15 ms·

Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

204 points by danielam 12y ago

number_six 12y ago
So sugar is good again?
- orbitur 12y ago
  If you read the article, there's no such claim. Just that artificial sweeteners appear to change gut bacteria in a way that sugar doesn't.
- ethanbond 12y ago
  > Methadone is really harmful. > So heroin is back in? Evidently, both are bad and it doesn't seem to be immediately clear whether real sugar or artificial is more harmful. But we do know for a fact that excess carbohydrate intake causes numerous serious health problems (heart problems, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc).
  - __david__ 12y ago
    Which is depressing because carbohydrates are so tasty. It's all I can do to resist them.
    - Zelphyr 12y ago
      Same here though I've heard that with carbs and sugar, after a week or two without you find you don't crave them anymore. "I've heard" because I've not yet been able to attempt that particular experiment. :)
      - ethanbond 12y ago
        I've been doing low-carb (to varying degrees) for about 4 years now and love it. I used to be all about potatoes, bread, pasta, milk, etc. Never big on sweets, but the complex carbs... oh yes. Once I almost hit 200lb at 17-ish I decided to cut carbs (/r/keto) and it worked wonders. I was down to about 150 (a healthy weight for my size) in about a year, but the weight loss is asymptotic. I lost like 10 pounds in my first two weeks, but it took me another 8-9 months to lose the other 40. The first week or two are somewhat hellish for some people because you're essentially going through a withdrawal. It's nearly identical in mechanism and symptoms of a drug withdrawal. If anything, that should underline how detrimental regular excess carb intake can be. What's even worse than the normal "withdrawals," though, is when you cheat. When I first went to college I ate an absurd amount of carbs for a rush event (aka fun/eating challenge) and literally fell asleep at the table. Then I felt like shit for the next 3 days. That was my last time cheating :) You're absolutely right, though, after the first 1-3 weeks, your cravings stop, headaches stop, brain fog clears, you sleep amazingly, feel energized, and don't even notice the dessert menu. It's fascinating and I highly recommend it. You may hate it, you may love it. It has benefitted me in a lot of ways, and it continues to even as I somewhat elevate my carb intake in order to work out effectively.
    - ethanbond 12y ago
      Try going low carb for a month. There are amazing low carb foods too. Like steak. And bacon. And cheese.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    >But we do know for a fact that excess carbohydrate intake causes numerous serious health problems [...] Alzheimer's, Do we know that for a fact? Definitely?
    - ccallebs 12y ago
      Of course not. But there are varying degrees of evidence supporting the idea that consuming excess carbohydrates (and more specifically, "simple" carbohydrates) contributes to a wide array of health issues. We know consuming excess carbohydrates is bad for you the same way we know that climate change is happening. The same way we know that a sedentary lifestyle is detrimental to your health. The same way we know that smoking causes lung cancer and a cornucopia of other health concerns. Science rarely affords us the ability to make absolute statements.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        I fully agree that sugar is harmful. Parent post said "we know for a fact" that excess carbs cause alzheimers, and it is this specific strong claim that I'm challenging. I'm not even asking for "know for a fact". "Most researchers agree" will do. Sugar causes overweight; but people who are overweight might be less likely to get alzheimers than people who are thin. Today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32233571 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32233571 > Being overweight cuts the risk of dementia, according to the largest and most precise investigation into the relationship. (Researchers who found this are cautious, saying this is just one study and that it conflicts with other research). But in 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13213755 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13213755 > Middle aged people who are overweight but not obese, are 71% more likely to develop dementia than those with a normal weight, according to research. And confusingly in 2009 we thought that rapid weight loss might be an early sign of dementia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8055030.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8055030.stm > Researchers have produced more evidence that rapid weight loss in old age may be a early warning sign of dementia.
    - ethanbond 12y ago
      Well, it depends on your definition of fact. So far it's a fairly well supported and entirely non-refuted hypothesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082091 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082091
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    OT: Heroin can actually be safer, due to the long onset and long lasting effects of methadone. Methadone can take several hours to kick in, leading patients to think they might not have taken enough, and take some more. It also lasts much longer than Heroin. 3x10mg methadone pills may be enough to cause an overdose in a naive patient. Given the long times involved, this isn't an unrealistic scenario. Whereas with Heroin, a: oral bioavailability is rather low, and b: action happens faster, thus an OD is less likely. (Not true for IV usage, but hopefully such patients exercise more caution in the first place, reality excepted.) And both aren't really "bad" for you, as far as long-term medicines go. The side effect profile is positively tame compared to other commonly accepted medicines such as anti-depressants or mood stabilizers.
- zamalek 12y ago
  Given that "sweetness" is provided by sugar? Personally I've completely eliminated added salt and everything is now tasty as it was when I added salt - my taste has recovered from the over-stimulation. I can't imagine that added salt (or sweetener) is any different.
- Filligree 12y ago
  No, sugar is bad. It's just that other sweeteners are also bad. Solution: Stop sweetening everything.
tedunangst 12y ago
Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8331474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8331474
Sirey4 12y ago
I think one of the most important things to keep in mind when reading articles like this is the old mantra that "correlation does not equal causation". I'm always a bit skeptical when studies show partially successful statistics. I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand, and I still believe that consuming real sugar is orders of magnitudes worse than using sweeteners.
- wdewind 12y ago
  > I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand, and I still believe that consuming real sugar is orders of magnitudes worse than using sweeteners. For the gut, or in general? If for the gut, please expand.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- svachalek 12y ago
  Sample size of one here, but no amount of additional exercise or any other dietary change has ever helped my weight or overall energy level as switching from Coke to Diet Coke many years ago. The effect was nearly instant, dramatic, and permanent. Probably like many things, there are just too many variables to say A is good and B is bad.
- minikites 12y ago
  > "correlation does not equal causation" I hate this phrase so much because it's so often used to imply that "because there is correlation it means there can't be causation" > Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following: > "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality." > "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    So often used to imply what? I've seen a lot of people ignoring correlation when they really shouldn't, I have never in my life seen them using the implication backwards. How often do you see that?
watmough 12y ago
Shocker. Glad I stick with drinking tea, milk and water. Soda is bad news.
darcyparker 12y ago
Aspartame (Nutrasweet) is pretty controversial in how it got approved by the FDA. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-... When I was 8 years old, I started having grand mal seizures and my parents noted a strong correlation between drinking a Diet Coke and having a seizure. When they eliminated it from my diet, my seizures declined. Fortunately I stopped having seizures around 12 years of age. But given my experience, I continue to avoid all artificial sweeteners. I know sources like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Safety_and_approval_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Safety_and_approval_... claim that it is safe... and I agree that for most people it is probably okay in moderation. But based on my experience and the history of how Aspartame (Nutrasweet) got approved, I have serious doubts about its safety.
- ethanbond 12y ago
  Interestingly enough, a low carbohydrate (often including a switch to artificial sweeteners) is a well-established treatment for childhood epilepsy.
  - vowelless 12y ago
    The validity low carb diets is generally orthogonal to artificial sweeteners and probably should not be conflated.
    - ethanbond 12y ago
      Thus the phrase "often including..." I wasn't attempting to disprove or contribute to his claims. Just to point out an interesting intersection of diet and seizures.
      - vowelless 12y ago
        Can you give a source for aspartame/artificial sweeteners being often included with low carb diet for treating childhood epilepsy? It doesn't seem intuitive to me that a diet to treat such a disease would often include something like aspartame.
mrfusion 12y ago
Does anyone have any thoughts how Xylitol or Erythritol might fare under a study like this? They're currently my go to sweeteners. I'm not sure why they're not more popular.
- drawkbox 12y ago
  Add to that sorbitol. I like gum and and many brands like Orbit use it. Biggest side effect is it is actually a laxative in larger doses and some people have abdominal pain probably due to that (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/568700 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/568700). Erythritol seems like the best sweetner though with minimal side effects under 50mg per day.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  Both of those are sugar alcohols, and as such have laxative effects, among other things. But no idea how they'd fare under this sort of study.
- AndyNemmity 12y ago
  Xylitol is not more popular because a tiny dose will kill a dog. I use it as well, but am very careful with it. I treat it essentially like poison.
- amputect 12y ago
  Sugar alcohols can have some unpleasant side effects, which make them unpopular for general use. They can cause bloating, flatulence, and diarrhea if you consume too much of them. The pop-culture example of this is the review section on http://www.amazon.com/Haribo-Sugar-Free-Gummy-Bears/dp/B008JELLCA http://www.amazon.com/Haribo-Sugar-Free-Gummy-Bears/dp/B008J..., or in a less ridiculous form at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol#Safety and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol#Side_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol#Side_effects. That's not at all to say they're bad or poison; I love sugar-free gum a lot, but the amount of sugar alcohol in each piece is very low. The problem is just that the side effects mean that if they're widely used, eventually someone is going to crap themselves and blame your product, and almost nobody wants that.
cleaver 12y ago
Stevia was not included, so for now I'll assume it is safe. It does have some positive effects such as increasing insulin sensitivity. I only had diet soft drinks very occasionally, but I think I'll eliminate entirely and stick to water or juice.
- LordKano 12y ago
  I'm not sure that stevia is an "artificial" sweetener.
  - mapt 12y ago
    Your body doesn't care whether something was made by humans or whether it was made by nature. It only cares about the particularities of the molecules involved.
    - pbreit 12y ago
      But for 99% of human history everything put into human bodies was made by nature.
    - agumonkey 12y ago
      Right, the issue is not the thing, but the tests and reviews on said thing being made by humans.
    - jmcmichael 12y ago
      Yeah, it appears that stevia would likely have similar effects, as it has been suggested that tasting sweetness causes an spike in insulin without a corresponding bump in blood glucose levels, leading to an excess of insulin[1]. What causes the difference in effect between glucose and artificial sweeteners appears to be the taste of sweetness without the carbohydrates that would go along with natural sources of sweet taste. [1] Sucralose Affects Glycemic and Hormonal Responses to an Oral Glucose Load -http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc12-2221 http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc...
  - Zelphyr 12y ago
Allower 12y ago
No Fucking Shit
mesozoic 12y ago
Meh. Let me know when useful long term test are actually done on humans and not mice models.
- dandelion_lover 12y ago
  It is already happening with all those people drinking soda. And everyone knows it is not healthy.
Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
Very early in the research, if I am to just go off the article. First, the article really only addresses saccharin. Second, the healthy volunteer study appears to use max daily acceptable intake, which sounds reasonable at first. The amount, however, is the equivalent of 250 packets of sweet and low: http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm397725.htm#SummaryTable http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdd...
mapt 12y ago
It's entirely possible that this is just sloppy science journalism, but the distinction the SA article mentions sounds a bit ridiculous. "In the Israeli experiment, 10-week-old mice were fed a daily dose of aspartame, sucralose or saccharin. Another cluster of mice were given water laced with one of two natural sugars, glucose or sucrose. After 11 weeks, the mice receiving sugar were doing fine, whereas the mice fed artificial sweeteners had abnormally high blood sugar (glucose) levels, an indication that their tissues were having difficulty absorbing glucose from the blood. " So you feed group B sugar, and group A things that are not sugar, and then you put both groups through a glucose challenge, administering a calibrated amount of sugar, and group A's blood sugar spikes higher than group B's, which is not acclimated to metabolizing sugar. This is not surprising. I suppose I'd need to read the journal article later when I have time, to be sure. There are a lot of things that look like interesting correlations in tests like this that actually aren't, when you control for all of the variables, and consider the short-term and long-term adaptations the body makes.
- Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
  It looks like a good start to doing some more serious research, especially the human study. But as I mentioned in a comment, the healthy volunteer study appears to use max daily acceptable intake, which sounds reasonable at first. The amount, however, is the equivalent of 250 packets of sweet and low. That is the sloppy part of the article to me.
- pkaye 12y ago
  There was a documentary where identical twins did a health challenge or a month. One ate only carbs and the other only fat/protein. Guess which had blood sugar spikes at the end of the challenge... the one eating fat/protein.
  - SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
    But if you continue to eat low-carb, you don't end up with blood sugar spikes. I know I'm much better off on a low-carb diet than I ever have been, and my blood glucose level is much more stable. My brain works better, and I've lost a lot of weight. But I can't pig out on sweets or I get a hangover. It's a tradeoff. On the plus side, the sugar-loving bacteria in my gut have probably mostly died off, since I no longer get sugar cravings like I used to. So I don't feel like pigging out on sugar. Works for me.
Shivetya 12y ago
Purely anecdotal: what I remember from the time the Doc was trying to determine what was making me sick while eating was the list of items totally off my diet. Besides the obvious, no dairy, no carbonated, no caffeine, and limit on other items like fats and salts, was no artificial sweeteners. I didn't question it at the time as I was desperately in need of getting the situation fixed. Turned out the Ciphro I had taken; as last resort type medicine; had killed all the good bacteria and such in my intestinal tract letting something else move in. Another series of drugs later and that was cleared up but he still left me with a list of items to curtail for the next six months until all tests came clean and one was artificial sweeteners.
jrochkind1 12y ago
> had 50 percent fewer Bacteroidetes bacteria and 50 percent more Firmicutes bacteria than normal mice did. When they transferred a sample of the Firmicutes bacterial population from the obese mice into normal-weight ones, the normal mice became fatter. Woah. I assume someone is now doing research on introducing Bacteroidetes into the guts of obese people?
- mrfusion 12y ago
  I know you can buy probiotics. Can you buy just Bacteroidetes ?
  - washadjeffmad 12y ago
    General Biotics [http://www.generalbiotics.com http://www.generalbiotics.com] has some more information available on that (and a product based on the research).
ptx 12y ago
"He and his team analyzed a database of 381 men and women and found that those who used artificial sweeteners (...) were also more likely to have impaired glucose tolerance." So those who are intolerant to glucose tend to avoid glucose? That hardly seems surprising.
- stealthlogic 12y ago
  The point is that over time using artificial sweeteners causes this intolerance.
pbreit 12y ago
Fake sugar tastes bad and is unnecessary. Let's get rid of it already. Eat whole foods!
- washadjeffmad 12y ago
  It's funny how extracting and concentrating sucrose from certain hemi- and cellulose fibers (like their sponsor does) isn't very different from extracting and concentrating xylitol from other hemi- and cellulose fibers, but to some, it's worlds apart.
beat 12y ago
I'm currently trying to kick a Diet Coke habit (my equivalent of smoking), which I think is contributing to several health problems, not the least of which is carrying about 40 pounds more than I should around. Part of it, which isn't covered by these studies, is how a reliance on diet soda affects your diet overall. It serves as a lubricant, for lack of a better word, for dense starchy carbs and salt. I can wolf down french fries with diet soda, but it's a lot harder with just water, which doesn't cut the salt or grease. My real warning to cut back came from my mouth. I have an autoimmune problem that causes sores similar to cold sores. My salty, sour, spicy diet aggravates it, and the diet soda enables that diet (and is itself acidic). I'm tired of pain, so I'm cutting back. Lost five pounds in an instant.
- devy 12y ago
  Sorry to ask this personal question, do you know if there is a name for the autoimmune problem that causes scores?
  - zapt02 12y ago
    probably psoriasis
    - brightsize 12y ago
      Or lichen planus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen_planus#Oral_lichen_planus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen_planus#Oral_lichen_planu...
      - beat 12y ago
        It's lichen planus. Diagnosed years ago.
  - hncomment 12y ago
    Some such sores, if occasional, may just be canker sores: http://www.healthline.com/health/canker-sores http://www.healthline.com/health/canker-sores I've noted a correlation with: stress or lack of sleep; candy binges; eating scratchy foods like say popcorn.
stealthlogic 12y ago
Stop drinking all that diet soda you heathens!
6t6t6 12y ago
I really don't understand the need for "diet" soft drinks. I mean, soft drinks are ok, to drink sometimes. But if someone is drinking enough soft drink to worry about the amount of sugar intake, then he is drinking too much sodas. Soft drinks are like "light" cigarettes. What is the problem about drinking water?
- ghshephard 12y ago
  Flavored soft drinks taste better to some people than water. That's why people drink them more.
- imron 12y ago
  I once made fun of a friend for drinking a "diet" soft drink. Turns out he was diabetic and couldn't drink regular ones. I stopped making fun of people drinking diet soft drinks after that. I agree though that water is the best :-)
  - 6t6t6 12y ago
    I was not making fun about people drinking soft drinks. My point is that sweet drinks are unhealthy, no matter witch kind of sweetener they use. For me, the fact that there's people that ONLY drink soft-drinks (including fruit juices) is quite shocking. But anyway, seeing the amount of downvotes I got, I guess I touched some kind if american social tabu.
- pragmar 12y ago
  The need is for the caffeine--the easiest way to get off the diet soda train is green tea, and to ease off the caffeine from there. Others just don't find water satisfying for other reasons, which I can relate to. I tend to drink a 60/40% mix of seltzer and fruit juice, which after a week or so adapting tastes surprisingly sweet. In any case, there are options beyond water that aren't all bad.
  - mistercow 12y ago
    Plenty of popular sodas are not caffeinated, so that's probably not the reason.
encoderer 12y ago
I can't remember the source, but somebody was speaking recently on the US healthcare system. He made the point that the proof our healthcare in this country is broken is that when you go to the doctor to complain about illness nobody has ever been asked "How have you been eating?". Unless you have specific medical restrictions, there is little time spent on how your diet affects your health. My dream of quantified-self is a disrupted healthcare system focused on gestalt care.
- rodly 12y ago
  I think part of the reason for this is that generally speaking, people who eat poorly know they're eating poorly and would rather have their cake and eat it too. They know soda is bad for them and that apples are good for them. That sitting all day long doesn't expend a lot of energy and running the back hills for a half hour does. So when someone asks an ill person who eats poorly "How have you been eating?" they know they're about to receive a long story about how they've tried and failed, or that lately they've been "cheating" or that they've been super busy at work and kids and life is hard and they have no time for such things. What's the doctor supposed to say after this? Nothing. Because people are only going to change themselves when they truly want to and not when someone tells them they should. So instead they look for more efficient routes at attempting care. Drugs are pretty good at this for a while. Got high blood pressure? Here's some beta blockers. You got an aching back? Here's some pain medication for that. They make more money this way, their patients can reliably take the 3 seconds to swallow a pill everyday, and everyone seems to be pretty happy until they have a heart attack or need a wheelchair. It's a good thing that those things come with old age so their poor health condition can be blamed on yet again something other than their continued poor diet and lack of exercise. It's funny how simple being healthy is. Sleep, diet and exercise.
  - rando3826 12y ago
    Meh, your both wrong. When appropriate, doctors do ask about diet, they do recommend changes to diet, it does make a difference, and being healthy is not necessarily simple.
Illotus 12y ago
Science reporting is really hard. This story comes off as if there was enough research to start to move away from the researched sweeteners. Especially the part in the end is laughable: "Segal, for one, is taking no chances: he says that he has switched from using artificial to natural sweetener in his morning coffee." However the study done on humans had small sample size, the only studied sweetener was saccharin and the subjects were given the full ADI. These are very preliminary studies and are useful mostly for deciding future study targets. So not really studies to base your diet decisions on.

204 points by danielam 12y ago

number_six 12y ago

So sugar is good again?

orbitur 12y ago
If you read the article, there's no such claim. Just that artificial sweeteners appear to change gut bacteria in a way that sugar doesn't.
ethanbond 12y ago
> Methadone is really harmful. > So heroin is back in? Evidently, both are bad and it doesn't seem to be immediately clear whether real sugar or artificial is more harmful. But we do know for a fact that excess carbohydrate intake causes numerous serious health problems (heart problems, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc).
- __david__ 12y ago
  Which is depressing because carbohydrates are so tasty. It's all I can do to resist them.
  - Zelphyr 12y ago
    Same here though I've heard that with carbs and sugar, after a week or two without you find you don't crave them anymore. "I've heard" because I've not yet been able to attempt that particular experiment. :)
    - ethanbond 12y ago
      I've been doing low-carb (to varying degrees) for about 4 years now and love it. I used to be all about potatoes, bread, pasta, milk, etc. Never big on sweets, but the complex carbs... oh yes. Once I almost hit 200lb at 17-ish I decided to cut carbs (/r/keto) and it worked wonders. I was down to about 150 (a healthy weight for my size) in about a year, but the weight loss is asymptotic. I lost like 10 pounds in my first two weeks, but it took me another 8-9 months to lose the other 40. The first week or two are somewhat hellish for some people because you're essentially going through a withdrawal. It's nearly identical in mechanism and symptoms of a drug withdrawal. If anything, that should underline how detrimental regular excess carb intake can be. What's even worse than the normal "withdrawals," though, is when you cheat. When I first went to college I ate an absurd amount of carbs for a rush event (aka fun/eating challenge) and literally fell asleep at the table. Then I felt like shit for the next 3 days. That was my last time cheating :) You're absolutely right, though, after the first 1-3 weeks, your cravings stop, headaches stop, brain fog clears, you sleep amazingly, feel energized, and don't even notice the dessert menu. It's fascinating and I highly recommend it. You may hate it, you may love it. It has benefitted me in a lot of ways, and it continues to even as I somewhat elevate my carb intake in order to work out effectively.
  - ethanbond 12y ago
    Try going low carb for a month. There are amazing low carb foods too. Like steak. And bacon. And cheese.
- DanBC 12y ago
  >But we do know for a fact that excess carbohydrate intake causes numerous serious health problems [...] Alzheimer's, Do we know that for a fact? Definitely?
  - ccallebs 12y ago
    Of course not. But there are varying degrees of evidence supporting the idea that consuming excess carbohydrates (and more specifically, "simple" carbohydrates) contributes to a wide array of health issues. We know consuming excess carbohydrates is bad for you the same way we know that climate change is happening. The same way we know that a sedentary lifestyle is detrimental to your health. The same way we know that smoking causes lung cancer and a cornucopia of other health concerns. Science rarely affords us the ability to make absolute statements.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      I fully agree that sugar is harmful. Parent post said "we know for a fact" that excess carbs cause alzheimers, and it is this specific strong claim that I'm challenging. I'm not even asking for "know for a fact". "Most researchers agree" will do. Sugar causes overweight; but people who are overweight might be less likely to get alzheimers than people who are thin. Today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32233571 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32233571 > Being overweight cuts the risk of dementia, according to the largest and most precise investigation into the relationship. (Researchers who found this are cautious, saying this is just one study and that it conflicts with other research). But in 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13213755 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13213755 > Middle aged people who are overweight but not obese, are 71% more likely to develop dementia than those with a normal weight, according to research. And confusingly in 2009 we thought that rapid weight loss might be an early sign of dementia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8055030.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8055030.stm > Researchers have produced more evidence that rapid weight loss in old age may be a early warning sign of dementia.
  - ethanbond 12y ago
    Well, it depends on your definition of fact. So far it's a fairly well supported and entirely non-refuted hypothesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082091 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082091
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  OT: Heroin can actually be safer, due to the long onset and long lasting effects of methadone. Methadone can take several hours to kick in, leading patients to think they might not have taken enough, and take some more. It also lasts much longer than Heroin. 3x10mg methadone pills may be enough to cause an overdose in a naive patient. Given the long times involved, this isn't an unrealistic scenario. Whereas with Heroin, a: oral bioavailability is rather low, and b: action happens faster, thus an OD is less likely. (Not true for IV usage, but hopefully such patients exercise more caution in the first place, reality excepted.) And both aren't really "bad" for you, as far as long-term medicines go. The side effect profile is positively tame compared to other commonly accepted medicines such as anti-depressants or mood stabilizers.
zamalek 12y ago
Given that "sweetness" is provided by sugar? Personally I've completely eliminated added salt and everything is now tasty as it was when I added salt - my taste has recovered from the over-stimulation. I can't imagine that added salt (or sweetener) is any different.
Filligree 12y ago
No, sugar is bad. It's just that other sweeteners are also bad. Solution: Stop sweetening everything.

tedunangst 12y ago

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8331474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8331474

Sirey4 12y ago

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind when reading articles like this is the old mantra that "correlation does not equal causation". I'm always a bit skeptical when studies show partially successful statistics. I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand, and I still believe that consuming real sugar is orders of magnitudes worse than using sweeteners.

wdewind 12y ago
> I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand, and I still believe that consuming real sugar is orders of magnitudes worse than using sweeteners. For the gut, or in general? If for the gut, please expand.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
svachalek 12y ago
Sample size of one here, but no amount of additional exercise or any other dietary change has ever helped my weight or overall energy level as switching from Coke to Diet Coke many years ago. The effect was nearly instant, dramatic, and permanent. Probably like many things, there are just too many variables to say A is good and B is bad.
minikites 12y ago
> "correlation does not equal causation" I hate this phrase so much because it's so often used to imply that "because there is correlation it means there can't be causation" > Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following: > "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality." > "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  So often used to imply what? I've seen a lot of people ignoring correlation when they really shouldn't, I have never in my life seen them using the implication backwards. How often do you see that?

watmough 12y ago

Shocker. Glad I stick with drinking tea, milk and water. Soda is bad news.

darcyparker 12y ago

Aspartame (Nutrasweet) is pretty controversial in how it got approved by the FDA. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-... When I was 8 years old, I started having grand mal seizures and my parents noted a strong correlation between drinking a Diet Coke and having a seizure. When they eliminated it from my diet, my seizures declined. Fortunately I stopped having seizures around 12 years of age. But given my experience, I continue to avoid all artificial sweeteners. I know sources like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Safety_and_approval_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Safety_and_approval_... claim that it is safe... and I agree that for most people it is probably okay in moderation. But based on my experience and the history of how Aspartame (Nutrasweet) got approved, I have serious doubts about its safety.

ethanbond 12y ago
Interestingly enough, a low carbohydrate (often including a switch to artificial sweeteners) is a well-established treatment for childhood epilepsy.
- vowelless 12y ago
  The validity low carb diets is generally orthogonal to artificial sweeteners and probably should not be conflated.
  - ethanbond 12y ago
    Thus the phrase "often including..." I wasn't attempting to disprove or contribute to his claims. Just to point out an interesting intersection of diet and seizures.
    - vowelless 12y ago
      Can you give a source for aspartame/artificial sweeteners being often included with low carb diet for treating childhood epilepsy? It doesn't seem intuitive to me that a diet to treat such a disease would often include something like aspartame.

mrfusion 12y ago

Does anyone have any thoughts how Xylitol or Erythritol might fare under a study like this? They're currently my go to sweeteners. I'm not sure why they're not more popular.

drawkbox 12y ago
Add to that sorbitol. I like gum and and many brands like Orbit use it. Biggest side effect is it is actually a laxative in larger doses and some people have abdominal pain probably due to that (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/568700 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/568700). Erythritol seems like the best sweetner though with minimal side effects under 50mg per day.
TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
Both of those are sugar alcohols, and as such have laxative effects, among other things. But no idea how they'd fare under this sort of study.
AndyNemmity 12y ago
Xylitol is not more popular because a tiny dose will kill a dog. I use it as well, but am very careful with it. I treat it essentially like poison.
amputect 12y ago
Sugar alcohols can have some unpleasant side effects, which make them unpopular for general use. They can cause bloating, flatulence, and diarrhea if you consume too much of them. The pop-culture example of this is the review section on http://www.amazon.com/Haribo-Sugar-Free-Gummy-Bears/dp/B008JELLCA http://www.amazon.com/Haribo-Sugar-Free-Gummy-Bears/dp/B008J..., or in a less ridiculous form at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol#Safety and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol#Side_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol#Side_effects. That's not at all to say they're bad or poison; I love sugar-free gum a lot, but the amount of sugar alcohol in each piece is very low. The problem is just that the side effects mean that if they're widely used, eventually someone is going to crap themselves and blame your product, and almost nobody wants that.

cleaver 12y ago

Stevia was not included, so for now I'll assume it is safe. It does have some positive effects such as increasing insulin sensitivity. I only had diet soft drinks very occasionally, but I think I'll eliminate entirely and stick to water or juice.

LordKano 12y ago
I'm not sure that stevia is an "artificial" sweetener.
- mapt 12y ago
  Your body doesn't care whether something was made by humans or whether it was made by nature. It only cares about the particularities of the molecules involved.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    But for 99% of human history everything put into human bodies was made by nature.
  - agumonkey 12y ago
    Right, the issue is not the thing, but the tests and reviews on said thing being made by humans.
  - jmcmichael 12y ago
    Yeah, it appears that stevia would likely have similar effects, as it has been suggested that tasting sweetness causes an spike in insulin without a corresponding bump in blood glucose levels, leading to an excess of insulin[1]. What causes the difference in effect between glucose and artificial sweeteners appears to be the taste of sweetness without the carbohydrates that would go along with natural sources of sweet taste. [1] Sucralose Affects Glycemic and Hormonal Responses to an Oral Glucose Load -http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc12-2221 http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc...
- Zelphyr 12y ago

Allower 12y ago

No Fucking Shit

mesozoic 12y ago

Meh. Let me know when useful long term test are actually done on humans and not mice models.

dandelion_lover 12y ago
It is already happening with all those people drinking soda. And everyone knows it is not healthy.

Lost_BiomedE 12y ago

Very early in the research, if I am to just go off the article. First, the article really only addresses saccharin. Second, the healthy volunteer study appears to use max daily acceptable intake, which sounds reasonable at first. The amount, however, is the equivalent of 250 packets of sweet and low: http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm397725.htm#SummaryTable http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdd...

mapt 12y ago

It's entirely possible that this is just sloppy science journalism, but the distinction the SA article mentions sounds a bit ridiculous. "In the Israeli experiment, 10-week-old mice were fed a daily dose of aspartame, sucralose or saccharin. Another cluster of mice were given water laced with one of two natural sugars, glucose or sucrose. After 11 weeks, the mice receiving sugar were doing fine, whereas the mice fed artificial sweeteners had abnormally high blood sugar (glucose) levels, an indication that their tissues were having difficulty absorbing glucose from the blood. " So you feed group B sugar, and group A things that are not sugar, and then you put both groups through a glucose challenge, administering a calibrated amount of sugar, and group A's blood sugar spikes higher than group B's, which is not acclimated to metabolizing sugar. This is not surprising. I suppose I'd need to read the journal article later when I have time, to be sure. There are a lot of things that look like interesting correlations in tests like this that actually aren't, when you control for all of the variables, and consider the short-term and long-term adaptations the body makes.

Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
It looks like a good start to doing some more serious research, especially the human study. But as I mentioned in a comment, the healthy volunteer study appears to use max daily acceptable intake, which sounds reasonable at first. The amount, however, is the equivalent of 250 packets of sweet and low. That is the sloppy part of the article to me.
pkaye 12y ago
There was a documentary where identical twins did a health challenge or a month. One ate only carbs and the other only fat/protein. Guess which had blood sugar spikes at the end of the challenge... the one eating fat/protein.
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  But if you continue to eat low-carb, you don't end up with blood sugar spikes. I know I'm much better off on a low-carb diet than I ever have been, and my blood glucose level is much more stable. My brain works better, and I've lost a lot of weight. But I can't pig out on sweets or I get a hangover. It's a tradeoff. On the plus side, the sugar-loving bacteria in my gut have probably mostly died off, since I no longer get sugar cravings like I used to. So I don't feel like pigging out on sugar. Works for me.

Shivetya 12y ago

Purely anecdotal: what I remember from the time the Doc was trying to determine what was making me sick while eating was the list of items totally off my diet. Besides the obvious, no dairy, no carbonated, no caffeine, and limit on other items like fats and salts, was no artificial sweeteners. I didn't question it at the time as I was desperately in need of getting the situation fixed. Turned out the Ciphro I had taken; as last resort type medicine; had killed all the good bacteria and such in my intestinal tract letting something else move in. Another series of drugs later and that was cleared up but he still left me with a list of items to curtail for the next six months until all tests came clean and one was artificial sweeteners.

jrochkind1 12y ago

> had 50 percent fewer Bacteroidetes bacteria and 50 percent more Firmicutes bacteria than normal mice did. When they transferred a sample of the Firmicutes bacterial population from the obese mice into normal-weight ones, the normal mice became fatter. Woah. I assume someone is now doing research on introducing Bacteroidetes into the guts of obese people?

mrfusion 12y ago
I know you can buy probiotics. Can you buy just Bacteroidetes ?
- washadjeffmad 12y ago
  General Biotics [http://www.generalbiotics.com http://www.generalbiotics.com] has some more information available on that (and a product based on the research).

ptx 12y ago

"He and his team analyzed a database of 381 men and women and found that those who used artificial sweeteners (...) were also more likely to have impaired glucose tolerance." So those who are intolerant to glucose tend to avoid glucose? That hardly seems surprising.

stealthlogic 12y ago
The point is that over time using artificial sweeteners causes this intolerance.

pbreit 12y ago

Fake sugar tastes bad and is unnecessary. Let's get rid of it already. Eat whole foods!

washadjeffmad 12y ago
It's funny how extracting and concentrating sucrose from certain hemi- and cellulose fibers (like their sponsor does) isn't very different from extracting and concentrating xylitol from other hemi- and cellulose fibers, but to some, it's worlds apart.

beat 12y ago

I'm currently trying to kick a Diet Coke habit (my equivalent of smoking), which I think is contributing to several health problems, not the least of which is carrying about 40 pounds more than I should around. Part of it, which isn't covered by these studies, is how a reliance on diet soda affects your diet overall. It serves as a lubricant, for lack of a better word, for dense starchy carbs and salt. I can wolf down french fries with diet soda, but it's a lot harder with just water, which doesn't cut the salt or grease. My real warning to cut back came from my mouth. I have an autoimmune problem that causes sores similar to cold sores. My salty, sour, spicy diet aggravates it, and the diet soda enables that diet (and is itself acidic). I'm tired of pain, so I'm cutting back. Lost five pounds in an instant.

devy 12y ago
Sorry to ask this personal question, do you know if there is a name for the autoimmune problem that causes scores?
- zapt02 12y ago
  probably psoriasis
  - brightsize 12y ago
    Or lichen planus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen_planus#Oral_lichen_planus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen_planus#Oral_lichen_planu...
    - beat 12y ago
      It's lichen planus. Diagnosed years ago.
- hncomment 12y ago
  Some such sores, if occasional, may just be canker sores: http://www.healthline.com/health/canker-sores http://www.healthline.com/health/canker-sores I've noted a correlation with: stress or lack of sleep; candy binges; eating scratchy foods like say popcorn.

stealthlogic 12y ago

Stop drinking all that diet soda you heathens!

6t6t6 12y ago

I really don't understand the need for "diet" soft drinks. I mean, soft drinks are ok, to drink sometimes. But if someone is drinking enough soft drink to worry about the amount of sugar intake, then he is drinking too much sodas. Soft drinks are like "light" cigarettes. What is the problem about drinking water?

ghshephard 12y ago
Flavored soft drinks taste better to some people than water. That's why people drink them more.
imron 12y ago
I once made fun of a friend for drinking a "diet" soft drink. Turns out he was diabetic and couldn't drink regular ones. I stopped making fun of people drinking diet soft drinks after that. I agree though that water is the best :-)
- 6t6t6 12y ago
  I was not making fun about people drinking soft drinks. My point is that sweet drinks are unhealthy, no matter witch kind of sweetener they use. For me, the fact that there's people that ONLY drink soft-drinks (including fruit juices) is quite shocking. But anyway, seeing the amount of downvotes I got, I guess I touched some kind if american social tabu.
pragmar 12y ago
The need is for the caffeine--the easiest way to get off the diet soda train is green tea, and to ease off the caffeine from there. Others just don't find water satisfying for other reasons, which I can relate to. I tend to drink a 60/40% mix of seltzer and fruit juice, which after a week or so adapting tastes surprisingly sweet. In any case, there are options beyond water that aren't all bad.
- mistercow 12y ago
  Plenty of popular sodas are not caffeinated, so that's probably not the reason.

encoderer 12y ago

I can't remember the source, but somebody was speaking recently on the US healthcare system. He made the point that the proof our healthcare in this country is broken is that when you go to the doctor to complain about illness nobody has ever been asked "How have you been eating?". Unless you have specific medical restrictions, there is little time spent on how your diet affects your health. My dream of quantified-self is a disrupted healthcare system focused on gestalt care.

rodly 12y ago
I think part of the reason for this is that generally speaking, people who eat poorly know they're eating poorly and would rather have their cake and eat it too. They know soda is bad for them and that apples are good for them. That sitting all day long doesn't expend a lot of energy and running the back hills for a half hour does. So when someone asks an ill person who eats poorly "How have you been eating?" they know they're about to receive a long story about how they've tried and failed, or that lately they've been "cheating" or that they've been super busy at work and kids and life is hard and they have no time for such things. What's the doctor supposed to say after this? Nothing. Because people are only going to change themselves when they truly want to and not when someone tells them they should. So instead they look for more efficient routes at attempting care. Drugs are pretty good at this for a while. Got high blood pressure? Here's some beta blockers. You got an aching back? Here's some pain medication for that. They make more money this way, their patients can reliably take the 3 seconds to swallow a pill everyday, and everyone seems to be pretty happy until they have a heart attack or need a wheelchair. It's a good thing that those things come with old age so their poor health condition can be blamed on yet again something other than their continued poor diet and lack of exercise. It's funny how simple being healthy is. Sleep, diet and exercise.
- rando3826 12y ago
  Meh, your both wrong. When appropriate, doctors do ask about diet, they do recommend changes to diet, it does make a difference, and being healthy is not necessarily simple.

Illotus 12y ago

Science reporting is really hard. This story comes off as if there was enough research to start to move away from the researched sweeteners. Especially the part in the end is laughable: "Segal, for one, is taking no chances: he says that he has switched from using artificial to natural sweetener in his morning coffee." However the study done on humans had small sample size, the only studied sweetener was saccharin and the subjects were given the full ADI. These are very preliminary studies and are useful mostly for deciding future study targets. So not really studies to base your diet decisions on.