Consuming low-calorie sweeteners may predispose overweight individuals to diabetes
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80318144829.htm
Quote:
Quote:
I find this bit a little annoying--since body weight status seemed to make a difference in the results for the sweetener consumers, it's fairly important to know the body weight status of the non-consumers. I'd guess they're talking comparing overweight to overweight, but that's the sort of thing they should make more clear in a write up like this. |
I find it very annoying. Sucralose is a rare bird in soda, even today. And where are the controls with sugar use.
|
True. Also, how relevant is this to a low carber? Will the cells take in more glucose, if it's not there to take? I sort of hate one sweetener studies, often what is true of one sweetener might be true of another. I like stevia, but I'm concerned that some of its health sheen is likely to come down to it being subject to different tests than splenda.
|
I gained a ton of weight drinking diet soda. A ton! Then again, I've lost a ton of weight drinking diet soda. A ton! And with my weight loss rollercoaster history over the past few decades 'a ton' might actually be an accurate description. I've been consuming low calorie sweeteners (mostly in diet soda) since the late 1970's. Remember TAB? Do I think that SF sweeteners are good for me? No. Some artificial sweeteners may even be bad for me. But I do think that I consumed a lot less real sugar because of them. I can never really know what happens at the fat cell level, but my personal observations of myself is that drinking diet soda all these years has been pretty much a neutral effect when it comes to my weight. There were a few times when I switched to regular soda when I was not dieting. I seemed to gain weight more rapidly and went back to the diet stuff.
In thinking about the 'findings' of this study it occurred to me that what they are proposing as a negative might actually be a positive. If your blood sugar is high, isn't it a good thing for glucose to get stored away in fat cells as quickly as possible?. Do sucralose or other SF sweeteners fight gainst insulin resistance? If they do then maybe that is why I got so darn big and didn't officially get diagnosed with diabetes until only recently. Maybe all the diet soda I was drinking was helping to keep my blood sugar in check while I rapidly put on weight from excess carbs? Food for thought. I do have an issue with "sweet", whether it be from real sugar or from low calorie sweeteners. Regardless of what is going on with my blood sugar, energy levels, or satiety cues - my brain likes "sweet". If I have a little, then I want more. That I can assure you is one of the driving forces behind my weight problems. If I gave in to a cookie or a donut, then I'd surely want another, likely with a more intense desire than I wanted the first one. The sweetness of a can of diet soda can do the same thing. If one is good, then two is better. But as near as I can tell, drinking a diet soda does not seem to awaken cravings for a cookie or a donut. At least for me, those pathways seem to be mutually exclusive. Where I run into trouble is with high calorie SF sweetened low carb treats. With those things, 2nds or 3rds can have the same effect on my weight as having something with too many carbs in it. |
Yeah, there seem to be two main approaches to sweeteners for low carbers. One, it's a better alternative to sugar. Two, it's going to keep you craving for sweets, better go cold turkey. Make it three, though I'm not sure the third is that popular--wanting sweet things is as much a symptom as it is a cause. A study in ScienceDaily this morning reminded me of this;
Quote:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80320141339.htm There's other related evidence for this that shows leptin tends to dull the taste for sweet (and also for fat). For any non-human, wild animal--this means that natural, more mildly sweet foods they might come across will be less appealing. The observation of overweight people preferring "high palatability" foods vs. more wholesome, simple food could make sense in this context--relative lack of sweetness might keep somebody from wanting an apple, but not protect vs. honey, or more sticky sweet apple pie. |
As an experiment of one, I found that for me, low-cal sweeteners don't affect my blood sugar or my weight. They don't even make me crave more. When I first started LC I would make single-serving muffins in a mug - but the similarity to sweet bread would have me craving more. Four single-serving muffins - even without sugar - is just too much for a diabetic.
Since my main craving has long been bready things, I stick to other desserts that don't talk my brain into having more. I have a diet cola almost every day with my lunch. I make sugar-free jello & panna cotta - no real difficulty in eating just one serving. |
I am down to a sprinkle of monkfuit/stevia in my limeade in the summer. Most things people eat routinely taste far too sweet now.
|
I found myself drinking more Splenda-sweetened beverages and adding Sweet and Low to my coffee and tea for a few months, which clearly triggered appetite and cravings, particularly for sweets. I gained three or four pounds over as many months and woke up to the fact that this was the culprit. In the past week or two I've stopped and lost the cravings, the appetite and a couple of the pounds I'd gained.
|
Quote:
Thank God that Diet Pepsi went to Sucralose a few years ago, aspartame made me feel bad, subjective but yuck! I now use sucralose drops for my ice tea and coffee, very stable in hot, very sweet.... Doesn't make me crave other sweet things. Mashed potatoes make me crave sweet things.... lol |
That press release comes from the Endocrine Society. On their website page where the press release is published, we can also read this at the bottom:
Quote:
I read the press release. There is not a single item or idea or concept or word or anything that even comes close to being relevant to "hormone research and physicians who care for people with hormone-related conditions". Two conclusions. The Endocrine Society doesn't do sucralose studies. That press release actually comes from a third party that doesn't want its identity known, and was passed through the Endocrine Society in order to borrow the Society's credibility. The press release talks about stem cells. The Endocrine Society deals with hormones. Insulin and growth hormone are hormones, and they have eminently greater effects directly on stem cells than whatever synthetic crap we put in our mouths. For insulin for example, we have insulin-induced lipohypertrophy, which is fat tissue growth, or if we prefer an increase in the number of fat cells, which can only be achieved by differentiating stem cells - be telling them through insulin signaling to become fat cells. Insulin is also involved in a lesser effect on existing fat tissue, through activation of lipoprotein lipase, esterification, glycerol, etc. Since we already know about these phenomena, and we likely know the potency of insulin in this respect, we have a reliable point of reference against which we can compare and establish the potency of other mechanisms by which this or similar phenomenon can occur, i.e. sucralose and glucose transporters and oxygen radicals which the press release talks about. Yet there is no mention of any existing and well known similar phenomenon in that press release, let alone no mention of anything that resembles a hormone. OK, Imma just gonna declare the Endocrine Society has been usurped. It's a mighty big word to use - usurped - but dude, really. Anyways, usurped by whom? The sugar dudes. They've been doing that crap forever - shifting the blame to other stuff like fat and saturated fat and synthetic sweeteners - it's business as usual for them. Can't trust the Endocrine Society anymore, not that I ever did before, but now it's for sure, Jack. OK, rant over. Let's see if there's anything in there we can use here in the context of low-carb. Do we use synthetic sweeteners? Probably. Do any of us who use them note any effect either way on initial fat loss or subsequent maintenance once we reached goal, or even excess fat accumulation we can't explain otherwise? Compare to what? There is no comparision in the press release, we have to find our own thing to compare to. Imma say it's very unlikely that synthetic sweeteners have any significant effect that can somehow turn low-carb on its head. LC is about as reliable as opening a door, and just walking through. |
I just read your comments. I could be wrong about that significant effect of synthetic sweeteners. But then, what are we comparing those results to? Straight up low-carb? How about we compare it to sugar, the thing we just cut out. I bet whatever extra fat anybody gained (or any other effect besides fat gain or loss) with the fake stuff, we'd have gained even more with the genuine sugar.
|
Quote:
The way they handle diabetes is not getting them a gold star, that is for sure. My own experiences with endocrinologists were not impressive. At all. My GP told me that trying to get further referrals to find an "inquisitive" endocrinologist to help my track down my endocrine issues was not at all likely. He explained they look at lab results and prescribe accordingly. My exclamation of, "Gee, an app can do that," was met with his rueful expression... |
I never got fat until I abandoned sugar substitutes for real sugar. I grew up in a family of diabetics where, back in the day, we used saccharin and sweet n lo for everything. My weight stayed normal for years, and I’m convinced I missed the fate of diabetes partly because of that (they also ate fairly low carb).Fast forward to years later and sugar consumption. I’ll take sugar subs over sugar any day. My study of 1 is enough for me.
|
Yes. What bothers me both about the artificial sweetener debate is when suspicion against sweeteners is used to say that you'd be better off using sugar. Or something "natural" or "wholesome" or organic, like honey, or maple syrup.
|
Exactly Teaser. Plus, I’ve read enough about the studies on artificial sweeteners to conclude that they are inconclusive, at best. One thing I am very grateful for is that I grew up in a family that ate fairly low carb, in comparison to the rest of the population. I’m back to low carbing, stricter than what I grew up with, and I won’t ever leave again.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:03. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.