Over ten years ago, a girlfriend I had at the time said something to me that I thought was as crazy as she was. She told me that I ought to stop using artificial sweeteners and stop drinking diet sodas because they can actually cause diabetes. Well, she was crazy in other ways but she may have been right in this area. The New York Times published an article that points out that artificial sweeteners may be very bad for many of us.
Artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar, causing metabolic changes that can be a precursor to diabetes, researchers are reporting.
The scientists performed a multitude of experiments, mostly on mice, to back up their assertion that the sweeteners alter the microbiome, the population of bacteria that is in the digestive system.
The different mix of microbes, the researchers contend, changes the metabolism of glucose, causing levels to rise higher after eating and to decline more slowly than they otherwise would.[One researcher] noted that many conditions, including obesity and diabetes, had been linked to changes in the microbiome. “What the study suggests,” she said, “is we should step back and reassess our extensive use of artificial sweeteners.”
Previous studies on the health effects of artificial sweeteners have come to conflicting and confusing findings. Some found that they were associated with weight loss; others found the exact opposite, that people who drank diet soda actually weighed more.
Some found a correlation between artificial sweeteners and diabetes, but those findings were not entirely convincing: Those who switch to the products may already be overweight and prone to the disease.
The Nature article itself is paywalled, but its abstract and figures are available on-line.
Related Stories
As mentioned here on SoylentNews, there is mounting evidence that artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar, causing metabolic changes that can be a precursor to diabetes, and the growing girth of the average American suggests the switch to artificial sweetener has failed to meet the diet promises made.
Soft drink giants Pepsi and Coca-Cola have been working for the last six years on finding another solution for a low- or no-calorie drink, and both have settled on Stevia, because it is claimed to be 100% natural (it comes from a plant) and has zero calories.
Apparently, the soda bottlers have noticed declining sales of these zero calorie drinks for the last 9 years, with a 7% drop last year alone. It seems quite probable that both have been ready with their formulas for some time. Since the problems with artificial sweeteners received wide press coverage, they have both decided to pounce.
According to CNBC.com Pepsi will release "Pepsi True", and Coke will release "Coca Cola Life " in the coming month and both have companies are combining Stevia with regular sugar for what they are calling an all naturally sweetened drink, with reduced calories.
Not being too sure of their new product, both are taking cautious marketing steps: Pepsi will initially sell only through Amazon.com, and Coke is only at Fresh Market stores in the US after trials in south America.
Unlike the zero calorie artificial sweeteners, the sugar/Stevia blend will still have around 60% of the calories of a regular soft drink. But it remains to be seen if consumers seeking natural and healthy products will find Pepsi True and Coca-Cola Life appealing. Reduced calorie soft drinks have not done well in the past, predominantly due to the after-taste of prior sweeteners.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:38PM
So the study found that mice who ate a variety of fake sugars, and some people who ate saccharin, had reduced glucose sensitivity. But when they flushed the mice out with antibiotics, their sensitivity returned to normal.
That raises the question - is impaired glucose tolerance bad by itself (does it damage your body by having all that extra glucose bouncing around) or is it normally just a symptom that your pancreas has been damaged? In which case, this isn't a problem, or at least not a problem in the way that typically leads to diabetes.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:51PM
As the "symptom" is transferable with the "bad gut bacteria", there doesn't seem to be a case of damaged pancreas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:30PM
Right... My question is whether or not there is more damage besides just the pancreas. Do high glucose levels cause damage to other parts of your body?
(Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:52PM
high glucose levels cause damage to all 'other' parts of the body. i don't know of a single organ system which isn't negatively affected by uncontrolled diabetes.
(that aside) this is a very interesting study! a microbiome (aka gut flora)(of a mouse) has been shown to be taking an active role in causing a pathology in response to diet. if one were into teleology one might be motivated to say: "them little buggies don't like some of our surprise chemical dodges". fortunately, no one here is into teleology.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:56PM
Doh, of course [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19 2014, @07:08AM
Your own citation does not seem to be so sure:
However, some research challenges the theory of hyperglycemia as the cause of diabetic complications.
It has been discovered that the serum of diabetics with neuropathy is toxic to nerves even if its blood sugar content is normal. Recent research suggests that in type 1 diabetics, the continuing autoimmune disease which initially destroyed the beta cells of the pancreas may also cause retinopathy,neuropathy,and nephropathy.
(Score: 2) by ls671 on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:40PM
I always tend to prefer old stuff that has been around for a while and tested by multiple generations before mine. Sugar vs artificial sweeteners, aspirin vs Tylenol, butter vs margerine, etc.
Just use less sugar. I put half a sugar in a big coffee mug.
Everything I write is lies, including this sentence.
(Score: 2) by ls671 on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:46PM
Oh also, sugar is the only fuel for your brain. Your brain works on sugar. You may get it from fruits but it is still sugar, not artificial sweeteners.
Everything I write is lies, including this sentence.
(Score: 5, Informative) by mendax on Friday September 19 2014, @01:13AM
Your entire body operates on sugar, actually glucose if I remember correctly, but you will get sugar from complex carbohydrates as well as protein. It's just that the body burns more calories to convert that into glucose than it would if you shoveled sugar cubes into your mouth or sucked down a couple liters of Coke.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Tuesday September 23 2014, @04:40PM
Oh also, sugar is the only fuel for your brain
False: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies [wikipedia.org]
And some people with epilepsy can reduce the amount of fits they get with a low carb ketogenic diet: http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epilepsy/dietary-therapies/ketogenic-diet [epilepsy.com]
Might also help for some metabolism related disorders - by using a different metabolic path you can avoid the faulty one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Indications_and_contra-indications [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Darth Turbogeek on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:10PM
TBH the whole artificial sweetener thing seems to be far more prevalent in soft drinks. Which pretty much says one thing - if you are serious about your weight and health, drop soft drinks entirely, dont just go "diet". And frankly, how hard is that to do?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:36PM
You can find artificial sweetner in all kinds of foods.
Yogurt
Canned fruit
Ice cream
Jams & jellies
Protein bars & powders
kids vitamins
Basically any packaged food that is labelled low-carb or low-sugar.
(Score: 3) by kaszz on Friday September 19 2014, @12:21AM
So drop them all?
The common factor is that they are all processed food..
Grab a carrot, melon, apple, pear or raspberry if you need sweets. If it comes from a factory.. it's fucked!
(Score: 2) by pendorbound on Friday September 19 2014, @02:30PM
Nice theory but… I’ve dropped 200lbs over the last three years. I drink 2+ liters of diet soda on a more or less daily basis.
Sorry, but aspartame at least doesn’t cause any problems with weight regulation. Eating three meals worth of calories at every sitting does, which is what I stopped doing…
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday September 19 2014, @10:10AM
Better yet, don't use any sugar at all. I don't put sugar in any drink. You can get used to it, it's not that hard.
As of today, if someone hands me a coffee with sugar, I can't drink it. It makes me want to puke.
(Score: 2) by ls671 on Friday September 19 2014, @10:25AM
I understand, same with me with regards to tea.
Everything I write is lies, including this sentence.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday September 18 2014, @10:42PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:35PM
From the article, the use of artificial sweeteners changes the makeup of the gut bacteria. This altered makeup is what drives the change in glucose response.
What I didn't have answered from the article:
1. Is there any theorized cause of the increase in problem gut bacteria? Can they metabolize the artificial sweetener?
2. Was there a dependence on the sweetener used? It seems that all three of the most popular were used in conjunction.
3. Without antibiotics, did the mice recover when not consuming the sweetener?
From this study I don't think I should be drinking any soda at lunch. That leaves only one carbonated beverage left: beer. Twist my arm.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:50PM
Or carbonated water.
If you like the "bite" of soda then carbonated water will do it for you.
I make my own, with a ~$130 investment in equipment you can make a 2 litre bottle of carbonated water for about 2 cents.
$15 for a carbonator cap [amazon.com]
$10 for hoses and stuff. [amazon.com]
$40 for a regulator [amazon.com]
$65 for a 5lb co2 aluminum cylinder [amazon.com]
co2 fillups will vary by region, in LA was paying ~$15 at tavernservice.com and that's good for a couple of hundred liters
It is more economical if you use a bigger cylinder, the difference between 5lb and 10lb refill is usually only a couple of bucks.
One 5lb tank is good for ~300 liters of water.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by cyrano on Friday September 19 2014, @01:39AM
In other research it was shown that extremely long sugars can be absorbed by the body. Until recently, these were labelled as "zero calorie" and "fiber". It solely depends on how healthy your gut bacteria are. Some people do metabolize these polysaccharides. Some develop gas, others just get fat.
Polysaccharides are not mainly sweeteners, but you will find them in a lot of "light" products.
Older research in France showed that mice developed intestinal cancer when fed a high polysaccharide diet.
All other sweeteners should metabolize too, since they come in shorter chains. I can't imagine a sweetener that doesn't get absorbed.
Another problem is that we have developed a sweet tooth. There's sugar in a lot of foods that shouldn't contain any added sugar. You can hardly buy any processed food without some added sugar.
The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear. - Kali [kali.org]
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday September 19 2014, @10:42AM
So, drink beer. A glass of beer is healthier for you than a can of coke.
Or water. Or wine. Or tea. Anything is better than drinking the equivalent to a few tablespoons of pure sugar.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by xtronics on Thursday September 18 2014, @11:46PM
If you have two variables, sugar and an AS(Artificial Sweetener) You need 8 experimental groups for each. I don't think they did this - thus this isn't quite real science.
You need a before with and without sugar and an after:
With sugar
With AS
With Sugar and AS
With neither
Basic science philosophy.
We already knew that reducing sugar reduces glucose tolerance. If this is accomplished via AS it does not show it as a causative factor.
Doing real science is different than grant seeking behavior.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Bytram on Friday September 19 2014, @01:23AM
(Score: 2) by dublet on Friday September 19 2014, @11:03AM
In response to this, I've conducted my own experiment on some mice and fed them nothing but HFCS for two weeks. This is the end result [pickandmixture.co.uk].
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday September 19 2014, @12:30AM
Another article without paywall: Research shows zero-calorie sweeteners can raise blood sugar [wsj.com]
The conclusion from this is that you should not ingest any artificial stuff. Sugar is alright, in moderation, artificial stuff is not.
Another article that points to one more bad artificial: Top 4 most dangerous artificial sweeteners [fitday.com]
1. Aspartame
2. Aceslulfame-K
3. Sucralose
4. Saccharin
And when you buy real food. Pay attention to not get those wrecked by genetic modification (GMO) or lined with pesticides.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday September 19 2014, @07:37PM
It was decades ago, and I don't remember the details (and they only tested one artificial sweetener) but the summary was (approx.):
If you eat artificial sweeteners, your body learns to think of sweet things as low calorie...so you don't stop being hungry.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.