Sugar Substitutes Surprise(science.org)
science.org
Sugar Substitutes Surprise
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/sugar-substitutes-surprise
314 comments
L-arabinose is a thing and it's natural. Only really available in Japan though. Might give you some gas because some bacteria can break it down, but probably not as bad as xylitol, erythritol, etc.
It's available in the UK but it's quite expensive. Sold as a pre-meal supplement from what I can tell.
Kinda weird to be downvoted for the above. GP said L-arabinose's available in Japan only. I responded to that. Could one of the downvoters please at least let me know what about my comment was so bad?
For reference, here's one place that sells it in the uk [0]. It's made in the UK as well.
Directions are:
[0] https://www.sweetcures.co.uk/products/l-arabinose-original-p...
For reference, here's one place that sells it in the uk [0]. It's made in the UK as well.
Directions are:
Take 2g of Powder approximately 30 minutes before main meals.
[0] https://www.sweetcures.co.uk/products/l-arabinose-original-p...
I am not your downvoter, but after upvoting on my phone a few times I started to realize it wasn't really clear whether my fat finger hit the up arrow or the down arrow; there is not clear feedback[1]. Since then, I've found myself concerned I might have downvoted a post I really liked, so I unvote, zoom in, and revote. Even then sometimes I've remained unclear/nervous and had to zoom yet again. I'm not sure others are aware of this UI issue or make the effort in this regard.
This is a non-issue on my laptop where the cursor is quite visible and precise.
[1] Writing this post encouraged me to experiment. I guess if you vote up, you get an option to "unvote" but if you accidentally downvote, the option is to "undown". So there is more visible feedback about your vote than I was aware of. I will probably look for that going forward to ensure my voting intention was properly registered. But it's not super-obvious.
This is a non-issue on my laptop where the cursor is quite visible and precise.
[1] Writing this post encouraged me to experiment. I guess if you vote up, you get an option to "unvote" but if you accidentally downvote, the option is to "undown". So there is more visible feedback about your vote than I was aware of. I will probably look for that going forward to ensure my voting intention was properly registered. But it's not super-obvious.
After you vote you have a new option. If you upvoted the option says "unvote". If you downvoted it says "undown". Just check the text after you vote to make sure you didn't fat finger it.
I can recommend using the “hack” app to read HN on the phone. Voting is done by swiping, so it’s much easier to avoid unintended downvotes.
(edit: I don’t know if it’s available on android, though. I’m an iphone user myself.)
(edit: I don’t know if it’s available on android, though. I’m an iphone user myself.)
I've done the same thing. Now whenever I intend to upvote I always zoom in to make sure I'm hitting the correct arrow!
Thanks for the info!
Doesn't allulose work pretty much the same way?
It's not legal yet in Europe, but can't wait to try it out!
Ooh, I should try that sometime
It's pretty awesome in terms of taste - it's just a bit less sweet but tastes just like sugar. I didn't find too much info on impact but it seems pretty safe. And you can really use it as a sugar, it even caramelizes. I use it to make home made sugar free ice cream with real sugary consistency. But for me personally, having too much of it makes my stomach rebel.
Yeah I think arabinose is likely to have less of a GI effect (I have eaten some from the lab on a whim) but I can't find any references on this.
The GI effect should be just directly correlated with how well large intestine microbiome can ferment these, IIUC? And I guess also with how much you need to have equivalent taste of 1 g sugar.
As in, if it tastes sweet but is not absorbed in the small intestine, so has "no calories", it will inevitably all pass on to the large intestine where it can be fermented.
As someone who absolutely hates the synthetic taste of aspartame etc. but has to stay on a low-FODMAP diet, I've just resigned to eating stuff with ordinary sugar and using sufficient moderation.
As in, if it tastes sweet but is not absorbed in the small intestine, so has "no calories", it will inevitably all pass on to the large intestine where it can be fermented.
As someone who absolutely hates the synthetic taste of aspartame etc. but has to stay on a low-FODMAP diet, I've just resigned to eating stuff with ordinary sugar and using sufficient moderation.
According to the big W, part of it is due to inhibiting digestion of normal sugar, which tracks my understanding of chemistry. So there's a lot of factors.
I would imagine that if humans did use it at scale, it wouldn't be long until the microbiome was evolving to metabolize it.
Do you use an ice cream maker?
I also love Allulose for ice cream. It costs around $25 for 2lbs bag from Amazon, that lasts us 2-3 months. It doesn't have that "fake sugar" taste, or the weirdness you get with some of the alcohol sugars (my wife once made cookies that were "cold" when you ate them because of the sugar alcohol, it was a really weird sensation.
We got a Ninja Creami, it's not a traditional ice cream maker, you freeze these pint cups, then run them through the machine and it shaves it then blends it. My preferred recipe is: a quarter cup 0% yogurt, 2-4tbs allulose, pinch of xantham gum, the remainder fruit (strawberry, blueberry, canned low sugar pears or mandarin oranges or pineapple or peaches). This is delicious, low calorie (140-240cal per pint), and low sugar. It hits all the "ice cream" centers in my brain.
My wife takes it much fancier, she will make a vanilla base, and then often make low sugar mix ins (fudge, choc chips, caramel (with allulose), peanut butter cups (with PB2), marshmallows).
The Creami is noisy as hell for 3 minutes, and I wasn't sure how much we'd actually use it, but we've used it a lot. We got it on sale, about half price, which made it easier. Woot sometimes has them about this price (more like $100 than $200). One down side is that you basically have to re-blend it every time you want some, the remains largely freeze back into solid, though if you hit it with the microwave for 20 seconds you can kind of chunk it up and eat the flakes. Not really ice cream at that point.
We got a Ninja Creami, it's not a traditional ice cream maker, you freeze these pint cups, then run them through the machine and it shaves it then blends it. My preferred recipe is: a quarter cup 0% yogurt, 2-4tbs allulose, pinch of xantham gum, the remainder fruit (strawberry, blueberry, canned low sugar pears or mandarin oranges or pineapple or peaches). This is delicious, low calorie (140-240cal per pint), and low sugar. It hits all the "ice cream" centers in my brain.
My wife takes it much fancier, she will make a vanilla base, and then often make low sugar mix ins (fudge, choc chips, caramel (with allulose), peanut butter cups (with PB2), marshmallows).
The Creami is noisy as hell for 3 minutes, and I wasn't sure how much we'd actually use it, but we've used it a lot. We got it on sale, about half price, which made it easier. Woot sometimes has them about this price (more like $100 than $200). One down side is that you basically have to re-blend it every time you want some, the remains largely freeze back into solid, though if you hit it with the microwave for 20 seconds you can kind of chunk it up and eat the flakes. Not really ice cream at that point.
Yeah. I can't say that I've gotten to professional quality but I'm a bit lazy with the recipes.
Any good sources you know of? Unless we are talking crazy expensive I feel like it could be pretty useful for a lot of home recipes. I don't make that much sugary stuff anyway. Does it caramelize like normal sugar when heated?
it does. it behaves identically to regular sugar except in how it interacts with other organic compounds.
I would be surprised if it didn't caramelize. I don't know of any good sources, sorry.
Another alternative is duox-matok's technology, that increases the surface area of sugar or something similar, and this allows to use 30%-50% less sugar for the same sweetness effect.
Just for clarification, are you implying L-arabinose is the left-handed isomer of glucose?
> going to be fucking rich
It is the year 316720, and the majority of intergallactic trade is in left-handed and right-handed sugar.
It is the year 316720, and the majority of intergallactic trade is in left-handed and right-handed sugar.
Interesting!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-Glucose
"L-Glucose was also found to be a laxative," perhaps another factor in it's adoption.
So wait, is this another Olestra? Guess it depends on what kind of response you get in the gut.
Actually that likely means there is a microbiome component, unfortunately
Or just an osmotic effect.
In what quantities? Often these tests use implausibly large amounts.
It is the same/similar mechanism as the infamous sugar free gummy bears.
https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/sugar-free-...
https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/sugar-free-...
If you are looking for high speed mass discharge a heaping teaspoon of xylitol or maltitol (what is in sugar free gummy bears) plus coffee will do the trick within 15 minutes.
Be warned that you risk serious dehydration and/or electrolyte imbalance if you try this.
What's used medically for this purpose (e.g. before a colonoscopy) is an osmotically balanced solution of polyethylene glycol, typically referred to as Macrogol.
Takes a couple of hours of continuous sipping, close to 1 liter total for an adult to get everything flushed, then you'll be discharging almost clear fluid by the end.
What's used medically for this purpose (e.g. before a colonoscopy) is an osmotically balanced solution of polyethylene glycol, typically referred to as Macrogol.
Takes a couple of hours of continuous sipping, close to 1 liter total for an adult to get everything flushed, then you'll be discharging almost clear fluid by the end.
> Be warned that you risk serious dehydration and/or electrolyte imbalance if you try this.
A bit dramatic, considering these are widely food additives to things like gummy bears in similar amounts and stories abound about their effect.
A one time event is unlikely to do too much damage unless you’re already sick.
People should generally not be taking laxatives repeatedly for a prolonged period unless they have a prescribed indication.
> an osmotically balanced solution of polyethylene glycol, typically referred to as Macrogol.
It’s quite common in the US to do plain old miralax and G2 gatorade for outpatient colon prep. There is some controversy about this. But there isn’t much evidence that “osmotically balanced” (the whole concept of osmotic balance is suspect for an osmotic laxative - that works because of its inherent imbalance) has any meaningful benefit other than selling something that sounds good with little evidence.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/21217-miralax...
People that get into trouble are typically abusing laxatives or have chronic kidney, liver or heart disease that put them at risk.
A bit dramatic, considering these are widely food additives to things like gummy bears in similar amounts and stories abound about their effect.
A one time event is unlikely to do too much damage unless you’re already sick.
People should generally not be taking laxatives repeatedly for a prolonged period unless they have a prescribed indication.
> an osmotically balanced solution of polyethylene glycol, typically referred to as Macrogol.
It’s quite common in the US to do plain old miralax and G2 gatorade for outpatient colon prep. There is some controversy about this. But there isn’t much evidence that “osmotically balanced” (the whole concept of osmotic balance is suspect for an osmotic laxative - that works because of its inherent imbalance) has any meaningful benefit other than selling something that sounds good with little evidence.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/21217-miralax...
People that get into trouble are typically abusing laxatives or have chronic kidney, liver or heart disease that put them at risk.
[deleted]
Just get up in the morning and chug a liter of water and then have a cup or two of strong coffee ?
Certain sugar substitutes are laxatives. I had some DELICIOUS sugar free gummy worms from a cracker barrel that gave me the worst shits for a few hours. I only ate like 10-15 of them.
This is the source they used: https://www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107(03)01304-X/ful...
Does was 24 grams. For reference, a 12 ounce can of coke has 39 grams of sugar.
However, this was not a double blind study, so mileage my vary.
Does was 24 grams. For reference, a 12 ounce can of coke has 39 grams of sugar.
However, this was not a double blind study, so mileage my vary.
I’d imagine it works like lactose, and if that’s the case a “regular” dose will do plenty.
Osmotic laxatives such as lactulose need only 10 grams or so for “effect”. Standard dose of say lactulose for cirrhotics is about 20 grams multiple times per day to keep them shitting.
Holy grail of sweeteners
Too bad the theoretically cheapest way (mirror-image microorganisms) is an enormous ecological risk.
Curious, did you remove the green goo post because you found something wrong with the reasoning or did you judge it to be an infohazard?
Can you please elaborate on this? I tried googling it and just got a lot of seemingly unrelated stuff.
Mirror image microorganisms process and produce molecules of opposite normal chirality as a result of their metabolism. Since there's no a priori reason why life should prefer either left handed or right handed molecules, the way we got here is the result of the first proto-metabolic processes billions of years ago just happening to choose what we use today. If we introduced mirror image microorganisms into the ecosystem, the danger is they could outcompete existing organisms while simultaneously contaminating the environment with their mirror-image waste products.
For anyone interested in this concept, without spoiling too much, you should read the sci-fi book Starfish by Peter Watts. He has the entire text of the book up for free on his website, in glorious 1990s handcrafted HTML: https://www.rifters.com/real/STARFISH.htm
Presumably they would be poisoned by the large amount of right handed biochemistry thats everywhere already.. It might be super hard to keep them alive in nature at all.
But if youre in the lab and thinking about it could ya whip us up some C-F eating/mineralizing micros? Talk about whats poisoning the biosphere..
But if youre in the lab and thinking about it could ya whip us up some C-F eating/mineralizing micros? Talk about whats poisoning the biosphere..
Thanks so much for breaking it down - fascinating topic!
[deleted]
I am also interested to know that!
Microorganisms generally eat glucose, it's plants that make them.
Why not make both isomers and feed them to bacteria? Only left-handed remains.
Because we have effectively infinite amounts of d-glucose in the biosphere and that's incredibly hard to compete with on cost.
Also there's more than one stereocenter in "generalized glucose"
It's gotta be something more to than that, even 50-50% sugar would be a great product in its own right.
Maybe the problem is more with synthesizing sugar without biological help. After some cursory googling, it sounds like many artificial sweeteners are several orders of magnitude "sweeter" than table sugar, so you'd have to synthesize far more L-sucrose to get a similar effect.
It seems with all the bacteria out there it seems like there would be one that does something obnoxious with L-sucrose.
True, you'd need tablespoons of it. :-/
Fructose is about 50% sweeter than sugar (sucrose), so you can save calories by substituting 2/3 of the quantity of sucrose with fructose
Fructose is metabolised differently IIRC and carries greater risks if anything, possibly this is why HFCS is worse for you.
HFCS isn't particularly high in fructose. Sucrose is essentially 1:1 fructose to glucose. HFCS is typically either 42% or 55% fructose, the rest glucose, so basically the same. Honey and agave nectar are also similar.
I can't say I'm an expert, but I haven't seen anything where consuming fructose is worse overall than other sugars. Fruits for example also tend to be high in fructose, and if you're going to have sugars they tend to be one of the best ways.
I can't say I'm an expert, but I haven't seen anything where consuming fructose is worse overall than other sugars. Fruits for example also tend to be high in fructose, and if you're going to have sugars they tend to be one of the best ways.
if we could make racemic glucose (i.e. a 50:50 split of D/L-glucose), the battle would be done.
you'd expect to see this if we had a purely synthetic process for the creation of glucose in the lab. but, as far as i know, we only have other biological processes that produce glucose, and as such, only produce the one isomer.
you'd expect to see this if we had a purely synthetic process for the creation of glucose in the lab. but, as far as i know, we only have other biological processes that produce glucose, and as such, only produce the one isomer.
It is 100% possible to make glucose synthetically, racemically or otherwise. I believe it was done in the 60s and iirc sharpless used sugar synthesis to demonstrate the power of asymmetric epoxidation (which he won the Nobel for).
It is however very not economical to do so
It is however very not economical to do so
I've seen the economics talked about a few times in this thread but having no experience at all with the industry - what is the difference between economical and not in actual dollar values?
If you were to produce a KG of this vs say our common art-sweetners what is the cost multipler
If you were to produce a KG of this vs say our common art-sweetners what is the cost multipler
Well keep in mind that stuff like sucralose may be more expensive to make but it's also selected because it's way more potent, so there's a lot of filler (usually cyclodextrin?) To fill out a packet and make a cooking/flavoring equivalent.
Though I'm not 100% sure maybe sucralose is made by enzymatically installing those halogens? I could be very wrong.
Though I'm not 100% sure maybe sucralose is made by enzymatically installing those halogens? I could be very wrong.
Speaking of filler, it seems the experiment in question didn’t control for that? Since there’s so little artificial sweetener is it possible the gut flora are reacting to the filler?
The experiment in the article explicitly does control for this
> The participants (20 per group) were given sweetener packets of aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, or stevia, each bulked out with glucose to an equivalent size, with another group that got just glucose and another group that took no sweeteners at all.
In this experiment, the artificial sweeteners used glucose as the filler. They also account for the effects of the glucose filler on the insulin response in all groups by measuring the difference in the response.
> The participants (20 per group) were given sweetener packets of aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, or stevia, each bulked out with glucose to an equivalent size, with another group that got just glucose and another group that took no sweeteners at all.
In this experiment, the artificial sweeteners used glucose as the filler. They also account for the effects of the glucose filler on the insulin response in all groups by measuring the difference in the response.
My guess is a minimum of 5-10x more expensive at scale.
Sugar is really cheap, especially if you don’t mind which particular local source you use (sugar cane, corn syrup, etc).
Sugar is really cheap, especially if you don’t mind which particular local source you use (sugar cane, corn syrup, etc).
> Why not make both isomers and feed them to bacteria? Only left-handed remains.
The hard part is synthesis, not separation.
The hard part is synthesis, not separation.
Just a heads up: you seem to be shadow-banned, all your posts are flagged.
His post looks normal to me...
Apparently he got unshadowbanned recently.
Apparently he got unshadowbanned recently.
What posts? It shows empty for me.
Do we know that it doesnt have an effect on gut-biome though?
There would be none:
"..but cannot be used by living organisms as a source of energy because it cannot be phosphorylated by hexokinase, the first enzyme in the glycolysis pathway. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-Glucose
EDIT: Ok, yeah, sorry. I'm sure some bacteria out there could do something with it and make you have an upset stomach. But it's not very likely.
"..but cannot be used by living organisms as a source of energy because it cannot be phosphorylated by hexokinase, the first enzyme in the glycolysis pathway. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-Glucose
EDIT: Ok, yeah, sorry. I'm sure some bacteria out there could do something with it and make you have an upset stomach. But it's not very likely.
Forgive my ignorance, but couldn't consuming opposite chiral chemicals eventually lead to developing prion diseases?
Is there any evidence that would indicate that this has ever occurred? The way I think about these things is in terms of where the electron density tends to be, what fits into what, how things get recycled inside our cells (Ubiquitin, Cytochrome P450, etc.), so on and so forth. It has been awhile since I looked, last I checked, we don't know how badly-folded prions spread the pattern to other prions. I'd love to know if there is any news on that.
Given the above, I would guess that there's no link at all between the two. I could just be very wrong or behind the times.
Given the above, I would guess that there's no link at all between the two. I could just be very wrong or behind the times.
[deleted]
Can you elaborate this please?
Could you synthesise the mix but not separate the isomers, for sugar with 50% of the calories? Still too expensive?
Cool, but sugar (sucrose) is actually glucose+fructose.
Is there a calorie-free fructose isomer?
Is there a calorie-free fructose isomer?
I never see much in replacing Sucrose with normal Glucose. Never understood why.
Is there any way to do this (safely) in small batch?
ironic how the post suggests they are not entirely harmless and you suggest a holy grail that we don't know much about
I suspected this some time ago when I tried to learn more about all the potential problems related to gut bacteria.
When you ingest something that you can't digest directly, there is a good chance that some bacteria in your guy can. And when they do, they multiply, this process is often faster than most people realize.
The problem rarely are the bacteria themselves, but the byproducts of their own metabolism, that can be benign is trace quantities and harmful in larger quantities.
The immune system also constantly monitors and reacts to those byproducts and bacteria population.
What we usually call Lactose intolerance or Gluten sensitivity is in practice an indirect effect of some species of bacteria digesting those, and then the reaction of your immune system.
Overall, the gut microbiome is a fascinating and complex subject, unfortunately often oversimplified or misunderstood.
As an example, we've often been told to eat more fibers to increase "flow", the flow increase is because the fibers are digested by bacteria and the mild toxicity of the process forces the digestive system to flush everything.
Same with Sorbitol (contained in dried prunes and often used as a soft laxative) but even more toxic.
When you ingest something that you can't digest directly, there is a good chance that some bacteria in your guy can. And when they do, they multiply, this process is often faster than most people realize.
The problem rarely are the bacteria themselves, but the byproducts of their own metabolism, that can be benign is trace quantities and harmful in larger quantities.
The immune system also constantly monitors and reacts to those byproducts and bacteria population.
What we usually call Lactose intolerance or Gluten sensitivity is in practice an indirect effect of some species of bacteria digesting those, and then the reaction of your immune system.
Overall, the gut microbiome is a fascinating and complex subject, unfortunately often oversimplified or misunderstood.
As an example, we've often been told to eat more fibers to increase "flow", the flow increase is because the fibers are digested by bacteria and the mild toxicity of the process forces the digestive system to flush everything.
Same with Sorbitol (contained in dried prunes and often used as a soft laxative) but even more toxic.
> As an example, we've often been told to eat more fibers to increase "flow", the flow increase is because the fibers are digested by bacteria and the mild toxicity of the process forces the digestive system to flush everything.
This isn't an accurate portrayal of the benefits of fiber. The laxative effects of fiber are just one of many benefits. For example, Fiber can bind to saturated fats, disabling the negative affects of them. Specifically, in terms of bacteria, many bacteria digest fiber, which in turn creates short chain fatty acids, which have many health benefits.
You're right about one thing, though: this is indeed a complex subject.
This isn't an accurate portrayal of the benefits of fiber. The laxative effects of fiber are just one of many benefits. For example, Fiber can bind to saturated fats, disabling the negative affects of them. Specifically, in terms of bacteria, many bacteria digest fiber, which in turn creates short chain fatty acids, which have many health benefits.
You're right about one thing, though: this is indeed a complex subject.
I belive the viewpoint that many hold that constipation is usually caused by a lack of fiber is often mistaken, and indeed eating a no or low fiber diet can resolve constipation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15654804/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15654804/
> As an example, we've often been told to eat more fibers to increase "flow"
About 10 years ago I switched overnight from a very meat heavy diet to mostly plant based (I still eat dairy products and one or two servings of fish per week).
Within a week I was shocked at how well my digestive tract was suddenly working. Before that I had no idea how broken it was.
All other factors aside, I could never go back to the slow, uncomfortable digesting process of a typical USA meat heavy diet.
About 10 years ago I switched overnight from a very meat heavy diet to mostly plant based (I still eat dairy products and one or two servings of fish per week).
Within a week I was shocked at how well my digestive tract was suddenly working. Before that I had no idea how broken it was.
All other factors aside, I could never go back to the slow, uncomfortable digesting process of a typical USA meat heavy diet.
As long as we're sharing anecdotes; about 10 years ago I quit being vegan and transitioned into a carnivore diet.
I now eat mostly red meats and my gut has never worked better.
When I was vegan I had constant GI issues to the point of multiple hospitalizations.
Everyone is different.
I now eat mostly red meats and my gut has never worked better.
When I was vegan I had constant GI issues to the point of multiple hospitalizations.
Everyone is different.
Just to finish off this Goldilocks story: I've been vegan for four years, and previously ate a meat and dairy heavy diet. I noticed basically no change to my gut health--it has been pretty good, with occasional minor issues, for my whole life.
This is the one for me. Keto, Vegan, Whatever specialty diet I try results in elevated energy and mood for a week or so and then a return to baseline. (Except with keto where I usually have no energy after a few weeks).
Anecdotally, I'm far healthier and more energetic than I was before starting keto a decade ago. I recommend everyone to give it a serious look.
Granted, I can't entirely separate the effects of ketosis in and of itself from an overall cleaner diet with more vegetables and fewer processed foods. It's possible that the same diet with butter swapped out for quinoa would have yielded a similar result.
As far as sweeteners, my go-to is liquid stevia, which I use about 1/5 a cup of daily. When I need a solid sweetener (e.g. for baking), I use inulin fiber sweetened with stevia and monk fruit, which creates a nicer texture than actual sugar IMO. I also have allulose on hand for specific use cases (e.g. caramelizing), but I can't really stomach it in large quantities. I don't particularly like or recommend sugar alcohols for any purpose, but erythritol is the the least bad of the bunch.
Granted, I can't entirely separate the effects of ketosis in and of itself from an overall cleaner diet with more vegetables and fewer processed foods. It's possible that the same diet with butter swapped out for quinoa would have yielded a similar result.
As far as sweeteners, my go-to is liquid stevia, which I use about 1/5 a cup of daily. When I need a solid sweetener (e.g. for baking), I use inulin fiber sweetened with stevia and monk fruit, which creates a nicer texture than actual sugar IMO. I also have allulose on hand for specific use cases (e.g. caramelizing), but I can't really stomach it in large quantities. I don't particularly like or recommend sugar alcohols for any purpose, but erythritol is the the least bad of the bunch.
From my experience, the worst thing is eating the same thing all the time, no matter what it is.
The goal is to keep your microbiota as far as possible to a monoculture.
I am absolutely not an expert on this subject, but so far, my understanding is that there are not really "healthy" bacteria, there are only healthy mixes where different species balances and keep the other from growing.
The goal is to keep your microbiota as far as possible to a monoculture.
I am absolutely not an expert on this subject, but so far, my understanding is that there are not really "healthy" bacteria, there are only healthy mixes where different species balances and keep the other from growing.
My annecdata is that I spent two years eating a healthy vegetarian diet (to contrast with french fry vegetarians) and my digestive tract never adapted. I switched back to eating plenty of lean meat (mostly chicken and fish) and the plumbing almost instantly began working properly.
The added benefit is that my diet is much higher in protein and lower in carbs, which definitely has helped me build and maintain muscle and reduce dad bod.
Again, just annecdata, but maybe individuals have differing nutritional profiles that work best for them?
The added benefit is that my diet is much higher in protein and lower in carbs, which definitely has helped me build and maintain muscle and reduce dad bod.
Again, just annecdata, but maybe individuals have differing nutritional profiles that work best for them?
Or maybe the masses inside those individuals have different needs? Different bacteria levels responding differently to various diets. I think that's what some of the microbiome companies were working on, but I don't think it was ever successful.
You can run the same experiment with water fasting. We overeat.
If you’re going to share something as fringe as 1) the benefit of fiber is that it makes us poop (disregarding it’s other benefits) and 2) it does so because it’s toxic, you’re going to have to at least share links.
> the mild toxicity of the process forces the digestive system to flush everything
Do you have any more information on this "mild toxicity"? That does not sound like a healthy reaction to me.
My understanding was health experts encourage insoluble fiber more than anything, precisely because it is essentially inert — not digestable or fermented by microflora — and therefore merely adds bulk to the waste, which helps move stuff through the gut. Are you talking about soluble fiber and prebiotics?
Do you have any more information on this "mild toxicity"? That does not sound like a healthy reaction to me.
My understanding was health experts encourage insoluble fiber more than anything, precisely because it is essentially inert — not digestable or fermented by microflora — and therefore merely adds bulk to the waste, which helps move stuff through the gut. Are you talking about soluble fiber and prebiotics?
The flow increases because the bulk increases with more fiber. Most fiber is cellulose, and your gut biome can't process that, as far as I know.
> As an example, we've often been told to eat more fibers to increase "flow", the flow increase is because the fibers are digested by bacteria and the mild toxicity of the process forces the digestive system to flush everything.
Very interesting.
Can you maybe refer to some text(s) about this phenomenon of mild toxicity from digestion of fibers?
Very interesting.
Can you maybe refer to some text(s) about this phenomenon of mild toxicity from digestion of fibers?
> What we usually call Lactose intolerance or Gluten sensitivity is in practice an indirect effect of some species of bacteria digesting those, and then the reaction of your immune system.
Citation?
Citation?
This is pretty well understood and documented.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/lactose-intolerance/causes/
"Bacteria in the colon break down the lactose, producing fatty acids and gases like carbon dioxide, hydrogen and methane.
The breakdown of the lactose in the colon, and the resulting acids and gases that are produced, cause the symptoms of lactose intolerance, such as flatulence and bloating."
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/lactose-intolerance/causes/
"Bacteria in the colon break down the lactose, producing fatty acids and gases like carbon dioxide, hydrogen and methane.
The breakdown of the lactose in the colon, and the resulting acids and gases that are produced, cause the symptoms of lactose intolerance, such as flatulence and bloating."
The tricky part is that there are multiple species of bacteria able to digest (ferment) lactose, and the composition of your microbiota is highly variable at the individual level and also over time.
In practice, your reaction to lactose is difficult to predict, regardless of your production of lactase.
In practice, your reaction to lactose is difficult to predict, regardless of your production of lactase.
That’s the non controversial part. The bit that seems off is that there is an immune response.
Right. I guess I had misunderstood the comment as implying that lactose intolerance was not a result of insufficient lactase production.
Would this analysis also extend to drinks like Kombucha which add more gut bacteria to your body?
> Exposure to saccharin and sucralose significantly impaired glycemic response, but this was not seen with the aspartame or stevia groups. None of the blood markers show real changes in any group except for insulin levels going up in the glucose and stevia groups (and since everyone was getting glucose as part of the dosing, that suggests a lowering of the glucose-driven insulin response overall).
What does impairing glycemic response mean, exactly?
What does impairing glycemic response mean, exactly?
It is your body's ability to regulate blood sugar level in presence of intakes of food or their absence.
A healthy person should have no problem maintaining blood sugar level except for very extreme situations (like running a marathon). Impaired response suggests then some kind of underlying problem.
A healthy person should have no problem maintaining blood sugar level except for very extreme situations (like running a marathon). Impaired response suggests then some kind of underlying problem.
I’m still confused. In the context of this paper, does “impaired glycemic response” mean blood sugar levels go up but do not come down because insulin production is impaired? Or that insulin levels increase and blood sugars still do not fall? Or that the glycemic response, that is the blood sugar concentrations, do not increase in the first instance?
I found another paper [1] that implies that "impaired glycemic response" is measured by an "oral glucose tolerance test" and that high levels of blood glucose in the two hours after drinking a glucose solution are what they mean by an impaired response. The graphical abstract [2] from the paper discussed in the Science article has "glycemic response" graphs, which I assume are from this oral glucose tolerance test, although I wasn't able to access the paper's PDF.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Impaired-glycemic-respon...
[2] https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00919-9?_re...
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Impaired-glycemic-respon...
[2] https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00919-9?_re...
Right, I had the same response to that sentence, see my comment infra.
It seems to me that an "impaired" glycemic response is what is actually desired, but the word "impaired" has negative connotations. It might be typical usage in a journal article, but it is not for an article in Science.
It seems to me that an "impaired" glycemic response is what is actually desired, but the word "impaired" has negative connotations. It might be typical usage in a journal article, but it is not for an article in Science.
Impaired glycemic response, when bad enough, is a cause of diabetes.
Insulin is not a bad thing, high blood glucose is.
When there is no need to immediately use glucose as a fuel (like when exercising), insulin is secreted. It acts as a signal to the rest of the body to remove glucose from the bloodstream and store it (as glycogen or fat). Without insulin (and without exercise), blood glucose levels would be too high for a long time.
Insulin is not a bad thing, high blood glucose is.
When there is no need to immediately use glucose as a fuel (like when exercising), insulin is secreted. It acts as a signal to the rest of the body to remove glucose from the bloodstream and store it (as glycogen or fat). Without insulin (and without exercise), blood glucose levels would be too high for a long time.
They mixed glucose with the artificial sweeteners so sugar level must raise. But it didn't go down, so it seems that the sweeteners could be stopping the insulin response.
Right, and that's a good thing, because lower postprandial glycemia correlates with better health outcomes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20234031/
I'm not sure we can equate low glycemic index foods with foods that suppress the insulin response. They might have a small insulin response in common, but their effect on blood sugar concentration is not at all the same.
I have no insight on the studio but that it's only logical "impairment" must mean the response was even less than the one expected if the same amount of glucose and no sweetener was ingested.
Otherwise it's misleading and not surprising at all.
Otherwise it's misleading and not surprising at all.
Right, I think that's what they meant. And the result would be that your blood glucose level would spike much higher than if you had a normal insulin response. It's unclear what the health effects of that would be.
Defintion: The Glycemic Index (GI) is a measure of the extent of the change in blood glucose content (glycemic response) following consumption of digestible carbohydrate, relative to a standard such as glucose.
Blood glucose is actively regulated by your body via relying on glycogen storage and breakdown in the muscles and liver, in healthy humans this system reacts quickly to maintain a constant blood glucose level (required for say, active brain function). See figure 1 in this review (pdf) of glycogen-related inherited diseases for an overview of how it's supposed to work (it's all tied into the cellular Krebs, aka tricarboxylic acid, cycle):
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph-Wolfsdorf/public...
Practically speaking, flooding your bloodstream with sugar (soft drinks, candy) seems to overwhelm the normal functioning of that system, but when you eat more complex carbohydrates which are slowly digested (potatoes, bread, pasta, etc.) this results in a steady but slow input of sugars to the bloodstream via the digestive system, which, depending on your resting energy level, will be either stored as glycogen or fed into the Krebs cycle for cellular energy conversion.
Blood glucose is actively regulated by your body via relying on glycogen storage and breakdown in the muscles and liver, in healthy humans this system reacts quickly to maintain a constant blood glucose level (required for say, active brain function). See figure 1 in this review (pdf) of glycogen-related inherited diseases for an overview of how it's supposed to work (it's all tied into the cellular Krebs, aka tricarboxylic acid, cycle):
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph-Wolfsdorf/public...
Practically speaking, flooding your bloodstream with sugar (soft drinks, candy) seems to overwhelm the normal functioning of that system, but when you eat more complex carbohydrates which are slowly digested (potatoes, bread, pasta, etc.) this results in a steady but slow input of sugars to the bloodstream via the digestive system, which, depending on your resting energy level, will be either stored as glycogen or fed into the Krebs cycle for cellular energy conversion.
So if glycemic response means
> change in blood glucose content (glycemic response)
then does that mean an impaired response is higher or does it mean it's lower?
> change in blood glucose content (glycemic response)
then does that mean an impaired response is higher or does it mean it's lower?
If you don't know, insulin signals a process for sequestering sugars through glycogenesis.
Stevia and Glucose groups both increased plasma insulin. Contrasted with Saccharine and Sucralose which, the authors suggest, blunted insulin release and thus increased blood sugar. They cite a paper indicating that combined NNS and caloric sweeteners increase the insulin response compared with a NNS itself.
So... both..? It's a disproportion. NNS should have negligible impact on blood sugar to be called "inert", either when paired or when not, regardless of whether glucose is present or not. Addition is changing the whole formula. They're saying it's fucking up the signal interpretation. At least that's what I've put together.
Stevia and Glucose groups both increased plasma insulin. Contrasted with Saccharine and Sucralose which, the authors suggest, blunted insulin release and thus increased blood sugar. They cite a paper indicating that combined NNS and caloric sweeteners increase the insulin response compared with a NNS itself.
So... both..? It's a disproportion. NNS should have negligible impact on blood sugar to be called "inert", either when paired or when not, regardless of whether glucose is present or not. Addition is changing the whole formula. They're saying it's fucking up the signal interpretation. At least that's what I've put together.
Thank you. So let me see if I get it correct.
So, in this context, that means we got increased blood sugar because of the lower plasma insulin? Okay. I think I understand now.
thing effect on plasma insulin gut result
glucose baseline increase standard
g+sucralose increase less than baseline altered
g+stevia baseline increase altered
g+aspartame baseline increase altered
So, in this context, that means we got increased blood sugar because of the lower plasma insulin? Okay. I think I understand now.
[deleted]
one point of contention - potatoes and bread (specifically white) are some of the highest GI foods available. i specifically use these (white bread with peeled boiled potatoes) for their quick conversion to available sugars prior to exercise. some scales actually use white bread as the index point (GI = 100) because of this.
Potatoes have gotten an undeserved bad reputation. Boiled potatoes can be as 58. Especially if you cool and reheat. Mashed or fried is over 100.
Glad someone else got stuck here. I couldn't figure out from context whether this is good or bad and looking up "glycemic response" still didn't clear up whether it's a desired trait or not in terms of sweeteners, health outcomes, and diabetics for example.
Hopefully this image helps, because I am still not sure: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S00928674220091...
Thanks for the image but to me personally it only raises more questions. If sucralose "impairs glycemic response", then why does the line go up more aggressive on the "glycemic response" chart? Is having a higher response bad? Do I want my body's glycemic response to be as inert as possible?
I was confused by that too.
are saccharin and sucralose good (benign) sweeteners?
or is stevia a good (benign) sweetener?
are saccharin and sucralose good (benign) sweeteners?
or is stevia a good (benign) sweetener?
"good (benign)"
More accurate word choice would be "less bad".
I don't believe dietary science knows of a benign sweetener at this time.
Kind of like the situation with alcohol; there's some that are worse than others, none that are beneficial, none that are neutral.
More accurate word choice would be "less bad".
I don't believe dietary science knows of a benign sweetener at this time.
Kind of like the situation with alcohol; there's some that are worse than others, none that are beneficial, none that are neutral.
Anecdata. I did quite a few experiments on myself, as I practice alternate day fasting and keto diet for extended periods of time, and routinely maintain high blood ketone body levels (3-9mmol/l). Drinking beverages with artificial sweeteners (coke zero) did not change my ketone levels - or interrupted them going up. I think it may be overall beneficial since those beverages make low carb diets way easier.
I don’t doubt your statement about the artificial sweeteners, but how in the hell are you getting to 9mmol/l of ketones? I’ve seen levels around 5 after several days of fasting. You’d have to be ingesting ketone esters or something to get to 9.
TLDR: Long fasted cardio. No exogenous ketones needed.
My wife and I have the same dietary regime when we need to lose weight - but I exercise, and she does not. We do 0-calorie alternate day fasting + strict keto on the eating days. I do quite a bit of fasted cardio - I cycle to the office 3 days per week, on my fasting days, and thats 3x72km of cycling over hard terrain and usually in the wind.
I am around 6-9 mmol/l on fasting days and 3-4 mmol/l on keto days, and she - same diet, but no exercise - is around 1.5-2 mmol/l on fasting days and 0.5-1mmol/l on keto days. All measured around 6pm when our ketone bodies are usually at their highest levels.
We reach those levels at around 3-4 weeks of following the diet. (We use this diet every year in the autumn, to burn what we gained over the summer of beer, eating out and other indulgences).
A few other differences: - fasted cardio means I get to maintain high ketone body concentrations through the night and in the morning. I routinely get 5-6mmol/l at 7am following the fasting+cycling days. - fasted cardio makes me very satiated the following day; I eat a very small keto breakfast and can't stand the sight of food till the evening. I maintain high ketosis through the day and have no problem with energy levels. Weird. - i have very low blood sugar, at around 2-3mmol/l on the fasting+cycling days. First few days are hard, then it's getting easier and easier.
I did ADF and ADF+keto many times in my life, usually for 2-3 months, and it always works, but only when I added long, steady-state fasted cardio did I start to experience those very high levels of ketone body concentrations. It was very scary at first, but nothing bad happened.
For comparison, while doing a multi-day fast - the longest I did was 82 hours - I am reaching something like 3mmol/l and feel very miserable throughout (not physically, but mentally). Short fasts (36hr) and keto are significantly easier. Weight drops very, very quickly.
My wife and I have the same dietary regime when we need to lose weight - but I exercise, and she does not. We do 0-calorie alternate day fasting + strict keto on the eating days. I do quite a bit of fasted cardio - I cycle to the office 3 days per week, on my fasting days, and thats 3x72km of cycling over hard terrain and usually in the wind.
I am around 6-9 mmol/l on fasting days and 3-4 mmol/l on keto days, and she - same diet, but no exercise - is around 1.5-2 mmol/l on fasting days and 0.5-1mmol/l on keto days. All measured around 6pm when our ketone bodies are usually at their highest levels.
We reach those levels at around 3-4 weeks of following the diet. (We use this diet every year in the autumn, to burn what we gained over the summer of beer, eating out and other indulgences).
A few other differences: - fasted cardio means I get to maintain high ketone body concentrations through the night and in the morning. I routinely get 5-6mmol/l at 7am following the fasting+cycling days. - fasted cardio makes me very satiated the following day; I eat a very small keto breakfast and can't stand the sight of food till the evening. I maintain high ketosis through the day and have no problem with energy levels. Weird. - i have very low blood sugar, at around 2-3mmol/l on the fasting+cycling days. First few days are hard, then it's getting easier and easier.
I did ADF and ADF+keto many times in my life, usually for 2-3 months, and it always works, but only when I added long, steady-state fasted cardio did I start to experience those very high levels of ketone body concentrations. It was very scary at first, but nothing bad happened.
For comparison, while doing a multi-day fast - the longest I did was 82 hours - I am reaching something like 3mmol/l and feel very miserable throughout (not physically, but mentally). Short fasts (36hr) and keto are significantly easier. Weight drops very, very quickly.
I’m surprised to hear you feel mentally miserable on longer fasts. I (and many others) report intense mental clarity. For me, everything slows down and becomes bright and clear. It’s really pleasant. Are you taking magnesium and sodium?
I’m tempted to comment on your seasonal health swings, but to each their own.
I’m tempted to comment on your seasonal health swings, but to each their own.
I do take magnesium salts and salt, plus apple cider vinegar. The brain works fine during longer fasts, can confirm the 'clarity' thing, but I do not feel happy when I can't eat for a few days. Of course thats not hunger, just addiction to food. As to seasonal health swings, yeah, not great.
I mean, they are cycling 72 kilometers while in a fasted state 3 days a week. I'm assuming that is roughly 2-3 hours of aerobic exercise at a very athletic pace. That would be a high level of exertion for a non-fasted person.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
Thats freaking fascinating. Thanks!
The article points out that different artificial sweeteners have different glycemic responses, so you could try some others.
Yup, it's an interesting research - even if it's poorly summarized. I will look for more info, since we use a lot of sweeteners. I have a sweet tooth and my wife bakes a lot of keto cakes and makes keto desserts with them. Surely some are better than others.
Same, I do keto about half of the year and diet sodas have zero effect at all on ketone and glucose levels.
Doesn't the risk of being overweight completely overwhelm the risk of a not-yet-understood gut flora change? We know that even being minimally overweight poses a risk; a Nurses’ Health Study reported that women with BMIs in the range of 24-24.9 had a 5-fold greater risk of diabetes when compared with women with BMIs of less than 22.
It is possible (likely?) that the observed gut flora changes interfere with normal metabolic function, causing long term weight gain.
2020 - "future studies should consider the metabolic pathways of different artificial sweeteners. Further (long-term) human research investigating the underlying physiological pathways of different artificial sweeteners on microbiota alterations and its related metabolic pathway is warranted to evaluate the potential impact of their use on body weight control and glucose homeostasis."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7817779/
2020 - "future studies should consider the metabolic pathways of different artificial sweeteners. Further (long-term) human research investigating the underlying physiological pathways of different artificial sweeteners on microbiota alterations and its related metabolic pathway is warranted to evaluate the potential impact of their use on body weight control and glucose homeostasis."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7817779/
Yes, there has been some fascinating research coming out suggesting that the gut flora composition can have a causal effect on obesity. For example, if you transplant feces from overweight humans and normal weight humans to mice, the mice will gain (or not gain) weight, depending on which person the feces came from:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1241214
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1241214
It seems that despite increased risk of diabetes, being slightly overweight actually decreases all-cause mortality and being grade 1 obese doesn't affect all-cause mortality. I heard of this through a podcast and I'm not super educated, but it seems to me that the relationship of weight and health is more complicated, since I agree that increasing risk of heart disease, diabetes, etc. is bad. It just doesn't seem to bear out in actually killing a person. Maybe it decreases their quality of life drastically instead?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4855514/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4855514/
I wonder whether that is true for all age groups. In very old patients, being somewhat overweight can act as an important energy reserve that allows the patient to survive an illness or a hospital visit. Younger patients generally are more robust, I assume they benefit less from a couple of extra kilos of fat.
The study accounts for age and shows the phenomenon is consistent across multiple age ranges.
Yes THANK YOU. This is why it is infuriating to me that elementary/middle school students are still being graded on their BMI in gym class and taught to maintain a "good" BMI. With my body composition, I would be absolutely emaciated if I was on the lower end of the "healthy" BMI range. As it is I am bordering on obese, which if you saw me in person would be completely preposterous. The BMI itself is a pretty useless metric of body fat, and body fat is a pretty useless metric for health.
Why is this such a hard question? You would think a question as ubiquitous as "What should I eat?" would have more consensus.
Some studies show extra mortality in normal to underweight people, including from common causes relevant to average people, but there's also a ton of work on calorie restriction?
Is low BMI dangerous, or does it just commonly go along with a lifestyle that might lead to injuries and rhabdomyolysis and a case of diarrhoea in a place without hospitals?
It would be interesting to see adventurousness treated as a separate category for controls.
In the past there was no fridge, people stored their own energy, and there was no pepper spray and cops and forklifts, exercise programs had the extra constraint of physical activity being directly needed to survive.
What amount and type of activity should a modern person who has reason to believe they'll probably never be in a serious fair fight with no weapons or need to walk 3 days to get help do?
How much should someone eat when they do not ever plan to drink untreated water or go somewhere away from medical help if they catch some parasite that causes rapid weight loss?
Is the ideal profile of nutrition changed for someone who will not be exposed to woodsmoke, bacterial illness, etc?
And then furthermore, if higher BMI isn't helpful by itself, what should people who ARE in poverty or otherwise exposed to more stresses do?
Is there a subgroup that needs a metabolic reserve? Should those people eat less to save money and be able to DoorDash if needed and have external reserves like people without poverty or adventurousness?
Or is there a real independent benefit to some level of fat?
Some studies show extra mortality in normal to underweight people, including from common causes relevant to average people, but there's also a ton of work on calorie restriction?
Is low BMI dangerous, or does it just commonly go along with a lifestyle that might lead to injuries and rhabdomyolysis and a case of diarrhoea in a place without hospitals?
It would be interesting to see adventurousness treated as a separate category for controls.
In the past there was no fridge, people stored their own energy, and there was no pepper spray and cops and forklifts, exercise programs had the extra constraint of physical activity being directly needed to survive.
What amount and type of activity should a modern person who has reason to believe they'll probably never be in a serious fair fight with no weapons or need to walk 3 days to get help do?
How much should someone eat when they do not ever plan to drink untreated water or go somewhere away from medical help if they catch some parasite that causes rapid weight loss?
Is the ideal profile of nutrition changed for someone who will not be exposed to woodsmoke, bacterial illness, etc?
And then furthermore, if higher BMI isn't helpful by itself, what should people who ARE in poverty or otherwise exposed to more stresses do?
Is there a subgroup that needs a metabolic reserve? Should those people eat less to save money and be able to DoorDash if needed and have external reserves like people without poverty or adventurousness?
Or is there a real independent benefit to some level of fat?
̶R̶e̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶d̶y̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶v̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶p̶r̶e̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶s̶u̶l̶t̶s̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶v̶e̶r̶w̶e̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶d̶e̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶-̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶t̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶n̶o̶r̶m̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶e̶i̶g̶h̶t̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶v̶e̶r̶w̶e̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶d̶e̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶-̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶t̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶o̶b̶e̶s̶i̶t̶y̶.̶
̶
̶T̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶I̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶s̶t̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶e̶l̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶H̶R̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶n̶o̶r̶m̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶e̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶d̶y̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶k̶e̶d̶.̶
edit: this is wrong, see reply below
edit: this is wrong, see reply below
The article explicitly compares overweight, grade 1 obesity, grade 2 & 3 obesity together, obesity generally, relative to normal weight.
> Random-effects summary all-cause mortality HRs for overweight (BMI of 25–<30), obesity (BMI of ≥30), grade 1 obesity (BMI of 30–<35), and grades 2 and 3 obesity (BMI of ≥35) were calculated relative to normal weight (BMI of 18.5–<25).
> Random-effects summary all-cause mortality HRs for overweight (BMI of 25–<30), obesity (BMI of ≥30), grade 1 obesity (BMI of 30–<35), and grades 2 and 3 obesity (BMI of ≥35) were calculated relative to normal weight (BMI of 18.5–<25).
Great point, I completely misread that. Edited my original comment!
Yeah I had to read this a few times too! I was totally baffled by having 3 categories for obesity, but one of the categories is grade 2 & 3 categories together, and one of the categories is grade 1, 2, & 3 together.
I think the catch with this study is that BMI is different from muscle mass and fat mass.
Higher BMI can simply mean more athletic.
I wish we could tell!
Higher BMI can simply mean more athletic.
I wish we could tell!
False dichonomy; you can choose to consume neither sugar nor sweeteners
Yep. I used to drink a lot of diet soda. I stopped that probably 10 years ago or so. I don't use artificial sweeteners in anything. I mostly drink water now. When I drink coffee or tea it's unsweetened. For an occasional treat such as a milkshake I will use sugar, sparingly.
Incidentally, when I drink diet soft drinks now they taste like chemicals. Completely unnatural sweetness. I don't find them enjoyable at all. But when I used to drink them daily, I liked them, really almost craved them.
Incidentally, when I drink diet soft drinks now they taste like chemicals. Completely unnatural sweetness. I don't find them enjoyable at all. But when I used to drink them daily, I liked them, really almost craved them.
Other than natural sugars in fruit, my diet has effectively no sugar or sweeteners.
It's not that hard after several years of changing your eating habits slowly.
It helps that I've always preferred drinking water.
It's not that hard after several years of changing your eating habits slowly.
It helps that I've always preferred drinking water.
That, and it's also possible to consume (moderate amounts of) sugar and have a good BMI.
Gut flora probably affect calorie and nutrient absorption. It seems worth checking whether the gut flora changes increase calorie absorption or cause increased appetite (say, by causing nutrient deficiency) before deciding which path is better for weight loss.
The issue is not necessarily just nutrient absorption, but also the body's production of GLP-1: that influences appetite and blood sugar regulation. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33820962/
Any change in absorption is going to be minuscule in comparison to the difference in calories one gets from all the excess sugar.
Anecdotally, switching from full-sugar soda to diet has been a hugely beneficial change to my own health. Would water be better? Maybe, but I’ll settle for harm reduction.
Anecdotally, switching from full-sugar soda to diet has been a hugely beneficial change to my own health. Would water be better? Maybe, but I’ll settle for harm reduction.
I switched from soda to tea three or four times in my life before swearing off soda entirely. Lost 10 lbs every time.
The problem with artificial sweeteners is that we have “taste buds” for sweet in our intestines, and there’s a theory that reacting to that increases absorption, so your body pulls more carbs from French fries you ate with your Diet Coke.
This is likely a big part of why lecturing people about CICO is such a dick move.
“Calories” in food are net calories, not gross calories. We didn’t calculate the calories in bread by burning it in a sensor chamber. We got it by isolating volunteers, measuring the energy in their food versus the energy in their poop, assuming the rest ends up in your body.
But of course any heat generated by gut microbes might be shed, and the hydrogen bonds in your burps are also lost calories.
I was a very gassy person when I was a young beanpole. Not so much anymore.
The problem with artificial sweeteners is that we have “taste buds” for sweet in our intestines, and there’s a theory that reacting to that increases absorption, so your body pulls more carbs from French fries you ate with your Diet Coke.
This is likely a big part of why lecturing people about CICO is such a dick move.
“Calories” in food are net calories, not gross calories. We didn’t calculate the calories in bread by burning it in a sensor chamber. We got it by isolating volunteers, measuring the energy in their food versus the energy in their poop, assuming the rest ends up in your body.
But of course any heat generated by gut microbes might be shed, and the hydrogen bonds in your burps are also lost calories.
I was a very gassy person when I was a young beanpole. Not so much anymore.
Anecdotally my wife changed her diet and basically tried to replace sugar with sucralose wherever she could. The end result was a significant weight loss. I should note she also did start exercising more at the same time, so definitely not a controlled study. But the delta in calories from sugar was far greater than the caloric expenditure from exercise.
I started long distance walking this year, and nearly every time I see the calorie count I am reminded of the aphorism about not being able to outrun a bad diet. I think that’s bullshit, with a proviso.
The provision is that you can’t outrun a bad diet by exercising a half hour a day. That 30 minutes is a number doctors settled on not to scare sedentary people into not starting an exercise program. You really need an hour or more a day.
I’m trying to get my walk route down to 90 minutes, in prep for a half marathon next year. If I stop for a matcha at the halfway point, I’ve still burned well over twice what I consumed. If I get the smoothie still come out ahead.
The real “secret” there is that when I watch TV I nibble. Not getting food on books is the only reason I don’t nibble when reading. What I’ve done in a 90 minute walk is to forestall eating more than one single thing in that ninety minutes. And lowered my stress level. Cortisol is the other killer here.
Even before that the nearest good coffee shop was a mile away and my net calories were ~100. If I avoided a certain cream based beverage.
For some people, banning prepared foods does a similar thing. Preparing a snack takes fifteen minutes instead of fifteen seconds. You just don’t have as much time in the day to stuff your face once the convenience is gone.
The other aphorism is that you lose weight at the grocery store, which I do believe. If you come home with fruit instead of pie and chips you’ve already fought half the battle.
The provision is that you can’t outrun a bad diet by exercising a half hour a day. That 30 minutes is a number doctors settled on not to scare sedentary people into not starting an exercise program. You really need an hour or more a day.
I’m trying to get my walk route down to 90 minutes, in prep for a half marathon next year. If I stop for a matcha at the halfway point, I’ve still burned well over twice what I consumed. If I get the smoothie still come out ahead.
The real “secret” there is that when I watch TV I nibble. Not getting food on books is the only reason I don’t nibble when reading. What I’ve done in a 90 minute walk is to forestall eating more than one single thing in that ninety minutes. And lowered my stress level. Cortisol is the other killer here.
Even before that the nearest good coffee shop was a mile away and my net calories were ~100. If I avoided a certain cream based beverage.
For some people, banning prepared foods does a similar thing. Preparing a snack takes fifteen minutes instead of fifteen seconds. You just don’t have as much time in the day to stuff your face once the convenience is gone.
The other aphorism is that you lose weight at the grocery store, which I do believe. If you come home with fruit instead of pie and chips you’ve already fought half the battle.
Regular moderate exercise improves your health results whether you loose weight or not. It is one of the few interventions that actually have statistical results. It also affects your life positively by making you stronger or faster or just able to walk longer depending on how exactly you exercise.
If you dont care about health or improvment in things like strength stamina, then the "dont exercise it is waste" knee jerk response makes some sense. If you care about health, it does not at all.
If you dont care about health or improvment in things like strength stamina, then the "dont exercise it is waste" knee jerk response makes some sense. If you care about health, it does not at all.
I’ve only lost a few pounds but inches off my waist. To the point I’m wondering if I’m going to have to repurchase running shorts next year. Muscle is heavy.
To your point on mood: there’s definitely a feedback loop or three there. Once you say “fuck it” a lot of things unravel and everything spirals. Better mood means more chores get done, which is both more exercise and improves self image and mood. Being happier about the mirror does the same thing.
Before the pandemic I wanted to walk a 10k. Now that’s practically my baseline, and new goals I wouldn’t allow myself are popping up. You can get a lot of places in 10k round trip, especially if you aren’t a sweaty mess on the other end. That’s 75% of the way to downtown for me.
To your point on mood: there’s definitely a feedback loop or three there. Once you say “fuck it” a lot of things unravel and everything spirals. Better mood means more chores get done, which is both more exercise and improves self image and mood. Being happier about the mirror does the same thing.
Before the pandemic I wanted to walk a 10k. Now that’s practically my baseline, and new goals I wouldn’t allow myself are popping up. You can get a lot of places in 10k round trip, especially if you aren’t a sweaty mess on the other end. That’s 75% of the way to downtown for me.
> there’s a theory that reacting to that increases absorption, so your body pulls more carbs
There doesn’t seem to be any good studies about that. Anecdotally, as someone who has been drinking 2-3 liters of Diet Coke or Coke Zero daily for over two decades, I haven’t experienced such an effect.
There doesn’t seem to be any good studies about that. Anecdotally, as someone who has been drinking 2-3 liters of Diet Coke or Coke Zero daily for over two decades, I haven’t experienced such an effect.
George Burns smoked cigars into his nineties. He was famous for smoking them while performing.
Anecdotes don’t mean shit for public policy.
And is this even an anecdote? Were you overweight before you started drinking diet and now you’re not, with no other lifestyle changes? Food? Mood? Exercise?
Anecdotes don’t mean shit for public policy.
And is this even an anecdote? Were you overweight before you started drinking diet and now you’re not, with no other lifestyle changes? Food? Mood? Exercise?
> Anecdotes don’t mean shit for public policy.
Right, and so yours doesn’t either.
My point is, the theory that artificial sweeteners somehow cause more “net” calorie intake doesn’t have much grounded evidence. Presenting it as a likely truth is fallacious.
Right, and so yours doesn’t either.
My point is, the theory that artificial sweeteners somehow cause more “net” calorie intake doesn’t have much grounded evidence. Presenting it as a likely truth is fallacious.
That's specious. One is based on a chain of events. The other is based on the absence of a chain of events. Your anecdote and George Burns are of a kind: I did something and nothing bad happened. You've implied that you've proven a negative.
Mine is "I stopped doing something and something good happened (3x)". I did a lot of single variable experiments on myself during that phase of my life. I didn't stop soda and start exercising. I was too 'lazy' for that, but it was more informative.
Anecdotes are lousy for public policy but they're great for research grants. Except for accidental discoveries, most medical advances come from looking at clusters of people or animals or microbes that don't behave the way you thought they would. Those are anecdotes, and the cause-effect variety are much easier to spot.
Mine is "I stopped doing something and something good happened (3x)". I did a lot of single variable experiments on myself during that phase of my life. I didn't stop soda and start exercising. I was too 'lazy' for that, but it was more informative.
Anecdotes are lousy for public policy but they're great for research grants. Except for accidental discoveries, most medical advances come from looking at clusters of people or animals or microbes that don't behave the way you thought they would. Those are anecdotes, and the cause-effect variety are much easier to spot.
I thought calories were measured using a calorimeter which burns the food. I'm pretty sure nutritionists don't have armies of volunteers who eat nothing but a single ingredient for 24-hours, whose poop is then burned in a calorimeter to measure the difference?
How much increased absorption are we talking about? If I don't drink a can of Coke containing 150 calories of pure sugar, and instead drink a Diet Coke with basically 0 calories, are you saying that my gut is going to somehow grab 150 calories that it would have otherwise ignored?
How much increased absorption are we talking about? If I don't drink a can of Coke containing 150 calories of pure sugar, and instead drink a Diet Coke with basically 0 calories, are you saying that my gut is going to somehow grab 150 calories that it would have otherwise ignored?
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Any change in absorption is going to be minuscule in comparison to the difference in calories one gets from all the excess sugar.
I think that depends on how much it takes to have this effect. If the equivalent of one diet soda every couple days (the doses in the article seemed pretty small to me?) is acting like a kind of pesticide, even in small doses, and killing a lot of calorie-eating gut flora, the harm might exceed the benefit. On the other hand if the artificial sweetener is replacing the sugar in 64+oz of soda per day rather than 16ish oz every couple days, sure, the benefits probably overwhelm any harm.
I think that depends on how much it takes to have this effect. If the equivalent of one diet soda every couple days (the doses in the article seemed pretty small to me?) is acting like a kind of pesticide, even in small doses, and killing a lot of calorie-eating gut flora, the harm might exceed the benefit. On the other hand if the artificial sweetener is replacing the sugar in 64+oz of soda per day rather than 16ish oz every couple days, sure, the benefits probably overwhelm any harm.
Sure, if sugar sweetener is the only thing keeping you overweight.
But it's probably harder for your body to deal with being both overweight and having a weird gut biome simultaneously.
But it's probably harder for your body to deal with being both overweight and having a weird gut biome simultaneously.
> Doesn't the risk of being overweight completely overwhelm the risk of a not-yet-understood gut flora change?
It's possible that becoming overweight could cause a gut flora change, or a gut flora change could make you likely to become overweight.
There's no benefit to ending research into diabetes after you find an association between overweight and diabetes, or in making an assumption that the condition of one's gut flora and being overweight are independent.
It's possible that becoming overweight could cause a gut flora change, or a gut flora change could make you likely to become overweight.
There's no benefit to ending research into diabetes after you find an association between overweight and diabetes, or in making an assumption that the condition of one's gut flora and being overweight are independent.
In geriatric patients, being slightly overweight has better prospects than being underweight.
I’m not sure what the pathology is there, other than hitting starvation cycles if you get certain illnesses, and possibly bone density.
I’m not sure what the pathology is there, other than hitting starvation cycles if you get certain illnesses, and possibly bone density.
Doesn't the risk of being overweight completely overwhelm the risk of a not-yet-understood gut flora change?
If you put me in that dilemma, I would choose the artificial sweeteners every single time. So yes. Diets are difficult enough.
But...
Although I distrust all the studies that seem to nudge me into stopping dieting, and the article mentions some of them that are now discredited or impossible to reproduce, I don't simply ignore them. Maybe it's "Big Sugar", as a fellow HNer called it, but maybe not.
Flora disruption seems very real to me. I had to quit Coke years ago (don't ask) and now I've quit sodas alltogether. I don't like coffee, but fortunately caffeine is sold in pills, and much cheaper.
I mention soda specifically because that's what kept me needing sweeteners. Now I drink only water, beer when out with friends, and tea, that unless I'm actively trying to lose weight, I have with one cube or nothing.
If you put me in that dilemma, I would choose the artificial sweeteners every single time. So yes. Diets are difficult enough.
But...
Although I distrust all the studies that seem to nudge me into stopping dieting, and the article mentions some of them that are now discredited or impossible to reproduce, I don't simply ignore them. Maybe it's "Big Sugar", as a fellow HNer called it, but maybe not.
Flora disruption seems very real to me. I had to quit Coke years ago (don't ask) and now I've quit sodas alltogether. I don't like coffee, but fortunately caffeine is sold in pills, and much cheaper.
I mention soda specifically because that's what kept me needing sweeteners. Now I drink only water, beer when out with friends, and tea, that unless I'm actively trying to lose weight, I have with one cube or nothing.
[deleted]
The local minima for diabetes is likely not the overall minima for death rate. I would be surprised if the minima for diabetes diagnosis was NOT slightly below the minima for overall death rate.
The famous JAMA article from 2013 that everyone likes to cite, including in comments below, showed no significant increase in death rate for grade 1 obesity and the effects really kicked in strongly around grade 2 and 3 obesity.
The more recent BMJ article from 2016 that no one wants to cite, showed minimum death rate in the 20-24 BMI range depending on smoking history. That paper reported the most reliable looking studies of 'non-smokers followed up for over 20 years' had a minimum total death rate at a BMI around 20-22, but that does not support the "Healthy at Every Size" narrative so its memoryholed.
I try to keep up to date on diet and supplement journal articles; there's probably journal articles newer than 2016 thats not in my notes yet.
Something EVERY study seems to agree on is the death-curve looks very U shaped kind of like computer chip hardware failure rates. The point being that studies disagree on the exact minima death rate vs BMI which is only relevant for large scale population goals, however they all agree that going from, perhaps, 22 to 23 will have an effect that although possibly measurable if across enough people, will tiny and be deep in the decimal places, whereas going from "twenties" to "forties" for BMI means the patient is unquestionably going to die very young, although EXACTLY how young may vary from study to study.
The problem with BMI of course is it was originally a screening criteria to "find the worst quartile and counsel them" but as happens with all metrics over time eventually the rough and imprecise low resolution screening criteria turned into an "optimize for its own sake" metric and people getting very weird and hyperfocused about their personal metric calculated to five sig figs at least.
The famous JAMA article from 2013 that everyone likes to cite, including in comments below, showed no significant increase in death rate for grade 1 obesity and the effects really kicked in strongly around grade 2 and 3 obesity.
The more recent BMJ article from 2016 that no one wants to cite, showed minimum death rate in the 20-24 BMI range depending on smoking history. That paper reported the most reliable looking studies of 'non-smokers followed up for over 20 years' had a minimum total death rate at a BMI around 20-22, but that does not support the "Healthy at Every Size" narrative so its memoryholed.
I try to keep up to date on diet and supplement journal articles; there's probably journal articles newer than 2016 thats not in my notes yet.
Something EVERY study seems to agree on is the death-curve looks very U shaped kind of like computer chip hardware failure rates. The point being that studies disagree on the exact minima death rate vs BMI which is only relevant for large scale population goals, however they all agree that going from, perhaps, 22 to 23 will have an effect that although possibly measurable if across enough people, will tiny and be deep in the decimal places, whereas going from "twenties" to "forties" for BMI means the patient is unquestionably going to die very young, although EXACTLY how young may vary from study to study.
The problem with BMI of course is it was originally a screening criteria to "find the worst quartile and counsel them" but as happens with all metrics over time eventually the rough and imprecise low resolution screening criteria turned into an "optimize for its own sake" metric and people getting very weird and hyperfocused about their personal metric calculated to five sig figs at least.
It does feel a bit like "Big Sugar" at work, demonising its replacement with FUD.
The way they lump them all together feels really odd to me.
It would be like a report saying non-hydrocarbon vehicles are bad for reason X. Why would anyone but the sugar industry care about all the different substitutes for sugar in such an undifferentiated way?
The way they lump them all together feels really odd to me.
It would be like a report saying non-hydrocarbon vehicles are bad for reason X. Why would anyone but the sugar industry care about all the different substitutes for sugar in such an undifferentiated way?
Last paragraph:
> They make sure to note that they’re not calling for consumption of sugar instead, because excess sugar is absolutely, positively linked to adverse health effects.
I think they care about the substitutes because that's an area where the harm is often debated and much is still unknown. They don't seem to be suggesting that sugar is preferable in any way.
> They make sure to note that they’re not calling for consumption of sugar instead, because excess sugar is absolutely, positively linked to adverse health effects.
I think they care about the substitutes because that's an area where the harm is often debated and much is still unknown. They don't seem to be suggesting that sugar is preferable in any way.
You're making the assumption that artificial sweeteners solve the problem of weight gain. The studies that have been conducted so far show only a minimal impact to body composition by switching from sugar to artificial sweeteners. There are more mechanisms at play than are presently understood.
[deleted]
"Doesn't the risk of being overweight completely overwhelm the risk of a not-yet-understood gut flora change?"
Probably. However those outcomes can be achieved in ways that don't involve sugar substitutes (eg question implies a false dichotomy).
Probably. However those outcomes can be achieved in ways that don't involve sugar substitutes (eg question implies a false dichotomy).
As far as we know, yes. As other commenter have noted, I wouldn't discount the potential role of gut flora changes on obesity risk. This is explicitly called out in the
This study isn't saying that everyone should stop eating artificial-sweetners. It is saying that the previous understanding that artificial sweeteners are biologically inert and risk free.
This study shows that we need to do further research to understand what the gut biome changes entail. It also suggests that we should be a more circumspect about replacing sugars in our diet without worrying about trying to reduce our overall desire for sweet foods / drinks.
This study isn't saying that everyone should stop eating artificial-sweetners. It is saying that the previous understanding that artificial sweeteners are biologically inert and risk free.
This study shows that we need to do further research to understand what the gut biome changes entail. It also suggests that we should be a more circumspect about replacing sugars in our diet without worrying about trying to reduce our overall desire for sweet foods / drinks.
You're making the implicit assumption that sugar substitutes do reduce the risk of being overweight. At least the first post I found on the topic suggest there is evidence of "a positive correlation between regular use of artificial sweetener and weight gain"[0]
0.https://www.publichealthpost.org/research/can-sugar-substitu...
0.https://www.publichealthpost.org/research/can-sugar-substitu...
This article suggests a mechanism for that positive correlation: impairment of glycaemic response by the most commonly used artificial sweeteners.
Many non overweight people eat these fake sweeteners too.
You can be skinny and diabetic too.
One of the American Ninja Warriors last season wore an insulin pump. While competing. I’ve since noticed pictures of a few competitive runners with them.
Weight and metabolic function are correlated, not equivalent.
One of the American Ninja Warriors last season wore an insulin pump. While competing. I’ve since noticed pictures of a few competitive runners with them.
Weight and metabolic function are correlated, not equivalent.
She was type 1 diabetic, so perhaps not relevant: https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/an-american-ninj...
That's my point. We shouldn't only be concerned about overweight people.
I don't save many comments on HN, but I saved this one and re-read it about once a year for a chuckle:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9440566
> I have a slight fascination with sweeteners. About five years ago I imported a kilo of "Neotame" sweetener from a chem factory in Shanghai.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9440566
> I have a slight fascination with sweeteners. About five years ago I imported a kilo of "Neotame" sweetener from a chem factory in Shanghai.
Fascinating. Now it's sold in much smaller quantities: https://www.amazon.com/EASTCHEM-Neotame-25g/dp/B07YYNZP68
And https://www.amazon.com/T-Miles-Neotame-Sweetener-Beverages-P...
And https://www.amazon.com/T-Miles-Neotame-Sweetener-Beverages-P...
I believe any change in diet also causes a possible change in gut microbiomes. Is there any reason to be alarmed about this?
Not just "change in microbiome". It caused a change such that a gut flora transplant to mice caused the mice to have the same glucose reactions. So the artificial sweeteners change glucose metabolism, at least partly mediated by gut flora.
(This has actually been known for at least 3 or 4 years.)
(This has actually been known for at least 3 or 4 years.)
As with most science it's a "warrants further investigation" kind of issue
Yeah, I really want to see a breakdown of the before and after species. I'm very interested in gut microbiome, but frustratingly what's available from the paper outside the paywall doesn't give any details on what the change was. Changes in gut microbiome composition can be very positive or very negative, or mildly positive or mildly negative... What was it in these cases?
The thing about the GI changes in the mice in interesting but I really want more details on the bacteria changes!
The thing about the GI changes in the mice in interesting but I really want more details on the bacteria changes!
I interpreted this headline as "sugar replaces surprise" - if people eat enough sugar they don't care to be surprised anymore, they loose their curiosity, they get their dopamine hits from the sugar rather then from learning surprising things.
This would be a good short story writing prompt. I wonder if it would be a net-gain, as a developer, to crank out a short story each morning as part of normal kata. Seems like it'd juice the creativity-piece of the brain.
Bottom line:
> Collectively, our study suggests that commonly consumed NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] may not be physiologically inert in humans as previously contemplated, with some of their effects mediated indirectly through impacts exerted on distinct configurations of the human microbiome.
In other words, these sweeteners can alter gut bacteria in humans, each person can have a different reaction, and the consequences of these changes are largely unknown.
> Collectively, our study suggests that commonly consumed NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] may not be physiologically inert in humans as previously contemplated, with some of their effects mediated indirectly through impacts exerted on distinct configurations of the human microbiome.
In other words, these sweeteners can alter gut bacteria in humans, each person can have a different reaction, and the consequences of these changes are largely unknown.
The conclusions were at the very end, and I’m not really sure what they were. Not a very good article.
Almost like they expect people to read the whole thing.
The article is still inconclusive.
Because the science is inconclusive, but these results are interesting anyway.
I strongly feel that it’s a good policy not to try to trick your body into thinking something is going on when it isn’t. Tricking it into thinking you are sugar has consequences. So does tricking your body into thinking you have an active lifestyle (eg, weight lifting for aesthetics vs cross training).
It's interesting, but still a small sample size in a single country with potentially similar gut microbiomes. It would be much more meaningful to do the same study across different parts of the world and with a larger number of people. I think in some parts of the world it might be difficult to find enough people who don't consume any artificial sweeteners. If you never consume any and now take the test amounts, is that different than consuming it for many years? Could the effect of the test in people not continuously exposed to the sweeteners be different than those who use it routinely?
No, I think enough studies have been done to conclude there's an issue. For instance, some other recent ones:
* Personalized microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance, https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00919-9
* Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis, https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/10/5228
* Artificial sweeteners and risk of cardiovascular diseases: results from the prospective NutriNet-Santé cohort, https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204
These are all from different countries.
* Personalized microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance, https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00919-9
* Artificial Sweeteners Negatively Regulate Pathogenic Characteristics of Two Model Gut Bacteria, E. coli and E. faecalis, https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/10/5228
* Artificial sweeteners and risk of cardiovascular diseases: results from the prospective NutriNet-Santé cohort, https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204
These are all from different countries.
Sounds like aspartame (my artificial sweetener of choice) seems to still be basically without side effect besides gut biome changes. Which doesn’t really mean anything currently because they don’t know if that has any measurable change in the body overall.
Take this with a grain of aspartame, but I was also very gung ho on artificial sweetners and swept all the fear mongering in with gluten and msg. Aka bullshit. For years, I was drinking tons of diet soda. Maybe 2L per day of diet root beer.
For whatever reason, 4 years ago, I became super sensitive to aspartame. It would make me hyperalert like a more subtle version of caffeine. I had insmonia for random days. It took me forever to isolate it to aspartame, since I've never had a problem, nor suspected there could even be a problem. I don't have pku but it is what it is. Sucralose, stevia, regular sugar still fine. Bodies are weird. I still believe in science but the older I get, the more I give credence that in some people things just work differently. I don't just jump to the conclusion that they're making something up just because official scienctific papers say it's 99.999% safe.
For whatever reason, 4 years ago, I became super sensitive to aspartame. It would make me hyperalert like a more subtle version of caffeine. I had insmonia for random days. It took me forever to isolate it to aspartame, since I've never had a problem, nor suspected there could even be a problem. I don't have pku but it is what it is. Sucralose, stevia, regular sugar still fine. Bodies are weird. I still believe in science but the older I get, the more I give credence that in some people things just work differently. I don't just jump to the conclusion that they're making something up just because official scienctific papers say it's 99.999% safe.
I drank a lot of Coca-Cola life (the one with stevia) and thought that I may have found a drink with a good-enough taste/sugar balance for me. Then, from one day to the other, I got absolutely disgusted by one part of the drink's taste, most probably the sweetener. I could not drink a single glass anymore and today when I even think about Coca-Cola life, it sends me a shiver down the spline. I can drink infinite quantities of drinks made with cheap sugar-free lemonade sirup, so other sweeteners seem to be fine for me, but not stevia.
Stevia when used on it's own as a sweetener leaves a bad after taste of bitterness. It's better be used in combination with another sweetener or sugar (just to decrease the amount of regular sugar in a product). Most products advertised containing stevia usually include an additional sweetener if you pay attention at the ingredients list.
Stevia has a bitter-ish side taste that is truly awful.
To me, stevia tastes distinctly like the aroma of burnt hair. It’s intolerable.
Fascinating. It's like your body gradually figured out that you were trying to fool it, and revolted.
I'd bet there are digestion processes that "start up" in response to taste. Maybe your body detected that stevia was regularly "starting up" one of these processes and then withholding the expected glucose spike, and got upset about the pattern
I'd bet there are digestion processes that "start up" in response to taste. Maybe your body detected that stevia was regularly "starting up" one of these processes and then withholding the expected glucose spike, and got upset about the pattern
I think that was some of the findings in the linked research. Certain artificial sugars were changing insulin response in subjects. I'm just a sample size of 1, and they're a sample size of 100 but I think it's clear that the beliefe that ALL the artificial sugars are inert and pass right through us is false... sometimes.
> It would make me hyperalert like a more subtle version of caffeine. I had insmonia for random days.
That's phenylalanine. Its metabolites are interesting.
One of them is tyrosine, which itself is the precursor to dopamine and adrenaline.
Another is phenethylamine. That's a fun class of drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substituted_phenethylamine
Phenethylamine itself becomes N-Methylphenethylamine, not at all dissimilar to its structural isomer, A-Methylphenethylamine, better known as amphetamine.
How much phenylalanine is metabolized into each of these is complicated and depends on a lot of things, but sounds like you did something to cause it to be more.
That's phenylalanine. Its metabolites are interesting.
One of them is tyrosine, which itself is the precursor to dopamine and adrenaline.
Another is phenethylamine. That's a fun class of drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substituted_phenethylamine
Phenethylamine itself becomes N-Methylphenethylamine, not at all dissimilar to its structural isomer, A-Methylphenethylamine, better known as amphetamine.
How much phenylalanine is metabolized into each of these is complicated and depends on a lot of things, but sounds like you did something to cause it to be more.
whaaaaat? Dude you're blowing my mind. I remember diving deep on PKU to see if maybe I had that. I think I remember "clearing" myself by checking 23and me and I didn't have the bad genes? I also eat plenty of phenylalanine so I don't think I have issues with that per se, but maybe like you said, one of the other metabolites is being wonky in me. Thanks so much for the info, I'm gonna read into this more
Lots of sodas contain caffeine. If you drank 2L of any sodas containing caffeine then that would likely be equivalent of a few cups of coffee per day.
I don't know what artificial sweeteners are used in NZ, but they trigger my asthma.
I mostly stick to soda water (only carbon dioxide, no flavorings) these days.
I mostly stick to soda water (only carbon dioxide, no flavorings) these days.
how could microbiome changes not have measurable impact on the body? bodies are ridiculously complex systems.
and there are plenty of instancess where gut microbiome changes are known to be impactful. my partner got SIBO which caused lots of problems for a few months and she was basically unable to eat anything.
and there are plenty of instancess where gut microbiome changes are known to be impactful. my partner got SIBO which caused lots of problems for a few months and she was basically unable to eat anything.
> sucralose significantly impaired glycemic response
What's the takeaway from that? Sucralose (Splenda) has long been my sweetener of choice. I prefer the taste over actual sugar in many things.
Should I be avoiding it? Is that impaired glycemic response a bad thing I should be worried about?
What's the takeaway from that? Sucralose (Splenda) has long been my sweetener of choice. I prefer the taste over actual sugar in many things.
Should I be avoiding it? Is that impaired glycemic response a bad thing I should be worried about?
Aspartame and asesulfame make my farts smell like literal death - have done so for over a decade, took me a long while to figure out the reason. _Something_ is going on with my gut bacteria and those two.
I could also easily down 1.5 litres of sugar free Pepsi MAX in an afternoon. On the other hand a can of sugar coke is more ... satiating? Can't drink EU-Pepsi at all, because even the sugar version has the two horsemen of the fartocalypse in it =(
I could also easily down 1.5 litres of sugar free Pepsi MAX in an afternoon. On the other hand a can of sugar coke is more ... satiating? Can't drink EU-Pepsi at all, because even the sugar version has the two horsemen of the fartocalypse in it =(
The full article is (currently) available here: https://www.weizmann.ac.il/immunology/elinav/sites/immunolog...
Good luck finding certain foods without artificial sweeteners. 99% of whey protein powders have it. I have to buy pure whey and then I add sugar to it (of course I add a much lower amount because I am not addicted to insanely sweet foods).
Also, nearly every product that is labeled as low sugar has them. I make my own fruit spritzers with 1 part fruit juice and 4 parts soda water. Plenty sweet for me...
Also, nearly every product that is labeled as low sugar has them. I make my own fruit spritzers with 1 part fruit juice and 4 parts soda water. Plenty sweet for me...
I don't know if you can get them where you are, but I'll plug Ireland's All Real protein bars here.
They're fantastic. They use dates and honey for sweetness, with whey from happy grass-fed Irish cows. And they're not even much more expensive than the awful alternatives.
They're fantastic. They use dates and honey for sweetness, with whey from happy grass-fed Irish cows. And they're not even much more expensive than the awful alternatives.
it's a real shame. There are a few brands who do try natural stuff, including some pea protein vegan powders. But they kinda taste nasty if im being honest. There just isn't a market that's distinctly anti-artificial sugar yet, besides for the vegan crowd.
But I hope the trend of companies like spindrift keeps increasing. low sugar, no articicial sweetners.
But I hope the trend of companies like spindrift keeps increasing. low sugar, no articicial sweetners.
Good article!
I spent one evening last week on reviewing the role of sugar substitutes in diabetes prevention. Sadly, it seems that most of them, except for perhaps Xylitol, mess with our insulin response. I decided to starting to cut down on my Coke Zero, but it is a struggle...
I spent one evening last week on reviewing the role of sugar substitutes in diabetes prevention. Sadly, it seems that most of them, except for perhaps Xylitol, mess with our insulin response. I decided to starting to cut down on my Coke Zero, but it is a struggle...
Even more interesting because gut microbiome health is also associated with autoimmune disease and (apparently - not sure of the veracity) ASD.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3337124/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30747427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3337124/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30747427/
I haven't seen him for a while. But I love the author's, Derek Lowe, work. His posts on Things I won't work with were some of the most entertaining science writing I have read. e.g. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-wor...
I feel like this isn't a surprise at all, but I guess it's good to have empirical evidence of it. It's abundantly clear anecdotally that the people who drink tons of artificial-sweetened stuff are _not_ as healthy as those who consume neither tons of sugar OR artificial sweetener.
Or put differently: everyone who chugs diet soda seems to be weirdly skinny or weirdly fat, so there is clearly some microbiome effect going on.
Or put differently: everyone who chugs diet soda seems to be weirdly skinny or weirdly fat, so there is clearly some microbiome effect going on.
A variation of the "blue car" bias.
You notice the weirdly skinny or fat, then notice what they drink.
You notice the weirdly skinny or fat, then notice what they drink.
The existence of a bias doesn't mean the observation is invalid, just that the bias has to be taken into account.
Anyway, it's definitely not true in this case. I notice the very unusual instance of people drinking soda because it's so rare these days (among my extended social circle). In some cases I _hear_ about it before I meet the person ("my bf drinks like a liter of soda a day" or whatever) -- and then meet them and, unsurprisingly, they're weirdly skinny or fat.
Anyway, it's definitely not true in this case. I notice the very unusual instance of people drinking soda because it's so rare these days (among my extended social circle). In some cases I _hear_ about it before I meet the person ("my bf drinks like a liter of soda a day" or whatever) -- and then meet them and, unsurprisingly, they're weirdly skinny or fat.
You know your own life best but you might be missing the underlying causes.
Overweight person A drinks diet soda because they struggle with losing weight and use it to avoid drinking calories.
Underweight person B drinks diet soda because they have body image issues and/or a mild-to-severe ED and are afraid to gain weight.
Overweight person A drinks diet soda because they struggle with losing weight and use it to avoid drinking calories.
Underweight person B drinks diet soda because they have body image issues and/or a mild-to-severe ED and are afraid to gain weight.
Yeah, all valid. I guess the reason it seems obvious to me that the diet soda is directly affecting weight is that so many of the people with weight problems don't seem to think the soda can have anything to do with it. "But it's diet!" says, for instance, my mom.
What is your mom's average daily calorie count?
Why would I know that? Why would you even ask that?
Because if you were consuming 4000 calories of food and drink before and reduced it down to 3000 by drinking diet soda. It's still a lot, but less. Which is better.
Oh I'm just questioning why you think I would count my mom's calorie intake, or why it would specifically matter.
It specifically matters because the number influence on a person's weight is calorie intake/calorie usage.
Other things might influence to a degree, but the main problem is always going to be caloric in nature.
Other things might influence to a degree, but the main problem is always going to be caloric in nature.
Yes, I'm sure you're a completely unbiased source of whether or not you're an unbiased source and you're not discounting all the times this didn't happen because you didn't bother to note the occurrence.
I don't think I'm unbiased? I just believe I'm taking the bias into consideration. Pointing out an obvious bias isn't a useful counterargument, it's just a way of saying "whatever you think you've noticed in your life, ignore it, you will always be wrong". Intellectually it's a complete non-starter, it's just a way to write off impressions you don't agree with (instead of, say, debating it, offering supporting or counter-evidence, etc). Obviously you are free to ignore the opinions of a random internet commenter, of course. But I like to mention what I've noticed in case it resonates (or anti-resonates) with any other casual readers.
What you are calling evidence is useless. You may believe you are taking the bias into consideration, but you can't actually know if you are or aren't. Your whole bit is the non-starter.
But my "counter-evidence" would simply be me saying "Well, I don't see that". To which you would respond that it was actually I who wasn't being observant. When there is no real way to determine that. And that discussion itself is intellectually bankrupt.
My pointing out that your recollection of casual observations and your self-assessment of how well you "took the bias into consideration" is debate. I'm questioning the source of your statistics.
Because even in this study, it's from 120 people. Total. Who self-reported they had never had artificial sweeteners.
And the other obvious thing is that you are also free to ignore my opinions. I like to mention when someone is offering biased anecdotes in place of substantive discussion. In case it resonates.
But my "counter-evidence" would simply be me saying "Well, I don't see that". To which you would respond that it was actually I who wasn't being observant. When there is no real way to determine that. And that discussion itself is intellectually bankrupt.
My pointing out that your recollection of casual observations and your self-assessment of how well you "took the bias into consideration" is debate. I'm questioning the source of your statistics.
Because even in this study, it's from 120 people. Total. Who self-reported they had never had artificial sweeteners.
And the other obvious thing is that you are also free to ignore my opinions. I like to mention when someone is offering biased anecdotes in place of substantive discussion. In case it resonates.
I would not respond that you are being unobservant if you disagreed with me. I'd find that interesting, and wait for more data points from other commenters. So far you had just doubted my observations instead of presenting any of your own though.
I'm not claiming you should draw any universal conclusions from my anecdotes! That's absurd. But there has got to be something between 'data is from a study' and 'data is meaningless'.
The one claim I have made that you should believe, though, is that I (and others, evidently) was expecting the surprise to be that science found artificial sweeteners to have no effect, since my prior for it mattering was so high. I was surprised that this result was a surprise to anyone.
I'm not claiming you should draw any universal conclusions from my anecdotes! That's absurd. But there has got to be something between 'data is from a study' and 'data is meaningless'.
The one claim I have made that you should believe, though, is that I (and others, evidently) was expecting the surprise to be that science found artificial sweeteners to have no effect, since my prior for it mattering was so high. I was surprised that this result was a surprise to anyone.
You don't have data. Because the thing about biases is that they're often unconscious.
It's also a lot like the "bad toupee" effect. You think you're good at spotting toupees because you always notice when they're bad. But you don't notice when they're good, therefore they don't even factor into your dataset.
Which is why anecdotes are never data. There's no way to control the data coming in. And the filters we have on the data coming in are sometimes unknown.
I've never really seen a study on artificial sweeteners that ever propose an actual mechanism. And without fail, the study is done on rodents or rely on self-reporting to some degree or on very small sample sizes.
I don't have to present my own observations to point out flaws in your own observations. It's not a contest where "most observations" win or whatever.
It's also a lot like the "bad toupee" effect. You think you're good at spotting toupees because you always notice when they're bad. But you don't notice when they're good, therefore they don't even factor into your dataset.
Which is why anecdotes are never data. There's no way to control the data coming in. And the filters we have on the data coming in are sometimes unknown.
I've never really seen a study on artificial sweeteners that ever propose an actual mechanism. And without fail, the study is done on rodents or rely on self-reporting to some degree or on very small sample sizes.
I don't have to present my own observations to point out flaws in your own observations. It's not a contest where "most observations" win or whatever.
I have no objection to 'anecdotes aren't data" or "you can't see your unconscious biases" or any of that.. I just think that responding to say "the things you think you have noticed are biased and therefore irrelevant and meaningless" is (a) a dick thing to say and (b) totally unnecessary, since it's both obvious and adds no information or interesting content to the discussion. Its only purpose is to put me down. And for what? To spread cynicism, apparently -- you seemed to think that if had contributed _your_ impression, I would dismiss it out of hand, but no, that's a You Thing. I'm interested in other people's impressions, and plenty of other people are too, even if you personally aren't.
Correlation/causation question there. It is very plausible that people already in categories you consider weird are choosing diet soda because they agree with you and are trying to avoid making the issue more severe.
true. My intuition is that that's not the case though. I should add, I don't know _any_ non-diet soda drinkers, and the diet soda drinkers are the ones with weight issues.
I drank non-diet soda semi-regularly before deciding that I had put on too much weight, so I started a very austere diet. The only reason I've been able to stick to the diet as long as I have is the sweetness of Pepsi Zero Sugar Mango. So that soda, in particular, has helped me lose 23 pounds and counting. Without it, I think I would have series trouble staying on a diet so strict.
So yeah, I have a weight issue, and I'm diet soda drinker, but for me, at least, you had the cause and effect reversed.
So yeah, I have a weight issue, and I'm diet soda drinker, but for me, at least, you had the cause and effect reversed.
Fair enough. I guess the root cause is the need to have sweetness in your diet, though? Which, yeah, might be mostly unchangeable now that you're already in that state (presumably from a long diet of soda).
incidentally as a person who did not grow up drinking soda, it's sickeningly sweet to me. It bothers me a lot, also, that it is actually much sweeter than it tastes due to the carbonation -- if you drink a flat soda you get a better impression of what you're "really" drinking, which is basically just watered-down syrup.
incidentally as a person who did not grow up drinking soda, it's sickeningly sweet to me. It bothers me a lot, also, that it is actually much sweeter than it tastes due to the carbonation -- if you drink a flat soda you get a better impression of what you're "really" drinking, which is basically just watered-down syrup.
Yeah, I've gone years at a time with no soda, although in my teens I drank so much I'll likely never be able to kick it completely. When I go years without, it does seem super-super-sweet. But also very familiar, and tastes "normal" by the time I finish a single can.
[deleted]
Me too. I thought the surprise was going to be that they are good for you!
> They make sure to note that they’re not calling for consumption of sugar instead, because excess sugar is absolutely, positively linked to adverse health effects. But attempting to replace it with artificial sweeteners may not be a good way to go, either
Oh no, what will the food industry that got us addicted to sugar will do ?
Oh no, what will the food industry that got us addicted to sugar will do ?
Weird question but can’t you not eat sweet at all? What’s wrong about just not using sugar or any sweeteners?
Yes, I, too, hate myself.
Years ago I was a student nurse and spent a lot of time on the geriatric wards, I really liked the old farts but was somewhat disturbed by how they could spend hour after hour discussing their bowels with anyone who would listen, very strange.
Reading this thread has sent me right back there.
Reading this thread has sent me right back there.
So, are monkfruit or stevia bad for you? I'm a heavy user.
Stevia and Xylitol seem much less disruptive to your gut than sucralose or saccharin, but I'm not an expert.
Even a world-class nutritionist can't tell you what their effect on you will be with certainty. The only way to be sure is to cut them out of your diet for 6 weeks or so and see what happens.
Even a world-class nutritionist can't tell you what their effect on you will be with certainty. The only way to be sure is to cut them out of your diet for 6 weeks or so and see what happens.
Everything bad, eat what makes you happy, we get cancer one way or the other
"who knows what artificial sweeteners we might have missed out on due to lack of sloppy lab technique?" is gem.
Am I the only one that prefers aspartame to sugar? Sugar has this aftertaste that tastes like something decaying.
I wouldn't say I prefer aspartame to sugar, but to me it's the least bad tasting sugar substitute.
On the rare occasion when I get Diet Coke at a restaurant, it has a really nasty taste because they add saccharine in the fountain version. Compared to the canned version which uses only aspartame, the fountain version is almost undrinkable.
On the rare occasion when I get Diet Coke at a restaurant, it has a really nasty taste because they add saccharine in the fountain version. Compared to the canned version which uses only aspartame, the fountain version is almost undrinkable.
> since those are benevolent All Natural substances harvested under blue skies to a background of chirping birds and gentle breezes.
No shit Science? This is reasoned discourse?
One of the most critical components of our world-wide health system, sugar and diabetes. And this is the response.
It makes it difficult to truly (no fucking pun intended) assess risk in life.
This isn't about cheap rebellion. That's not the relationship you build for.
One reason of hundreds.
No shit Science? This is reasoned discourse?
One of the most critical components of our world-wide health system, sugar and diabetes. And this is the response.
It makes it difficult to truly (no fucking pun intended) assess risk in life.
This isn't about cheap rebellion. That's not the relationship you build for.
One reason of hundreds.
bot?
✓ botulism...
No, I'm not a bot. Hello.
No, I'm not a bot. Hello.
We all love Ooey Gooey Cookies, right?
So, how can I make that without killing the crowd? That's the question of the day.
Is stevia a decent substitute for sugar? Is sugar ok if consumed on weekends only? I know, silly questions.
And then we get Jenny McCarthy provoking editorials, targeting the people who could use knowledgeable advice.
And years later, we'll be lectured on bad decisions.
So, how can I make that without killing the crowd? That's the question of the day.
Is stevia a decent substitute for sugar? Is sugar ok if consumed on weekends only? I know, silly questions.
And then we get Jenny McCarthy provoking editorials, targeting the people who could use knowledgeable advice.
And years later, we'll be lectured on bad decisions.
TL;DR: sugar substitutes may be bad for you because of how bacteria in your gut metabolize them. Or maybe not. Either way, sugar is still worse.
Not that much of a surprise actually.
Not that much of a surprise actually.
Does this say anything significant or new about xylitol? This seems like the safest bet...
Unless you own a dog, and then it can be a huge risk. It doesn’t take much xylitol to kill your dog, and I’ve watched a friend lose their dog due to this. I’ve had a scare where my dog ate a piece of a popsicle on a hot day that, unknown to me in the moment, was sweetened with xylitol; thankfully not in a fatal concentration but we still had to stay up all night to keep an eye on our dog and were hours away from the nearest animal hospital.
Allulose won’t kill your dog.
Doesn't look like anything new. AFAIK erythritol is the best of the sugar alcohols and potentially the safest of the sugar substitutes.
Another option that needs to be studied a bit more but seems safe so far is allulose, which is nice for baking since it will actually brown and doesn't have the cooling effect erythritol has.
Another option that needs to be studied a bit more but seems safe so far is allulose, which is nice for baking since it will actually brown and doesn't have the cooling effect erythritol has.
I subjectively like using allulose, but I don't know the research/theory well. Does it fit into the same "nonmetabolized carbohydrates" category as sucralose?
I recently read some interesting info on xylitol and benefits for dental health:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232036/
It tastes the best, it never gets implicated in these studies, and is used in many keto/no sugar products today.
I love it, and insulin and allulose. Not sure why people are obsessed with the nasty shit like stevia, monk fruit, or blue agave...
I love it, and insulin and allulose. Not sure why people are obsessed with the nasty shit like stevia, monk fruit, or blue agave...
Agreed. Xylitol is yummy, good for your teeth, inexpensive, time tested, and doesn't have a weird aftertaste.
The only downsides are that it doesn't work quite the same as sugar in cooking, some are sensitive to it, and if you overdo it there can allegedly be some runny side-effects.
The only downsides are that it doesn't work quite the same as sugar in cooking, some are sensitive to it, and if you overdo it there can allegedly be some runny side-effects.
> since those are benevolent All Natural substances harvested under blue skies to a background of chirping birds and gentle breezes
Researchers expressing bias like this (or the opposite as well) should be disqualified. Science is factual, not emotional nor invective.
Researchers expressing bias like this (or the opposite as well) should be disqualified. Science is factual, not emotional nor invective.
I don't know, I for one really appreciated that touch. Not all scientific content has to be encyclopedic, and this specifically is a commentary blog[0], which I think serves a valuable purpose.
[0] https://www.science.org/blogs/pipeline
[0] https://www.science.org/blogs/pipeline
That sounds sarcastic to me.
Is sugar good or bad for you?
that's not a surprise at all...
No, it's not.
But sweetener maxis often say the gut bacteria effect is unproven, so every good study there helps.
But sweetener maxis often say the gut bacteria effect is unproven, so every good study there helps.
OMG!!!
How many fat people do you see drinking Diet Coke? It doesn't seem to be helping, does it?
The answer: just indulge your sweet tooth, if you have one, but be real moderate about it. A quarter tsp of sugar in the coffee, just a couple cookies after dinner. And so forth.
And quit drinking soda, period. Get carbonated water if you have to have those bubbles. Don't eat between meals.
Next case.
The answer: just indulge your sweet tooth, if you have one, but be real moderate about it. A quarter tsp of sugar in the coffee, just a couple cookies after dinner. And so forth.
And quit drinking soda, period. Get carbonated water if you have to have those bubbles. Don't eat between meals.
Next case.
Whoever finds a way to make left-handed glucose economically is going to be fucking rich.