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

Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

#41

Post by zouhair »

nxc18 wrote: post #36
subcosmos wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was shown over 10 years ago that sweet taste receptors are also expressed in the membranes of fat cells, and that artificial sweeteners activate these receptors in cell culture and drive up lipid storage.

Still doesn't mean anything until you prove it is significant in the end result (sweetener causing weight gain). I've lost 60 pounds this year drinking huge amounts of diet soda. I've made more progress than when I tried cutting out sweeteners entirely. There's a whole lot more going on with these issues than cell cultures and it's really counterproductive to pull random science out of a hat and say it proves your po…

To be fair this is the toxic way scientists gets funded. You are forced to publish or die. So if you just sit and do research and not publish (even though your research is not finished)you are done for. The institution you are in will force you to publish or force you out if you don't abide by these shitty rules.

Re: Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

#42

Post by RobLach »

“Using artificial sweeteners” vs “not using artificial sweeteners” doesn’t really tell you much. I mean it makes sense that people who use artificial sweeteners would have more excess mass since people who are dealing with that would seek artificial sweeteners in the first place. If you’re feeling fine about your weight you won’t bother with artificial sweeteners.

What would be interesting is if people who replaced the calories they ate that came from sugar with artificial sweeteners that are effectively no calorie and still had a greater increase in stored mass.

That said; the chance of a properly controlled food study is astronomical as you’d have to control people’s diets in near totality, for a large enough sample size, across years, which no one would agree to unless you planned to cover or subsidize their food costs over that time.

Re: Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

#43

Post by natecavanaugh »

ineedasername wrote: post #7
nostromo wrote: post #5

This seems incredibly weak because they haven't shown causation -- or, in particular, disproved reverse causation. (That people struggling with weight gain are more likely to use sugar substitutes.) This is more of a "huh, someone should do additional research" paper than anything conclusive.

Came here to make exactly this point. It seems like the people already slim and petite are less likely to be drawn to such artificial additives, whereas many/most overweight people would at least be trying some "bare minimum" weight management through them.

Not only that, but often people will justify a larger calorie consumption because the diet soda is free. I imagine that this sort of thing would need to be tightly controlled for and show a direct mechanism of action. Especially since low calorie sweeteners vary so much in possible delivery and in structure (aspertame being an amino acid, sucralose a sugar alcohol, and using the powdered forms come mixed with maltodextrin, which is real sugar, but the liquid forms not having it).

Re: Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

#45

Post by RandomInteger4 »

chineseGoogle wrote: post #33
oculusthrift wrote: post #4

Wouldn’t fatter people naturally try to switch over to low calorie sweetener in order to lose weight? whereas non fat people might just enjoy sugar instead?

I have numerous fat friends that use the calories saved by diet foods as a green light to recover equivalent calories elsewhere. The fatalist claim being: well, one would've just eaten that much anyway, so what's the difference?

The difference is that one choice of sweetener is inherently bad for those trying to lose weight, while the other choice of sweetener puts the burden of fault for weight gain on a lack of self control.

We're humans. Not wanting to eat bitter food all the time is natural and should not be faulted. Losing weight shouldn't have to be a strenuous ascetic chore, so choosing to consume something sweet isn't the mental failing; the mental failing is choosing to choose something calorically and macro-nutritionally incorrect for one's body recomposition goals.

Re: Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

#46

Post by RandomInteger4 »

seandougall wrote: post #16

[2016]

This is an important note. Thank you for pointing this out. It seems like a lot of people here are arguing that this study reaffirms prior studies, when in reality I think they were thinking of this study as the one being re-affirmed without realizing it.

Re: Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

#47

Post by masonic »

nostromo wrote: post #5

This seems incredibly weak because they haven't shown causation -- or, in particular, disproved reverse causation. (That people struggling with weight gain are more likely to use sugar substitutes.) This is more of a "huh, someone should do additional research" paper than anything conclusive.

Food diaries are notoriously unreliable as well.

Re: Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

#48

Post by masonic »

dyoo1979 wrote: post #38

Can anyone tell which low calorie sweeteners the study is talking about? Certain artificial sweeteners elicit a large insulin response even if they are "low-calorie". Did they use any of the sweeteners listed in https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/... ?

It says (aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, or sucralose).

Re: Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

#49

Post by jddj »

RandomInteger4 wrote: post #45
chineseGoogle wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have numerous fat friends that use the calories saved by diet foods as a green light to recover equivalent calories elsewhere. The fatalist claim being: well, one would've just eaten that much anyway, so what's the difference?

The difference is that one choice of sweetener is inherently bad for those trying to lose weight, while the other choice of sweetener puts the burden of fault for weight gain on a lack of self control. We're humans. Not wanting to eat bitter food all the time is natural and should not be faulted. Losing weight shouldn't have to be a strenuous ascetic chore, so choosing to consume something sweet isn't the mental fail…

When someone puts sugar in my tea or coffee it genuinely ruins it for me, but I eat sweet things faily rarely and so haven't developed the tolerance and/or addiction to that flavour.

Could it be that not eating sugar isn't so much of a strenuous ascetic chore, but rather it's the reduction in sugar intake which is particularly (albeit temporarily) awkward?

Re: Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults

#50

Post by xiphias2 »

masonic wrote: post #48
dyoo1979 wrote: post #38

Can anyone tell which low calorie sweeteners the study is talking about? Certain artificial sweeteners elicit a large insulin response even if they are "low-calorie". Did they use any of the sweeteners listed in https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/... ?

It says (aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, or sucralose).

I was looking for Erythritol in the study, as it seems to be the safest sugar replacement so far (I'm using it all the time, still trying not to overuse it of course). It's strange that the study didn't take it into account.
Post reply on HN