Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance • Hacker News Board

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#31

Post by kekebo » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

vanilla-almond wrote: post #25

I use stevia as a replacement for sugar. This research is difficult to understand for a layperson like me (I'm too thick). Is anyone able to answer the questions below? --- Extract : "non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS), such as saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, acesulfame-K, and stevia, that do not contain calories and are thereby presumed to be inert and not elicit a postprandial glycemic response." Question : Does this…

[Disclaimer: Not a doctor or nutrition expert]

From what I've read about postprandial glucose levels, the question seems less about whether or not something elicits a glycemic response, but by how much and how that compares to glucose/fructose.

Another useful measure would be comparing satiation after consumption of sugar vs non-caloric sweeteners, to determine if the significant drop in calories leads to more food ingested overall.

Stevia in particular seems to be one of the lesser studied sweeteners, based on a handful of papers postprandial glucose levels doesn't seem to differ a lot compared to sugar. But there seem to be somewhat consistent findings that satiety levels remain largely the same given the same mass of ingested food ( e.g. [0][1]).

To your second question, from my view the understanding of the human microbiome is still rather poor, especially in terms of health implications on various physiological systems (including neurological), optimal composition and applicable ways to maintain it. Although the last time I checked was probably 1-2 years ago, if anyone is aware of useful new data here I would welcome a link.

[0] https://sci-hub.ee/10.3390/nu11123036

[1] https://sci-hub.ee/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#32

Post by matheusmoreira » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:43 PM UTC

api wrote: post #2

A glance suggests that Saccharine and Sucralose may be problematic. The others may be “complicated” but the effect also looks close to noise. They should have included some non-sweetener molecules of a similar nature as controls. Sucralose was an instant no to me when I saw the molecule. “Here let’s hang a chlorine off this here sugar.” Nope. I recall seeing similar sentiments in a thread over at Reddit where a bioch…

The presence of chlorine does not necessarily imply toxicity. Widely used medications like sertraline and loratadine have chlorine atoms.

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#33

Post by 41b696ef1113 » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:43 PM UTC

vanilla-almond wrote: post #25

I use stevia as a replacement for sugar. This research is difficult to understand for a layperson like me (I'm too thick). Is anyone able to answer the questions below? --- Extract : "non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS), such as saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, acesulfame-K, and stevia, that do not contain calories and are thereby presumed to be inert and not elicit a postprandial glycemic response." Question : Does this…

While it does not address the root question, one benefit of sugar substitutes is that they are many times sweeter than sugar: stevia is 200-300x sweeter, resulting in less total mass consumed. My hopelessly-naive-because-biology thought is that each molecule would be metabolized a single time (by your own liver or your microbiome), resulting in less total impact on your body.

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#34

Post by parineum » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

dataangel wrote: post #29

naasking wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the organic substances where hydroxy groups are substituted with chlorine atoms are more or less toxic and some are carcinogenic. This kind of argument is so... "weird" to put it politely. H2O also becomes toxic if you add an oxygen atom. The safety of chemical compounds does not follow from a naive classification of bonds.

It's a heuristic. If you haven't done a randomized placebo controlled double blind exhaustive study of the compound and all you have to go on is the layout of the molecule, is it a bad guess?

Guess all you want I suppose but there are fairly exhaustive studies on artificial sweeteners.

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#35

Post by kekebo » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 4:55 PM UTC

clusterhacks wrote: post #30

vanilla-almond wrote: post #25

I use stevia as a replacement for sugar. This research is difficult to understand for a layperson like me (I'm too thick). Is anyone able to answer the questions below? --- Extract : "non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS), such as saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, acesulfame-K, and stevia, that do not contain calories and are thereby presumed to be inert and not elicit a postprandial glycemic response." Question : Does this…

I just skimmed this study but other RCTs say no to your first question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7103435/#:~:tex... . You can go down a rabbit hole with the references in this paper - I think a generally interested layperson is definitely capable of understanding papers like this. My instinct is that the hardest to understand papers are often actually so special-area related that those papers don'…

Not OP but what did the trick for me was a combination of the following sweeteners, listed from largest to least amount:

- erythritol (~0 calories, ~2/3s as sweet as sugar),

- xylitol (~60% of sugar calories, improves oral biome, inhibits enamel demineralization),

- stevia or sucralose for added sweetness.

After experimenting with different ratios I now rarely crave sugar at all anymore.

Another thing to consider is that the initial dopamine response to sweeteners seems to generally be lower than with sugar, but there are indications that this gap may lessen with continued use over a matter of weeks (at least in mice in a small number of studies). Andrew Huberman from Stanford brought it up in a recent episode about nutrition: https://hubermanlab.com/how-foods-and-nutrients-control-our-...

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#36

Post by parineum » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #18

simias wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you manage to model the "noise" and make it somewhat deterministic then it's not noise any more. If genetic variations really are the reason for these variations and some people are indeed measurably harmed by these compounds then it would be a very interesting and somewhat alarming result, but that's not what the study says or what we can conclude from it.

> If you manage to model the "noise" and make it somewhat deterministic then it's not noise any more. Yes. That is called doing science. > If genetic variations really are the reason for these variations and some people are indeed measurably harmed by these compounds then it would be a very interesting and somewhat alarming result, but that's not what the study says or what we can conclude from it. What would make me…

You know what isn't science? Not doing any of that and just going off on a study that's led to more questions (aka, science) in the comments of Hacker News.

Their study had a scope, they did the study and found some results then drew some conclusions. They also found the study wasn't large enough to draw all conclusions because of noise, something they didn't know before the study.

> Saying anything is noise only disregards...

Saying something is noise indicates that the data isn't clear enough to draw a conclusion and more specific and targeted studies are needed to draw said conclusion.

It certainly doesn't mean that they're ignoring the plight of... you.

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#37

Post by GekkePrutser » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 5:04 PM UTC

api wrote: post #2

A glance suggests that Saccharine and Sucralose may be problematic. The others may be “complicated” but the effect also looks close to noise. They should have included some non-sweetener molecules of a similar nature as controls. Sucralose was an instant no to me when I saw the molecule. “Here let’s hang a chlorine off this here sugar.” Nope. I recall seeing similar sentiments in a thread over at Reddit where a bioch…

Hmm,"let's hang a chlorine of this here sodium" seems to work out pretty well for us in moderation. I guess it's all about the molecule's properties.

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#38

Post by clearwind » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

Anecdotally, as a type 1 diabetic it’s very interesting to observe different effects of sugars and sweeteners on my continuous blood glucose sensor over time.

For example DASH is a zero-calorie but sweet drink I have tried a couple of times and it makes my body chart a course for the moon.

Another drink called Gusto seems to have replaced sugars with Agave syrup, which works well at first but after several days builds up intolerance or something.

Modern regular orange juice is like a load of TNT with a 4 minute fuse.

Recently white wine and sparkling white wine instantly start making my sugar readings hop around erratically, moment by moment. (Not something I saw before about 4 months ago - before that it would be more like a steady incline.

The disruptors have made their way over to food and drink, it seems.

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#39

Post by vanilla-almond » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

clusterhacks wrote: post #30

vanilla-almond wrote: post #25

I use stevia as a replacement for sugar. This research is difficult to understand for a layperson like me (I'm too thick). Is anyone able to answer the questions below? --- Extract : "non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS), such as saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, acesulfame-K, and stevia, that do not contain calories and are thereby presumed to be inert and not elicit a postprandial glycemic response." Question : Does this…

I just skimmed this study but other RCTs say no to your first question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7103435/#:~:tex... . You can go down a rabbit hole with the references in this paper - I think a generally interested layperson is definitely capable of understanding papers like this. My instinct is that the hardest to understand papers are often actually so special-area related that those papers don'…

Thank you for the answers. I didn't find it difficult to transition to stevia. At first, it had a different taste from sugar (not unpleasant, much sweeter) but I got used to the taste. Some people find stevia has a bitter aftertaste. Lots of stevia products are a mixture of stevia and erythritol (like 'Truvia') to mask any bitter aftertaste. I use less stevia than sugar (about half of the sugar amount).

Re: Microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance

#40

Post by mod » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

vanilla-almond wrote: post #39

clusterhacks wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just skimmed this study but other RCTs say no to your first question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7103435/#:~:tex... . You can go down a rabbit hole with the references in this paper - I think a generally interested layperson is definitely capable of understanding papers like this. My instinct is that the hardest to understand papers are often actually so special-area related that those papers don'…

Thank you for the answers. I didn't find it difficult to transition to stevia. At first, it had a different taste from sugar (not unpleasant, much sweeter) but I got used to the taste. Some people find stevia has a bitter aftertaste. Lots of stevia products are a mixture of stevia and erythritol (like 'Truvia') to mask any bitter aftertaste. I use less stevia than sugar (about half of the sugar amount).

Are you using stevia in all places you would use sugar?

Are there any things/situations you can't use stevia for?