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.
That is largely a myth. The difference isn't measurable in most practical cases.
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?
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.
There's more concern with artificial sweeteners than just glucose intolerance. They've also seen "thickening of the gut lining" -- it's demonstrable and a clear indication that SOMETHING is going on.
Likely there is an issue with stomach bacteria and an issue where the brain "tastes" sweet and thus primes the body for sweet.
I've moved to using Stevia as much as possible, because I don't look at artificial sweeteners as harmless. It seems that almost all artificial foods should be avoided. There's no point in margarine because butter is better (or use Coconut oil), preservatives hurt stomach bacteria and reduce digestion, a lot of Genetically Modified foods show tumor acceleration in rats and infertility in three generations, and what's next?
It seems to me that it's only a matter of time when we find the folly of artificial foods that are tested on the basis of "large quantities don't kill a rat" and the study was paid for by a billion dollar industry with a vested interest that can lobby government.
And I'm really sick of people in the Pro Science crowd chirping that Genetically Modified is just like cross breeding. The food we eat is so incredibly complex -- we barely have a clue about vitamins much less the macrobiotic processes. We barely understand transgenetic gene transfers that stands a lot of concepts of "Darwinist evolution" on its head and that's yet to sync into main stream thinking. Not all GM foods are alike and HOW the genes are transferred matter and YES, putting the genes of an animal in a tomato is something to pay close attention to.
The problem is we've let a profit-driven industry dictate a massive experiment on humankind -- and that's just nuts. The cells of the body are 90% bacteria -- and modern Western medicine barely acknowledges the role this colonial symbiosis plays on humanity.
It's amazing we haven't wiped ourselves out.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Correction. The study included 381 non-diabetic participants (healthy people). [http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-obesity-epidemic-scientists-say-1.2769196] In that study "Artificial sweetener consumers showed "markers" for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance." AFTER THAT, seven of those who did NOT consume the Artificial sweeteners "...blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment." That happened in 4 days... just 4. Artificial sweetener producers have deep hands in government policy. So the hordes of mice that contracted cancer throughout their organs were easily dismissed as coincidental lung infection: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... Then this news came along: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... But this news is troublesome to the profits of Artificial Sweetener producers. A followup article is needed: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
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 : )
Saccharin isnt used in diet drinks anymore for the most part
Actually, it IS... in the fountain varieties. AFAIK, there are at least three varieties of "fountain" Diet Coke... all-saccharin (popular with convenience stores and low-volume users who prefer it for its long, relatively temperature-indifferent shelf life), saccharin+aspartame blend (used by most fast food restaurants & 7-11 -- still has a reasonably long shelf life, but has to be kept cool to prevent the aspartame from prematurely breaking down) and all-aspartame (AFAIK, it's classified as a "specialty item" manufactured on demand only for the largest clients, including McDonald's and Burger King), which has a relatively short shelf life (~3-6 months).
In theory, most restaurants probably have enough product turnover to use the all-aspartame version... but Coca-Cola doesn't want the burden of having to actively engage in the kind of aggressive inventory management and rotation they'd have to do to make the all-aspartame more widely available. I believe it was actually McDonald's that approached Coca-Cola and convinced them to make it for them as a special product, then a few years later Burger King used it as a bargaining chip when negotiating their switch from Pepsi products to Coke products (basically telling Coca-Cola, "You're already making it for McDonald's... going forward, make enough extra for us whenever you make a batch for them.")
As far as I know, sucralose & ace-K aren't used by ANY Coke or Pepsi fountain drink. I believe the problem was that syrup is a low-margin cost-sensitive market segment, and restaurants wouldn't pay significantly more than current prices to get diet drinks made with sucralose & Ace-K.
Anyway, that's the real reason why "diet coke" from gas stations & nightclubs tastes like complete shit, and why Diet Coke from McDonald's and Burger King tastes better than fountain Diet Coke from just about everywhere else.