Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 137 posts

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#81

Post by JacobJans »

biomcgary wrote: post #53

The underlying research article ( https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/23/10/2454 ) is set up as a "no-fail" experiment since it infers toxicity with the slightest change (inhibition or induction) in a very sensitive reporter (luciferase). They are NOT measuring change in growth rate of the bacterial cells, the traditional measure of toxicity (aka IC, or inhibitory concentration). The study has positive and negative contro…

Whether or not that is the case, it seems to me the most interesting conclusion of the study was this:

> the bacterial responses were correlated to the results of previous toxicity studies and bacteria may be used as a toxicity evaluation tool.

One would want to establish that this method is actually useful, no? It seem this study is pointing in that direction.

If it is effective, there may be interesting ways you can use this test, such as:

> The tested bioluminescent bacterial panel can potentially be used for detecting artificial sweeteners in the environment.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#82

Post by drivers99 »

CannisterFlux wrote: post #47

Seems like everything has artificial sweeteners nowadays. It's a trend that I noticed only in the last couple of years. And not just fizzy drinks like Sprite or Pepsi - which have sugar and sweetener! - but breakfast cereals, yoghurts, ketchup-like sauces... all have "no added sugar" on the package, you dig a bit deeper and they are full of sweeteners. Chewing gum and other "healthy sweet" products like that have use…

> fizzy drinks like Sprite or Pepsi - which have sugar and sweetener

Assuming you're not referring to HFCS (the article mentions "aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame, and acesulfame potassium-k" as the artificial sweeteners), I'm not seeing any artificial sweeteners in those drinks. Sprite has HFCS and Pepsi has HFCS and Sugar.

Sprite:

> CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CITRIC ACID, NATURAL FLAVORS, SODIUM CITRATE, SODIUM BENZOATE (TO PROTECT TASTE). [1]

Pepsi:

> CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CARAMEL COLOR, SUGAR, PHOSPHORIC ACID, CAFFEINE, CITRIC ACID, NATURAL FLAVOR [2]

[1] https://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/products/sprite/ori...

[2] http://www.pepsicobeveragefacts.com/Home/Product?formula=350...

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#83

Post by thoughtexplorer »

vezycash wrote: post #21
nervousvarun wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Processed foods + sedentary lifestyles = perfect storm. Pretty obvious "something" happened in the 70s and we've been on this ride ever since: https://nchspressroom.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/obesity.gi...

If someone is sick, they'll become slow. All they'll want to do is lie down some place quiet. Watch kids, healthy kids. After a meal, all they want to do is run, talk, jump - move. Sitting still is the last thing they want to do. My point is perhaps, sedentary behavior is caused by something, a symptom outside the control of those afflicted by it. Here are some culprits we could explore: Schooling: Being trained, for…

I think it is largely about the environment in which people live and kids are raised. Losing energy as we age has always been true. The lizard brain hasn't changed.

The environment has changed significantly.

The availability of food, especially cheap sugar and processed foods.

Tech to occupy our time and not letting kids play outside.

Kids that grow up eating McDonalds every meal and Soda with every meal. That is normal to them and very difficult to ever break from that if that's been your entire life and if the people around you are functioning that way.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#84

Post by escherplex »

jaxtellerSoA wrote: post #22
raisedbyninjas wrote: post #11

There are only 12 milligrams of sucralose in a packet of Splenda. So the toxic levels found in mice had the same concentration as an 8 oz. cup of coffee with 16 packets of Splenda.

>an 8 oz. cup of coffee with 16 packets of Splenda. I have literally seen people do such things at Dunkin Donuts. "Yeah can I get a medium coffee with extra cream and 20 sugars." You WUT M8?

I've seen that too. But unlike Starbucks which limits simmering time on a hot plate to less than 45 minutes at Dunkin Donuts and local dives you may get a cup of java that has been cooking for hours and tastes like battery acid. Hence the dozen packets of whatever sweetener.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#85

Post by user3359 »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #25

The article doesn't say which sweeteners did they study and this is a very bad style. Fortunately it links to an article on EurekAlert which in its turn links to the actual scientific paper (doi.org/10.3390/molecules23102454). It says aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k (ace-k) (BTW at least saccharine and ace-k are already known to be carcinogenic AFAIK) were tested agains…

It looks like they may have been added since you read it, as they're in the article now.

What I find problematic is that they list a concentration, but no real world examples. We sell a concentrated product that contains 1.3mg sucralose per ml which would seem damning, if not for the fact it gets diluted 8-16x when mixed.

Current daily allowance is about 5mg/kg which for a 50kg/120lb person (very tiny) is 250mg. At 8x dilution this is 2 liters of sugar-free sweetened drinks.

Which actually doesn't sound that difficult to hit.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#87

Post by ceejayoz »

logfromblammo wrote: post #79
ceejayoz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they meant cellulose?

Cellulose is used as an anti-caking/anti-clumping additive. It doesn't add bulk like the puffed up dextrose or maltodextrin does.

It's used as a filler in pre-grated "Parmesan" cheese. https://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-news/ar...

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#88

Post by jjoonathan »

mohaine wrote: post #67
biomcgary wrote: post #53

The underlying research article ( https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/23/10/2454 ) is set up as a "no-fail" experiment since it infers toxicity with the slightest change (inhibition or induction) in a very sensitive reporter (luciferase). They are NOT measuring change in growth rate of the bacterial cells, the traditional measure of toxicity (aka IC, or inhibitory concentration). The study has positive and negative contro…

I've always found any of these studies that treat artificial sweeteners as a single group very suspect. 1) The only thing the different types of Artificial Sweeteners have in common is a high sweetness value per volume (2k-4k time more sweet than sugar is common). Other than that they are different chemicals so it seems strange to treat them a single group. Sure a few of them might have issues but it seems silly to s…

I can buy the mechanism of high sweetness/vol mucking with satiety or insulin heuristics. My problem with these studies is that the ones promoted by the media overwhelmingly tend to have "cheated" to obtain positive results -- they claim to have found a link between artificial sweetners and cancer/diabetes/whatever but show the usual signs of severe significance hacking when I skim the paper. My own belief heuristics lead me to the tentative conclusion that effect size is therefore very small.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#89

Post by Bartweiss »

mohaine wrote: post #67
biomcgary wrote: post #53

The underlying research article ( https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/23/10/2454 ) is set up as a "no-fail" experiment since it infers toxicity with the slightest change (inhibition or induction) in a very sensitive reporter (luciferase). They are NOT measuring change in growth rate of the bacterial cells, the traditional measure of toxicity (aka IC, or inhibitory concentration). The study has positive and negative contro…

I've always found any of these studies that treat artificial sweeteners as a single group very suspect. 1) The only thing the different types of Artificial Sweeteners have in common is a high sweetness value per volume (2k-4k time more sweet than sugar is common). Other than that they are different chemicals so it seems strange to treat them a single group. Sure a few of them might have issues but it seems silly to s…

> treat artificial sweeteners as a single group

In defense of an otherwise-poor study, it didn't do this. Six of the most common artificial sweeteners were tested on the bacterial assay and their results reported and discussed separately. Another sequence of assays was run on a panel of sports supplements with varying sweeteners. It looks to me like the only reason for grouping these chemicals was practical - they have interchangeable dietary uses, so it's helpful to observe their varying responses on a single test.

It'd be a pretty interesting study, except that the assay's quality and sensitivity seem hugely in doubt.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#90

Post by logfromblammo »

i_cant_speel wrote: post #60
abakker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation for proof that arterial hardening happens immediately, and that animal protein specifically causes this (vs plant protein)? I've not seen this specific claim before.

I've seen the claim about animal protein many times before, never the sources.

It seems to be part of some pseudo-vegan zeitgeist. The denaturation process in cooking and digestion makes animal protein practically indistinguishable from plant protein. If there is any measurable dietary effect, it would be in the nutritional factors closely associated with those protein sources--for instance, the heme iron in animal meats, and the porphyric magnesium in green vegetable chlorophyll.

The proteins themselves are unlikely to have an effect beyond the ratios of their specific amino acid components, and the potential for indigestible misfolded prions. Animals are loaded with pepsins in their guts and proteases in the rest. By the time an amino acid reaches your arteries, if has already been broken down and built back up into something else.

A simple web search turns up pseudoscience and broscience everywhere. If there ever was a real dietary health study, it's now buried in the noise.

Post reply on HN