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

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

cell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 75 posts

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

#41

Post by vanilla-almond »

kekebo wrote: post #31
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 i…

Thank you for the links. I agree, it would be really useful to see more research. Newer products likes monkfruit sweetener and allulose have even less research.

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

#42

Post by vanilla-almond »

41b696ef1113 wrote: post #33
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.

I also find using less stevia than the equivalent sugar amount. I still have a sweet tooth but I don't buy sweet foods (make my own sweet foods with stevia).

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

#43

Post by temeritatis »

kekebo wrote: post #35
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'…

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…

I'd like to add monk fruit to that list. Usually you wanna combine: (monk fruit OR stevia) + (erythritol OR xylitol) to get a very nice flavor. Stevia or monk fruit on their own are "flat" in sweetness but very strong. The xylitol or erythritol gives some fullness, or body.

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

#44

Post by vanilla-almond »

mod wrote: post #40
vanilla-almond wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, I have replaced sugar completely with stevia. I have tried different stevia brands and found them fairly similar - they are a mixture of stevia blends with erythritol.

I found one stevia brand with a 1:8 ratio (1g of stevia = 8g of Sugar i.e. 1:8 ratio). Found that too sweet for me and had a bitter aftertaste. I usually buy stevia with a 1:2 ratio (i.e. 1g of stevia = 2g of Sugar).

I use stevia in tea and coffee. Have also used stevia successfully to make cakes, cookies, and ice cream.

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

#45

Post by naasking »

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?

> If [...] all you have to go on is the layout of the molecule, is it a bad guess?

Yes, almost certainly. Like I pointed out, one atom is the difference between a toxin and water.

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

#46

Post by sillystuff »

kekebo wrote: post #35
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'…

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…

PSA: xylitol is extremely toxic for dogs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20473849/

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

#47

Post by tejohnso »

They indicate:

> Notably, all four tested NNS (saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, and stevia) significantly and distinctly altered the human intestinal and oral microbiome, as would be expected for these chemically diverse compounds.

But also:

> Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are commonly integrated into human diet and presumed to be inert

So they are presumed to be inert, but also significantly alter microbiome, as would be expected since they are chemically diverse compounds.

They indicate it should be obvious that they are not inert at the same time as they are presumed to be inert? And if it's obvious that they are not inert then why are there so many unanswered questions while they're still allowed into our food system? Is it unreasonable to expect that some newly popular food additive is properly studied before it stats to gain massive adoption in prepared foods?

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

#48

Post by sillystuff »

mod wrote: post #40
vanilla-almond wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Unrefined ground dried stevia leaf can be quite bitter depending on what it is mixed into. I find it works well in baked goods like cinnamon rolls and corn bread, but makes berry smoothies too bitter to drink.

The refined version is much less bitter-- e.g., it works in berry smoothies (but, there is a very noticeable fake sugar taste/after taste with smoothies).

In either case, mixing with a little regular sugar (naturally occurring sugar content in e.g., berry smoothies is sufficient), generally improves the favor.

And, stevia does not caramelize like sugar when cooked. E.g., replacing most of the sugar in pancake/waffle batter will result in pancakes/waffles that do not brown when cooked.

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

#50

Post by Tagbert »

tejohnso wrote: post #47

They indicate: > Notably, all four tested NNS (saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, and stevia) significantly and distinctly altered the human intestinal and oral microbiome, as would be expected for these chemically diverse compounds. But also: > Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are commonly integrated into human diet and presumed to be inert So they are presumed to be inert, but also significantly alter microbiome, as wo…

The assertion of them being "inert" is probably in terms of interaction with the human metabolism. That is likely what is studied when deciding if a compound is safe for ingestion.

What you are calling out is the wider impact to our internal ecology and that is s much more complex thing to measure and something that we are only beginning to understand. There are no regulatory frameworks that take that into account.

Post reply on HN