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

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#121

Post by beat »

zaroth wrote: post #108
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.

Well, the top two comments say the study is fundamentally flawed and they make decent arguments for their case, rather than just spewing upvote-bait HN conventional wisdom...

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#123

Post by saaaaaam »

zaroth wrote: post #108
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.

Actually, I’d say it’s a good reason to keep it visible. First thing I did after I’d read the first paragraph was hit ‘back’ and open the discussion thread. Who funded the study? Is the science valid? Stifling discussion about something by demoting it to the nether realms is counter-productive.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#124

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

kbutler wrote: post #107
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stevia is weird - to me it tastes absolutely awful in coffee and tea but pretty decent when not dissolved, e.g. over cereal or something.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#125

Post by qwerty456127 »

escherplex wrote: post #120
qwerty456127 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for a lot of interesting information. "Bacterial sensing underlies artificial sweetener-induced growth of gut Lactobacillus" seemed the most interesting to me, funny thing is it's about SUCRAM - a sweetener I've never heard about before now. Where can I possibly buy some? What kind of a chemical substance it even is? Does it have a more scientific name?

Doubt if you'd want to ingest it. It's a saccharin-based animal feed enhancer. URL: http://alliednutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AN-Suc...

Thanks. I actually doubt many people can imagine my capacity to ingest things of questionable taste (up to what would make many people vomit) and safety (I don't care much if it's not been approved for human consumption) given a clue there is a chance it is going to enhance my health ;-)

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#126

Post by jwbwater »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #124
kbutler wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Stevia is weird - to me it tastes absolutely awful in coffee and tea but pretty decent when not dissolved, e.g. over cereal or something.

I've found that some brands of stevia taste much better than others.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#127

Post by jwbwater »

haisch wrote: post #65
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…

According to research from 1985 Xylitol has to been shown to shift the gut microbiome population from gram negative to gram positive bacteria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4076932

Consuming too much xylitol gives me a stomach ache. I tried adding it to water for dental health on multiple occasions and got a stomach ache each time.

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#129

Post by escherplex »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #125
escherplex wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubt if you'd want to ingest it. It's a saccharin-based animal feed enhancer. URL: http://alliednutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AN-Suc...

Thanks. I actually doubt many people can imagine my capacity to ingest things of questionable taste (up to what would make many people vomit) and safety (I don't care much if it's not been approved for human consumption) given a clue there is a chance it is going to enhance my health ;-)

Well then to hell with SUCRAM...

Start a liquid stenabolics (sr 9009) / weight training regimen coupled with piracetam (1.5g), choline (.5g), and Steven Hawking's purported vinpocetine supplements, TID, and you'll be like Conan the Barbarian (or Valeria) with a 20pt IQ boost in two months. (sorry, just kidding - a shrink friend recently started that routine and I'm curious to see how it goes)

Re: Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria

#130

Post by qwerty456127 »

escherplex wrote: post #129
qwerty456127 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I actually doubt many people can imagine my capacity to ingest things of questionable taste (up to what would make many people vomit) and safety (I don't care much if it's not been approved for human consumption) given a clue there is a chance it is going to enhance my health ;-)

Well then to hell with SUCRAM... Start a liquid stenabolics (sr 9009) / weight training regimen coupled with piracetam (1.5g), choline (.5g), and Steven Hawking's purported vinpocetine supplements, TID, and you'll be like Conan the Barbarian (or Valeria) with a 20pt IQ boost in two months. (sorry, just kidding - a shrink friend recently started that routine and I'm curious to see how it goes)

Thanks. I'll study the information available about these substances and consider experimenting perhaps. But I believe these substances alone are not going to increase the IQ unless combined with actual mind training (in this case they probably can boost progress, I happen to be a very experienced piracetam user BTW). Let me recommend your friend to also consider exercising with BrainWorkshop (the only scientifically-proven way to increase fluid intelligence) some times a day and starting to learn a language that is very different from those they already know (i.e. a non indo-european one) and the synergic effect can actually be impressing.

As for prebiotics and probiotics - I have been getting increasingly enthusiastic about the gut microbiome subject during the recent months and have achieved amazing results this way and switched from extreme treatment to mild support regimen already yet I'm still very curious about whatever findings in this area.

BTW if you know of any tricks (other than taking choline, it's not enough) that can potentially increase acetylcholine secretion and/or sensitivity - I am very interested to learn them. I have been struggling from ACh deficiency symptoms during my whole life and the only efficient solution I've found so far is nicotine but I'd really love to replace it with something that doesn't cause physiological addiction.

Post reply on HN