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 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.
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.
It's still very popular here. Though, I live in hippy central. I know a lot of people that refuse to eat fake sweeteners and corn sugars. They're switching to these "throwbacks" and, for example, Hunts Ketchup because it has regular sugar. Anecdotaly, none of them have lost weight as a result that I know of. But they certainly have gotten more annoying.
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.
That is largely a myth. The difference isn't measurable in most practical cases.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.