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

91–100 of 159 posts

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

#91

Post by jmcmichael »

mapt wrote: post #15
LordKano wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your body doesn't care whether something was made by humans or whether it was made by nature. It only cares about the particularities of the molecules involved.

Yeah, it appears that stevia would likely have similar effects, as it has been suggested that tasting sweetness causes an spike in insulin without a corresponding bump in blood glucose levels, leading to an excess of insulin[1].

What causes the difference in effect between glucose and artificial sweeteners appears to be the taste of sweetness without the carbohydrates that would go along with natural sources of sweet taste.

[1] Sucralose Affects Glycemic and Hormonal Responses to an Oral Glucose Load -http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc...

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

#92

Post by logfromblammo »

ars wrote: post #67
mrfusion wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I put two tbsp of xylitol into my smoothies and I've never had a problem. It's also supposed to be good for your teeth. I do wonder how something can be so dangerous for dogs and safe for humans. Aren't our cells almost identical?

> I do wonder how something can be so dangerous for dogs and safe for humans. Aren't our cells almost identical? There's lots of differences in the enzymes that are made though. For example humans are one of the few species that can not make vitamin C. Usually if you check the reason a food is dangerous for some animal it's that they lack an enzyme needed to degrade it, so it builds up.

The LD-50 for theobromine (found in chocolate) is 300 mg/kg for dogs, and 1000 mg/kg for humans. Additionally, dogs metabolize it more slowly than humans.

As a result, a dog who eats 1 oz milk chocolate or 0.25 oz dark chocolate per pound of its own body weight could die. A 192-lb human who eats 12 pounds of milk chocolate is unlikely to die... from theobromine poisoning.

Cats have an ever lower LD-50 for theobromine, but they are less likely to eat a lethal dose of chocolate, because they don't taste sweetness, while dogs can. Birds are not affected by capsaicin, but are absolutely repulsed by methyl anthranilate (artificial grape flavoring).

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

#93

Post by b08aa8b0dcfce »

sosborn wrote: post #83
darcyparker wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rumsfeld was the CEO at Searle - the makers of Aspartame... And he used his political influence to replace the FDA commissioner so Aspartame could be legalized. That's a conflict of interest.

While scummy, that doesn't necessarily mean that Aspartame is dangerous.

It doesn't mean it's safe either. More importantly, it discredits completely the approval and its related studies.

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

#94

Post by mandrake-c-papi »

ars wrote: post #68
late2part wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friendly correction, "begs the question" doesn't mean what you say in your post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

It's too late, that ship has sailed. I've seen the incorrect usage in very fancy printed reference books. This is just one of those ways where language changes.

agree. it's a moot point ;)

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

#95

Post by 6t6t6 »

I really don't understand the need for "diet" soft drinks.

I mean, soft drinks are ok, to drink sometimes. But if someone is drinking enough soft drink to worry about the amount of sugar intake, then he is drinking too much sodas. Soft drinks are like "light" cigarettes.

What is the problem about drinking water?

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

#96

Post by ghshephard »

6t6t6 wrote: post #95

I really don't understand the need for "diet" soft drinks. I mean, soft drinks are ok, to drink sometimes. But if someone is drinking enough soft drink to worry about the amount of sugar intake, then he is drinking too much sodas. Soft drinks are like "light" cigarettes. What is the problem about drinking water?

Flavored soft drinks taste better to some people than water. That's why people drink them more.

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

#97

Post by imron »

6t6t6 wrote: post #95

I really don't understand the need for "diet" soft drinks. I mean, soft drinks are ok, to drink sometimes. But if someone is drinking enough soft drink to worry about the amount of sugar intake, then he is drinking too much sodas. Soft drinks are like "light" cigarettes. What is the problem about drinking water?

I once made fun of a friend for drinking a "diet" soft drink. Turns out he was diabetic and couldn't drink regular ones. I stopped making fun of people drinking diet soft drinks after that.

I agree though that water is the best :-)

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

#98

Post by pragmar »

6t6t6 wrote: post #95

I really don't understand the need for "diet" soft drinks. I mean, soft drinks are ok, to drink sometimes. But if someone is drinking enough soft drink to worry about the amount of sugar intake, then he is drinking too much sodas. Soft drinks are like "light" cigarettes. What is the problem about drinking water?

The need is for the caffeine--the easiest way to get off the diet soda train is green tea, and to ease off the caffeine from there. Others just don't find water satisfying for other reasons, which I can relate to. I tend to drink a 60/40% mix of seltzer and fruit juice, which after a week or so adapting tastes surprisingly sweet. In any case, there are options beyond water that aren't all bad.

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

#99

Post by nathanvanfleet »

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…

I got a job at a company that had free soda. I was happy with that. I started drinking 1 diet coke in the afternoon every day. until after a few weeks I realized I was also getting a headache in the afternoon everyday. Fixed by switching to Perrier over the Diet Coke.

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

#100

Post by Karunamon »

jhall1468 wrote: post #88
fluidcruft wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Researchers actually went much further than you assume and used microbe transplants to show that the gut microbiome from the sugar-fed mice rescued the artificial-sweetener-fed mice. And that similar transplants in the other direction resulted in the bad outcomes in the sugar-fed mice. I don't think your speculation and armchair research is any more more helpful than the bad science journalism you complain about. If…

> I don't think your speculation and armchair research is any more more helpful than the bad science journalism you complain about. Anonymous people on the Internet can't be held to the same standards as a research paper. On the contrary, since this is largely a public opinion forum I believe that commenting without evidence is encouraged and it's up to the reader to make a determination about said opinion. What a si…

There is Kind of a big difference between saying that a comment is not helpful and that you are not allowed to make a comment, you know.

Random unscientific speculation on scientific matters is a problem and should not be encouraged.

Post reply on HN