3 ms·

> But studies suggest that fake sugars can also have unexpected effects on your gut and metabolic health and even promote food cravings and insulin resistance,

> But studies suggest that fake sugars can also have unexpected effects on your gut and metabolic health and even promote food cravings and insulin resistance, a precursor to Type 2 diabetes. I can’t help but think (other than being annoyed the studies aren’t linked right there) that it’s more of a correlation than causation that the artificial sweeteners are changing gut bacteria . Presumably you gut is adapt to high sugar intake, then all the sudden you’re not getting high sugar intake? Wouldn’t you expect these changes regardless of the artificial sweetener and wouldn’t the short term changes be basically a withdrawal from high amounts of table sugar which would be hard on the body in the short term but better off in the long term?

Floegipoky 4y ago
You're making some pretty big assumptions about the design of these unnamed studies. I don't think it's safe to assume the test population started with high sugar intakes, that the studies only tracked short-term effects, nor that they didn't use a control group.
kragen 4y ago
this is wrong; the experiments in question did hold sugar intake constant
- adrr 4y ago
  In rats and mice.
  - kragen 4y ago
    some of the experiments were in humans
- rudolph9 4y ago
  Do u have a link to the experiments? I couldn’t find them in the article
  - kragen 4y ago
    unfortunately not; it's been quite a while since i read them the reporter has no such excuse
TheCapn 4y ago
As far as I can recall, the last time I read a study on the subject the conclusion was that artificial sweeteners do have an affect on gut bacteria, but the study purposely did not state whether the change is of any actual harm/benefit. The discussion on the study was here on HackerNews and as I recall most people agreed with the methodology and outcomes. What is problematic is people reading conclusions into the study that were never there: that the change was harmful.
zwieback 4y ago
I've been hearing about sweeteners and gut flora for years and it still seems inconclusive. If there's a smoking gun it seems like it's hard to find and we've been eating artificial sweeteners for decades. What's creepy is that it's no longer a "diet" food but showing up unannounced.

Floegipoky 4y ago

You're making some pretty big assumptions about the design of these unnamed studies. I don't think it's safe to assume the test population started with high sugar intakes, that the studies only tracked short-term effects, nor that they didn't use a control group.

kragen 4y ago

this is wrong; the experiments in question did hold sugar intake constant

adrr 4y ago
In rats and mice.
- kragen 4y ago
  some of the experiments were in humans
rudolph9 4y ago
Do u have a link to the experiments? I couldn’t find them in the article
- kragen 4y ago
  unfortunately not; it's been quite a while since i read them the reporter has no such excuse

TheCapn 4y ago

As far as I can recall, the last time I read a study on the subject the conclusion was that artificial sweeteners do have an affect on gut bacteria, but the study purposely did not state whether the change is of any actual harm/benefit. The discussion on the study was here on HackerNews and as I recall most people agreed with the methodology and outcomes. What is problematic is people reading conclusions into the study that were never there: that the change was harmful.

zwieback 4y ago

I've been hearing about sweeteners and gut flora for years and it still seems inconclusive. If there's a smoking gun it seems like it's hard to find and we've been eating artificial sweeteners for decades. What's creepy is that it's no longer a "diet" food but showing up unannounced.