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

Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 159 posts

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#31

Post by jschwartzi »

Zelphyr wrote: post #16
LordKano wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that stevia is an "artificial" sweetener.

Technically I don't think its artificial. However, I notice that most Stevia products also contain dextrose. I don't think dextrose is considered artificial either but still, it begs the question why Stevia alone isn't enough and/or if dextrose is low or zero calorie then why not just use that?

Dextrose is a filler starch. Raw concentrated sweetener would be more than you could handle, so the dextrose is added to allow you to use the artificial sweetener like you would use table sugar, e.g. spooning it or baking with it.

If you buy liquids then you don't get filler starch like dextrose.

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#32

Post by late2part »

Zelphyr wrote: post #16
LordKano wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that stevia is an "artificial" sweetener.

Technically I don't think its artificial. However, I notice that most Stevia products also contain dextrose. I don't think dextrose is considered artificial either but still, it begs the question why Stevia alone isn't enough and/or if dextrose is low or zero calorie then why not just use that?

Friendly correction, "begs the question" doesn't mean what you say in your post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#33

Post by ccallebs »

DanBC wrote: post #13
ethanbond wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Methadone is really harmful. > So heroin is back in? Evidently, both are bad and it doesn't seem to be immediately clear whether real sugar or artificial is more harmful. But we do know for a fact that excess carbohydrate intake causes numerous serious health problems (heart problems, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc).

>But we do know for a fact that excess carbohydrate intake causes numerous serious health problems [...] Alzheimer's, Do we know that for a fact? Definitely?

Of course not. But there are varying degrees of evidence supporting the idea that consuming excess carbohydrates (and more specifically, "simple" carbohydrates) contributes to a wide array of health issues.

We know consuming excess carbohydrates is bad for you the same way we know that climate change is happening. The same way we know that a sedentary lifestyle is detrimental to your health. The same way we know that smoking causes lung cancer and a cornucopia of other health concerns.

Science rarely affords us the ability to make absolute statements.

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#34

Post by ethanbond »

DanBC wrote: post #13
ethanbond wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Methadone is really harmful. > So heroin is back in? Evidently, both are bad and it doesn't seem to be immediately clear whether real sugar or artificial is more harmful. But we do know for a fact that excess carbohydrate intake causes numerous serious health problems (heart problems, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc).

>But we do know for a fact that excess carbohydrate intake causes numerous serious health problems [...] Alzheimer's, Do we know that for a fact? Definitely?

Well, it depends on your definition of fact. So far it's a fairly well supported and entirely non-refuted hypothesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082091

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#35

Post by ethanbond »

darcyparker wrote: post #8

Aspartame (Nutrasweet) is pretty controversial in how it got approved by the FDA. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-... When I was 8 years old, I started having grand mal seizures and my parents noted a strong correlation between drinking a Diet Coke and having a seizure. When they eliminated it from my diet, my seizures declined. Fortunately I stopped having seizures around 12 years of…

Interestingly enough, a low carbohydrate (often including a switch to artificial sweeteners) is a well-established treatment for childhood epilepsy.

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#36

Post by pkaye »

mapt wrote: post #22

It's entirely possible that this is just sloppy science journalism, but the distinction the SA article mentions sounds a bit ridiculous. "In the Israeli experiment, 10-week-old mice were fed a daily dose of aspartame, sucralose or saccharin. Another cluster of mice were given water laced with one of two natural sugars, glucose or sucrose. After 11 weeks, the mice receiving sugar were doing fine, whereas the mice fed…

There was a documentary where identical twins did a health challenge or a month. One ate only carbs and the other only fat/protein. Guess which had blood sugar spikes at the end of the challenge... the one eating fat/protein.

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#37

Post by minikites »

Sirey4 wrote: post #23

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind when reading articles like this is the old mantra that "correlation does not equal causation". I'm always a bit skeptical when studies show partially successful statistics. I've done a lot of research on the subject at hand, and I still believe that consuming real sugar is orders of magnitudes worse than using sweeteners.

> "correlation does not equal causation"

I hate this phrase so much because it's so often used to imply that "because there is correlation it means there can't be causation"

> Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:

> "Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

> "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#38

Post by vowelless »

ethanbond wrote: post #35
darcyparker wrote: post #8

Aspartame (Nutrasweet) is pretty controversial in how it got approved by the FDA. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-... When I was 8 years old, I started having grand mal seizures and my parents noted a strong correlation between drinking a Diet Coke and having a seizure. When they eliminated it from my diet, my seizures declined. Fortunately I stopped having seizures around 12 years of…

Interestingly enough, a low carbohydrate (often including a switch to artificial sweeteners) is a well-established treatment for childhood epilepsy.

The validity low carb diets is generally orthogonal to artificial sweeteners and probably should not be conflated.

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#39

Post by Zelphyr »

jschwartzi wrote: post #31
Zelphyr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically I don't think its artificial. However, I notice that most Stevia products also contain dextrose. I don't think dextrose is considered artificial either but still, it begs the question why Stevia alone isn't enough and/or if dextrose is low or zero calorie then why not just use that?

Dextrose is a filler starch. Raw concentrated sweetener would be more than you could handle, so the dextrose is added to allow you to use the artificial sweetener like you would use table sugar, e.g. spooning it or baking with it. If you buy liquids then you don't get filler starch like dextrose.

Thanks for clarifying that! That's been bugging me forever. :)

Re: Artificial Sweeteners May Change Our Gut Bacteria in Dangerous Ways

#40

Post by ethanbond »

Zelphyr wrote: post #18
__david__ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is depressing because carbohydrates are so tasty. It's all I can do to resist them.

Same here though I've heard that with carbs and sugar, after a week or two without you find you don't crave them anymore. "I've heard" because I've not yet been able to attempt that particular experiment. :)

I've been doing low-carb (to varying degrees) for about 4 years now and love it.

I used to be all about potatoes, bread, pasta, milk, etc. Never big on sweets, but the complex carbs... oh yes. Once I almost hit 200lb at 17-ish I decided to cut carbs (/r/keto) and it worked wonders. I was down to about 150 (a healthy weight for my size) in about a year, but the weight loss is asymptotic. I lost like 10 pounds in my first two weeks, but it took me another 8-9 months to lose the other 40.

The first week or two are somewhat hellish for some people because you're essentially going through a withdrawal. It's nearly identical in mechanism and symptoms of a drug withdrawal. If anything, that should underline how detrimental regular excess carb intake can be. What's even worse than the normal "withdrawals," though, is when you cheat.

When I first went to college I ate an absurd amount of carbs for a rush event (aka fun/eating challenge) and literally fell asleep at the table. Then I felt like shit for the next 3 days. That was my last time cheating :)

You're absolutely right, though, after the first 1-3 weeks, your cravings stop, headaches stop, brain fog clears, you sleep amazingly, feel energized, and don't even notice the dessert menu. It's fascinating and I highly recommend it. You may hate it, you may love it. It has benefitted me in a lot of ways, and it continues to even as I somewhat elevate my carb intake in order to work out effectively.

Post reply on HN