SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 10 2018, @02:27AM (2 children)
My family has been on a strict ketogenic diet for 2.5 years now. When we started it I bought a blood glucose monitor that could also handle strips for testing ketosis, so that my wife and I could closely track how our bodies were handling it. Initially stevia was a big part of the transition, so I have some observations.
Splenda, nutrasweet, and other such sweeteners you find in diet soda (I used to drink a lot of diet soda) did spike my blood glucose levels. It might not be sugar, but as far as blood glucose my body could not tell the difference.
Stevia, no matter how much we use, does not affect our blood glucose by itself.
After an adjustment period of about a month, we lost our sweet tooth. We no longer craved sweetness. We even decreased our stevia intake to a minimum, because when we used too much it was cloying. A month after that it was the holidays and we backslid a little bit by having a nibble of fudge or holiday cookies, but almost immediately the sugar made us feel sick. It served as a strong deterrent to ingesting sugar or carbohydrates.
Generally we have felt much better on the diet, which is the reason we have stuck with it. No more roller coaster rides between blood sugar peaks. Even keel, all the time. It has not, however, been a weight loss panacea. I don't know why yet, but monitoring my blood sugar I have recorded that I wake up in the morning with the highest blood sugar levels, despite having eaten nothing at all; "gluconeogenesis [wikipedia.org]" they call that, and apparently occurs when your body manufactures its own glucose because you're not eating enough of it.
tl;dr; even if you ingest no sugar or carbohydrates at all your body will manufacture its own, so you're fucked no matter what you do. :-)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Tuesday December 11 2018, @02:59PM (1 child)
> I don't know why yet, but monitoring my blood sugar I have recorded that I wake up in the morning with the highest blood sugar levels, despite having eaten nothing at all ...
I attribute mine to the Dawn Phenomenon or Somogyi Effect [medicalnewstoday.com].
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:21PM
My understanding is that gluconeogenesis is the mechanism linked to both of those.
In practice it's frustrating to pursue a relentless ketogenic diet to control blood sugar levels and force the body to burn fat for energy (ketosis), only to have the body say 'neener, neener' and make its own glucose and forestall ketosis.
Washington DC delenda est.