carbohydrates. Snackwells are a great example of this push towards a low fat dogma that has plagued the USA since the 70s. So yes, if you eat "diet" food, you can actually gain weight. However, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. High fat/low carb diets trump all others, so eat that butter, but you should eschew sugar if you're trying to lose weight. There's no clear cut evidence that artificial sweeteners have a negative effect on weight gain, either.
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.
Hunts ketchup used to use sugar instead of HFCS. It no longer does. They still have a Hunts "Natural" ketchup that uses sugar, but I believe all of the other Hunts ketchup has reverted to once again using HFCS. Tell your hippie friends to read the label before simply assuming their Hunts is HFCS-free.
There's other reasons for avoiding HFCS besides wanting to lose weight or trying to be healthy. I avoid it because I hate corn farmers and wish the Cuban embargo would be lifted to dramatically decrease the cost of cane sugar.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
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.
A couple of thoughts:
The researchers did show some suggestive evidence that gut microflora impacts glucose metabolism and that use of artificial sweetners can disrupt that. The numbers are low and it's not clear how germaine the results are too humans (poor mice...).
However, consider this: The microbiota changes only occur in mice fed ONLY the artificial sweetener. The thesis being that this clogs up some unknown regulatory pathway in the microbiota which leads to glucose intolerance. Although the did perform some mix-back experiments (n=7), they did not perform the standard 'rescue' experiment which, for humans anyway, would be very telling:
What happens with a Diet Coke and a Snicker's Bar? It's always best to test these ideas under real world conditions.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"a lot of Genetically Modified foods show tumor acceleration in rats and infertility in three generations" Um, no, Just no. Stop it.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
No, the SPECULATION is that it's due to gut bacteria.
They don't even know if it's a real effect. It was 4 out of 7 people, and not with the best controls.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
sugar: 50% fructose, 50% glucose
HFCS: 55% fructose, 45% glucose
zomg, clearly hfcs is the reason people are getting so much fatter.
You expect a 50/50 mix, and you're getting 45/55 mix.
You key off of the 45 (glucose), so you're expecting 45 fructose.
You're getting 55/45 the fructose you expect.
Bottom line: 22.2% of the fructose in HFCS isn't handled properly. Fructose isn't a problem unless you have tons of it. Fruit has fiber so it generally isn't a problem - you'll be full or bored of fruit before you consume too much fructose by eating fruit. Fruit juice is bad. HFCS is bad. HFCS being used in some many things can make it hard to avoid.