Slashdot Mirror


Sugar-Free Products Might Actually Stop Us From Getting Slimmer (dw.com)

Nutritionists suspected that artificial sweeteners weren't really helping people lose weight, according to a new article submitted by schwit1. Now there's hints of proof in a new aspartame study by the Massachusetts General Hospital. "We found that aspartame blocks a gut enzyme called intestinal alkaline phosphatase," explains Professor Hodin. IAP is produced in the small intestine. "We previously showed [this enzyme] can prevent obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome [a disease characterized by a combination of obesity, high blood pressure, a metabolic disorder and insulin resistance]. So, we think that aspartame might not work because, even as it is substituting for sugar, it blocks the beneficial aspects of IAP...."

The researchers confirmed their suspicions via a variety of tests on mice. In one case, they fed IAP directly to mice, who were also on a high-fat diet. It turned out that the IAP could effectively prevent the emergence of the metabolic syndrome. It also helped relieve symptoms in animals that were already suffering from the obesity-related illness.

8 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Good then bad then good by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sugar free. First good. Then bad. Then good. Now bad again. Much like eggs (which seem to bounce between good and bad every 6-8 years). Moderation is really the key. Eat moderately, exercise moderately and you'll be OK.. Unless your genes say otherwise, that is...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Good then bad then good by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sigh... this again.

      Everything you eat can have good and bad effects. That a new good or bad effect to some particular food may be discovered in the future does not invalidate those discovered previously.

      Furthermore, a lot of the "refinements" are just that - refinements. For example, fat. First it was "too much fat is bad". Then we broke fats down: "saturated fat is bad, unsaturated fat is good". Then we broke those down. For example, "polyunsaturated fats are mixed but often bad, monounsaturated are mixed but often good". Then you break those down - for example, "omega-3 polyunsaturated are good, most of the others are consumed in too much quantity relative to the amount of omega-3". And then you break those down - "ALA omega-3 is good, but EPA and DHA are better".

      Just because you learn more and break categories down in more detail doesn't mean that the previous, more general statements, were wrong. Yes, sometimes things will actually be wrong, but that's not the general case; you just add more information to the corpus.

      As to this article:

      However, aspartame does not block the enzyme directly. It does so through one of its intestinal breakdown products called phenylalanine.

      So it's not actually a study on aspartame (which breaks down immediately in the stomach to phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid). Phenylalanine is an amino acid, found in many foods in quantities well more than in typical amounts of aspartame - for example, eggs, meat / seafood, nuts, legumes, dairy, etc are all high in phenylalanine. Basically, most source of protein are also major sources of phenylalanine. So why spin this study as an anti-aspartame study? And furthermore, are people who eat high protein diets (aka, rich in phenylalanine) famous for being overweight, for that matter?

      Looks like this study involved a questionable procedure I've seen in the past - feeding mice ad libitum either aspartame-sweetened water, or just plain water. The ones that had the sweetened water ate more and gained more weight. Great, except that's not comparing what you're claiming it's comparing. If you want to see the benefits of switching from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened ones, the control group should be drinking sugar sweetened water ad libitum, not plain water. At least in this study the sweetener was in the water in this one; I've seen some where they put the sweetener in the food. Which leads to the result "gee, I am so shocked that they ate more of their food after you sweetened it up". Even in this case, they're having a sweet liquid with their food, which could on its own explain why they're eating more of it. I'm no expert in the flavour of lab mouse food, but I'm going to wager that it's not the most delicious of substances on Earth.

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    2. Re:Good then bad then good by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sugar free. First good. Then bad. Then good. Now bad again.

      This article doesn't say a word about sugar. It's not sugar that's good, it's aspartame that's worse.

      And it was always a questionable ingredient, despite an overwhelming amount of sponsored research claiming that it's all ok.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Good then bad then good by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sugar free. First good. Then bad. Then good. Now bad again.

      Actually - sugar-free is good, and has been good always. Sugar substitutes whose ingredients include toxins (methanol)? Now that sounds like it's just bad.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  2. Added sugar vs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a difference between adding aspartame and not adding it.

    Its not the absent of sugars that will stop us from getting slimmer. Its (allegedly) the adding of aspartame.
    So I should not eat carrots and tomatoes?
    "Sugar-Free Products Might Actually Stop Us From Getting Slimmer" I should drink more of Coca-Cola to get slimmer?

    PS
    Don't post this in the internet. Trump will now take this as we need more sugars in all food. "All I know is whats on the internet"
    Can someone call Bill Gates so he can remove it? He is the one with the off-switch, right?

  3. Aspartame and Mice by jwymanm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate these hit pieces about _all_ sugar free food when it is really about a specific calorie free sweetener in lab mice. I'd like to see other results using sugar alcohols, splenda, etc before saying they all do the same thing. I also would like to see it done in human trials. Not saying discount this test but it needs to be expanded and the frigging fake news (again!) headlines need to point out the specific substances involved and not label it everything. You suspect these are hit pieces because of this fact - but maybe it is just lazy journalism, who knows. Shills exist for every industry including both artificial and real sweeteners. My favorite for tea, Sweet'N Low caused cancer in rats' bladders but was shown not to in humans: http://www.health.com/health/g...

  4. Where can I get this IAP stuff? by WolphFang · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long before this intestinal alkaline phosphatase (IAP) stuff comes as pills or a liquid in the herbs in bottles section of the store? The aspartame being potentially bad for you isn't the interesting part. This is the interesting part: ... fed IAP directly to mice, who were also on a high-fat diet. It turned out that the IAP could effectively prevent the emergence of the metabolic syndrome. It also helped relieve symptoms in animals that were already suffering from the obesity-related illness.

    --
    leather-dog muksihs
    Blog: @muksihs
  5. aspartame only by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if they turn out to be reproducible, these results only apply to aspartame, not to all sugar-free products. Most sugar-free products don't contain aspartame.