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

61–70 of 75 posts

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

#61

Post by bigtex »

sillystuff wrote: post #46
kekebo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Also it can give some people gastric problems. I don’t have an issue but know people who do.

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

#62

Post by bjelkeman-again »

bigtex wrote: post #61
sillystuff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PSA: xylitol is extremely toxic for dogs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20473849/

Also it can give some people gastric problems. I don’t have an issue but know people who do.

Gastric problems to me, in other words are, a problem for my intestinal microbiome which my health depends on.

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

#63

Post by hedora »

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…

Not answering your questions directly, but it has been known for decades that fake sugars (NNS in the abstract) cause weight gain.

Since you asked about insulin response; (some?) artificial sweeteners seem to be safe for diabetics. There is no other group of people I can think of that should consider using these products.

On a somewhat related note, the soft drink industry has replaced some "diet" drinks with "light" versions that contain sugar and NNS.

I've found that this causes (intentional?) confusion, especially at restaurants, and multiple servers have inadvertently tried to serve our kids that stuff when we ordered things like "lemonade".

In addition to all the above, consuming NNS causes migraines for some people, and they interact badly with some medications. I disagree with the abstract's use of the term "presumed inert", but I suppose they are trying to be diplomatic.

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

#64

Post by kekebo »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #57
kekebo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

I'd argue both those studies are insufficient to come to any conclusions because people do not exist for only one day, and they do not exist in only a healthy state. A healthy subject, say in their mid twenties, should be able to consume 60g glucose almost instantaneously and have little to no affect on blood glucose. That same subject, if they were to repeatedly do that, multiple times a day, for four decades, is hi…

It's good you point that out. Two studies should almost never sufficient for a conclusive argument, especially not in a field where physiological variability may be more decisive than probability distributions derived from group studies (On average peanuts don't kill people but that's not a useful metric if you happen to be allergic).

In terms of informational frameworks regarding nutrition I have to say the landscape is quite bleak. Understanding broccoli or its effects on the human body make big pharma no money, publications are only slowly picking up speed with new (crowd-) funding options. Even worse, the lack of funding and publishing set a rather low barrier for food industry players to manipulate the field in their favor, which makes for even less solid ground (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in... ).

But there are exceptions, Rhonda Patrick comes to mind, she's mostly or fully crowdfunded, including her papers iirc. She can go very deep but is usually aimed at non specialists: https://www.youtube.com/c/FoundMyFitness/videos

And Andrew Huberman who finances his podcast through sponsors, quite dense but always trying to explain medical terms and concepts he brings up: https://www.youtube.com/c/AndrewHubermanLab

As for "how are we to live" I think a good starting point nutritionally is to try and watch/feel the body reacting to different foods and maybe reading up after something feels really good or bad to maybe gain some theoretical insights. There are no studies for your body in particular but you have full production test access pretty much all of the time (I would try to prevent restarts though).

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

#65

Post by clearwind »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #59
clearwind wrote: post #38

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 build…

have you ever tested diet soda with the various artificial sweeteners? I've tried it personally and never seen the slightest notch above what would random noise whereas sugar is "straight to the moon, lois" a half hour to hour later.

I have a similar effect to you usually with diet soda, maybe a slight rise. Only some of the newer ones caused my readings to funk up.

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

#66

Post by xorcist »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #57
kekebo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

I'd argue both those studies are insufficient to come to any conclusions because people do not exist for only one day, and they do not exist in only a healthy state. A healthy subject, say in their mid twenties, should be able to consume 60g glucose almost instantaneously and have little to no affect on blood glucose. That same subject, if they were to repeatedly do that, multiple times a day, for four decades, is hi…

It's a baffling thought that so much research is spent on which type of sugar water might cause the least amount of bad long term effects.

It's not like there is any medical need for the body to consume sugar water at all.

As recreation, sure, but doing something daily is routine, not recreation. That last part is the strange bit. Consume it every tenth meal and you can pick any type of sugar, an otherwise healthy individual would suffer no long term effects. Consume it every meal and you will.

As a though experiment, it would be interesting to think about how much research would be made into finding out which alcohol we could ingest 50 g of to every meal while minimizing long term damage.

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

#67

Post by tene »

xorcist wrote: post #66
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue both those studies are insufficient to come to any conclusions because people do not exist for only one day, and they do not exist in only a healthy state. A healthy subject, say in their mid twenties, should be able to consume 60g glucose almost instantaneously and have little to no affect on blood glucose. That same subject, if they were to repeatedly do that, multiple times a day, for four decades, is hi…

It's a baffling thought that so much research is spent on which type of sugar water might cause the least amount of bad long term effects. It's not like there is any medical need for the body to consume sugar water at all. As recreation, sure, but doing something daily is routine, not recreation. That last part is the strange bit. Consume it every tenth meal and you can pick any type of sugar, an otherwise healthy in…

It doesn't baffle me; it seems pretty obvious.

Given that huge populations are consuming sugar water daily, and given the health consequences of this, information on which type of sugar water has the least-bad long-term effects is extremely valuable for harm-reduction efforts.

If "everyone should just stop drinking soda" was actually a strategy that worked, then the problem would have already been solved. It didn't work, or hasn't worked yet, so it's worth trying to check whether the variations advertised as less-harmful are actually less-harmful or not.

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

#68

Post by ta988 »

petra wrote: post #56
ta988 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit more complicated, it is not really metabolized but it does have a big impact because it is absorbed by the gut and also change bacterial populations... https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/10/suppl_1/S31/530...

According to the article in the link, erythritol doesn't change bacterial populations.

Yes that mean that in their experimental setting it didn't change. Doesn't mean it doesn't in other conditions or when measured by other means.

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

#70

Post by ohiovr »

dataangel wrote: post #28
anjel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erythritol as a NNS is claimed/marketed not to effect the gut biome, indeed to pass through the body unmetabolized.

generally any alternative sugar that isn't metabolized by you is metabolized by bacteria

I could see how this would relate to sugar cravings. Or sweet craving. More and more of a certain kind of bacteria lines the gut and grows better in it's main food supply. So what breaks these NNSs down?
Post reply on HN