4 ms·

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 experi

by 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.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    Plot twist: the sugar loving bacteria in our gut secrete a chemical which cause the sugar cravings.
    - SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
      Actually, that's believed to be the case [1], which is why I said what I did. [1] http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-11-bacteria-gut-affect-cravings-food.html http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-11-bacteria-gut-affect-cr...
- mathgeek 12y ago
  > Guess which had blood sugar spikes at the end of the challenge... the one eating fat/protein. I believe this is thoroughly discussed in The Four Hour Body, amongst other things. It's the reason you eat beans and other "slow carbs" on that diet, since breaking down fat without any carbs will spike your sugar.
fluidcruft 12y ago
Researchers actually went much further than you assume and used microbe transplants to show that the gut microbiome from the sugar-fed mice rescued the artificial-sweetener-fed mice. And that similar transplants in the other direction resulted in the bad outcomes in the sugar-fed mice. I don't think your speculation and armchair research is any more more helpful than the bad science journalism you complain about. If you don't know what you're talking about, maybe you could try keeping it to yourself.
- droopyEyelids 12y ago
  Actually, the combination of your two comments was very enlightening. It's always appropriate to try and understand the world, and then discuss what doesn't make sense to you. This is a great example.
- jhall1468 12y ago
  > I don't think your speculation and armchair research is any more more helpful than the bad science journalism you complain about. Anonymous people on the Internet can't be held to the same standards as a research paper. On the contrary, since this is largely a public opinion forum I believe that commenting without evidence is encouraged and it's up to the reader to make a determination about said opinion. What a silly idea that we aren't allowed to publicize opinion.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    There is Kind of a big difference between saying that a comment is not helpful and that you are not allowed to make a comment, you know. Random unscientific speculation on scientific matters is a problem and should not be encouraged.

by mapt 12y ago

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.
- zaroth 12y ago
  Plot twist: the sugar loving bacteria in our gut secrete a chemical which cause the sugar cravings.
  - SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
    Actually, that's believed to be the case [1], which is why I said what I did. [1] http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-11-bacteria-gut-affect-cravings-food.html http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-11-bacteria-gut-affect-cr...
mathgeek 12y ago
> Guess which had blood sugar spikes at the end of the challenge... the one eating fat/protein. I believe this is thoroughly discussed in The Four Hour Body, amongst other things. It's the reason you eat beans and other "slow carbs" on that diet, since breaking down fat without any carbs will spike your sugar.

fluidcruft 12y ago

Researchers actually went much further than you assume and used microbe transplants to show that the gut microbiome from the sugar-fed mice rescued the artificial-sweetener-fed mice. And that similar transplants in the other direction resulted in the bad outcomes in the sugar-fed mice. I don't think your speculation and armchair research is any more more helpful than the bad science journalism you complain about. If you don't know what you're talking about, maybe you could try keeping it to yourself.

droopyEyelids 12y ago
Actually, the combination of your two comments was very enlightening. It's always appropriate to try and understand the world, and then discuss what doesn't make sense to you. This is a great example.
jhall1468 12y ago
> I don't think your speculation and armchair research is any more more helpful than the bad science journalism you complain about. Anonymous people on the Internet can't be held to the same standards as a research paper. On the contrary, since this is largely a public opinion forum I believe that commenting without evidence is encouraged and it's up to the reader to make a determination about said opinion. What a silly idea that we aren't allowed to publicize opinion.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  There is Kind of a big difference between saying that a comment is not helpful and that you are not allowed to make a comment, you know. Random unscientific speculation on scientific matters is a problem and should not be encouraged.