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

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#101

Post by souprock »

logfromblammo wrote: post #61
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…

Paranoid mistrust, cancer fears, and fart-driven explosive diarrhea had already winnowed my list of non-sucrose sweeteners down to just erythritol, pure stevia powder, and very small amounts of xylitol. I'll have to look into lactulose and palatinose.... And it looks like lactulose is out for the diarrhea reason, and isomaltulose--Palatinose is a trademarked name for it--looks practically identical to slow-motion suc…

To avoid crystals, maximize the variety of sugars. For example, if you had 20 different molecules, they wouldn't pack into crystals very well. If you are being a perfectionist, I think you'd want to do this by molar proportion rather than mass or volume.

For those paying less attention, by "different" I don't mean white sugar and raw sugar. Those are the same molecule.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#102

Post by dwighttk »

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…

>Researchers from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel and Nanyang Technological University in Singapore tested the toxicity of aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame, and acesulfame potassium-k.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#104

Post by souprock »

Sileni wrote: post #19
searine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Most of that white powder in a sugar packet is dextrose filler.

Someone made a chemistry joke that went over your head. Dextrose is sugar. Common in corn syrup, to be exact.

Dextrose is sugar just like cellulose is sugar.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#105

Post by hexane360 »

atomical wrote: post #72
DanBC wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly bad for your gut or you wouldn't be getting these side effects. That's not how that works. Ifyou eat too much fruit the sugar in that can cause a laxative effect,and the mecahnism is the same as with suga alcohols. The undigested sugar causes osmosis, which floods the gut with water, which causes diarrhea.

There have been studies done where patients were given lots of fruit and it did not cause a laxative effect. https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/02/23/can-you-eat-too-much-f... > Seventeen people were made to eat 20 servings a day of fruit. Despite the extraordinarily high fructose content of this diet, presumably about 200 g/d—eight cans of soda worth, the investigators reported no adverse effects (and possible benefit…

That article says nothing about a laxative effect.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#106

Post by haisch »

datavirtue wrote: post #98
haisch wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fat is slept on macronutrient because of the misguided idea that increased fat = increased cholesterol in arteries. Vitamin K2 is an important vitamin that isn't metabolized well from foods containing K1 (vegetables). Animal sources and natto (fermented soy beans) are the best sources of it. It has been shown to help with heart disease, cancer and bone health. The interesting thing with animal protein is that no stud…

So you are denying that endothelial dysfunction and it's triggers exist? Interesting.

Its triggers are high insulin, high fasting blood sugar, high triglycerides and low ldl. These are all caused by the food types I listed. High fat low carb diets have been shown to reduce all of these symptoms.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#107

Post by kbutler »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #38
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…

Yeah, I'd be interested to know the effect of something like stevia extract on gut bacteria.

Stevia doesn't affect my gut bacteria much - it affects my taste buds too much for it to get that far.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#108

Post by zaroth »

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…

When the top two comments say the study is fundamentally flawed, I’d say it’s a good reason to flag it off the front page.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#109

Post by bunderbunder »

Bartweiss wrote: post #89
mohaine wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

Doubling down on that point a bit more -

I think that, assuming the study is high quality, one that looks at all the popular artificial sweeteners together is probably more valuable from a "practical application" perspective, because it allows you to make more of an apples-to-apples comparison among the individual sweeteners.

If all you've got is bunch of isolated studies that only look at one of them at a time, you'll always have some room for doubt about whether a difference in outcome reflects the sweetener being tested, or some difference in the experimental protocol.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#110

Post by anothergoogler »

bunderbunder wrote: post #86
anothergoogler wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why four cans? The concentration doesn't increase with volume.

No, but the dose does.

Parent referred to equivalent concentration. The experimental dose was not the the chemical equivalent of 16 packets of Splenda.
Post reply on HN