Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday December 09 2018, @02:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the low-cal-sweetener-makes-you-fat? dept.

A report posted to PLoS|ONE suggests low-calorie sweetener use may not be an effective means of weight control. The full article is available at that link; here is the abstract:

Introduction

Low-calorie sweetener use for weight control has come under increasing scrutiny as obesity, especially abdominal obesity, remain entrenched despite substantial low-calorie sweetener use. We evaluated whether chronic low-calorie sweetener use is a risk factor for abdominal obesity.

Participants and Methods

We used 8268 anthropometric measurements and 3096 food diary records with detailed information on low-calorie sweetener consumption in all food products, from 1454 participants (741 men, 713 women) in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging collected from 1984 to 2012 with median follow-up of 10 years (range: 0–28 years). At baseline, 785 were low-calorie sweetener non-users (51.7% men) and 669 participants were low-calorie sweetener users (50.1% men). Time-varying low-calorie sweetener use was operationalized as the proportion of visits since baseline at which low-calorie sweetener use was reported. We used marginal structural models to determine the association between baseline and time-varying low-calorie sweetener use with longitudinal outcomes—body mass index, waist circumference, obesity and abdominal obesity—with outcome status assessed at the visit following low-calorie sweetener ascertainment to minimize the potential for reverse causality. All models were adjusted for year of visit, age, sex, age by sex interaction, race, current smoking status, dietary intake (caffeine, fructose, protein, carbohydrate, and fat), physical activity, diabetes status, and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension score as confounders.

Results

With median follow-up of 10 years, low-calorie sweetener users had 0.80 kg/m2 higher body mass index (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17–1.44), 2.6 cm larger waist circumference (95% CI, 0.71–4.39), 36.7% higher prevalence (prevalence ratio = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10–1.69) and 53% higher incidence (hazard ratio = 1.53; 95% CI 1.10–2.12) of abdominal obesity than low-calorie sweetener non-users.

Conclusions

Low-calorie sweetener use is independently associated with heavier relative weight, a larger waist, and a higher prevalence and incidence of abdominal obesity suggesting that low-calorie sweetener use may not be an effective means of weight control.

I'm curious if there was a difference in outcome based on which low-calorie sweetener was used. Here they lumped (pun intended) them all together:

Low-calorie sweetener consumption was noted when consumption of food or drink containing low-calorie sweetener (aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, or sucralose) was recorded in the dietary record. This collection method identified low-calorie sweeteners found in all food products, not just diet soda.

Separately, does anyone know if the use of artificial sweeteners reduces the risk of dental cavities?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by stormwyrm on Sunday December 09 2018, @04:58AM (2 children)

    by stormwyrm (717) on Sunday December 09 2018, @04:58AM (#771813) Journal

    No, it's not old news. The actual state of scientific research on a possible link between artificial sweeteners and obesity has thus far been inconclusive [nih.gov] as a systematic review of the literature from 2010 states:

    At the current time, the jury remains out regarding a possible role of increased artificial sweetener use in the obesity and diabetes epidemics, whether adverse, beneficial or neutral.

    I can't find a more recent one, sorry. This new paper is additional data though, and hopefully it is another step on the way to actual scientific consensus, which doesn't seem to be very firm yet.

    --
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday December 09 2018, @02:23PM (1 child)

    by Gaaark (41) on Sunday December 09 2018, @02:23PM (#771921) Journal

    Shit, you just have to look at the people loading their shopping carts up with 'diet' pop to know it's conclusive: how much more proof do people need?

    I look at these people loading up, wheezing the whole time, and I think "Grab a couple cases of water instead! They're RIGHT THERE!"

    People just don't think for themselves and use their own eyes: they wait for science to tell them, again, that diet sugar causes obesity and cancer and then they go "Huh...but it's not conclusive, so.....glug glug."

    Peoples is dumb. Not ranting at you, @stormwyrm, just ranting at people....I hate seeing these people (saw one guy who pushed his shopping cart to the pop aisle and then had to have a sit down while he gasped and choked for a while before getting up and loading his cart up with the shit. Makes me mad at the greedy pop companies and stupid people.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @06:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @06:55PM (#772045)
      You're looking at the wrong thing just like they are. People are so distracted by the Diet Coke that they're not seeing the cookies, crackers, bread, chips, popcorn, rice and tortillas. Those all are just slightly more complex chains of sugar, and they all cause a hit to the blood sugar.