Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 11:51
leemack's Avatar
leemack leemack is offline
NEVER GIVING UP!
Posts: 5,030
 
Plan: no sugar/grains LCHF IF
Stats: 478/354/200 Female 5' 9"
BF:excessive!!
Progress: 45%
Location: UK
Default artificial sweeteners may promote diabetes

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...rin-blood-sugar



Quote:
Artificial sweeteners may contribute to soaring levels of diabetes, according to a controversial study that suggests the additives could exacerbate the problem they are meant to tackle.

Researchers in Israel found that artificial sweeteners used in diet drinks and other foods can disrupt healthy microbes that live in the gut, leading to higher blood sugar levels – an early sign of diabetes.

Sweeteners such as saccharin, aspartame and sucralose are widespread in western diets and are often used to cut calories or prevent tooth decay. The additives are so common that scientists behind the latest study called for a reassessment of the “massive usage” of the chemicals.

“Our findings suggest that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight,” the authors write in the journal Nature.

Eran Elinav, a senior author on the study at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, said that while the evidence against the sweeteners was too weak to change health policies, he had decided to give them up.

But the study has left many experts unconvinced. The findings draw largely on tests of just one sweetener in mice, raising doubts about their relevance for people, and to other sweeteners. Large studies in humans have found that sugar substitutes can help people maintain a healthy weight and protect against diabetes.

“This new report must be viewed very cautiously,” said Stephen O’Rahilly, director of the Metabolic Diseases Unit at Cambridge University, “as it mostly reports findings in mice, accompanied by human studies so small as to be difficult to interpret.”

Brian Ratcliffe, professor of nutrition at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, said: “Most of the effects that they report relate to saccharin with little or no effect of aspartame. Their paper ought to be limited to ‘saccharin’ in the title rather than attributing the effects to all artificial sweeteners.”

The UK is poised to fall in line with World Health Organisation recommendations to halve sugar intake to 5% of daily calories, a move expected to drive sales of diet drinks and low-calorie foods.

In the first of a series of experiments, the Israeli group found that mice fed on three artificial sweeteners – saccharin, aspartame and sucralose – developed high blood sugar levels. But when the mice were given antibiotics to kill off their gut microbes, the ill effects disappeared.

The scientists then focused on saccharin. They transferred gut microbes from mice fed on the sweetener to different mice that had no gut bacteria of their own. Soon after, the recipient mice developed high blood sugar levels themselves. Genetic analyses of the gut microbes from mice fed on saccharin found that as a group they behaved differently, breaking down more carbohydrate in the diet than normal.

The scientists ran tests on 400 people and found that those who consumed the most artificial sweeteners had different gut microbes than others, and on average were heavier and more glucose intolerant.

In their final set of experiments, the scientists gave seven people the maximum allowed daily dose of saccharin for a week. Each dose was enough to sweeten around 40 cans of diet cola. At the end of the week, four in seven had high blood sugar levels and their gut microbes mirrored the changes seen in mice fed on the additives.

To round off the study, the researchers transferred bugs from the people who developed high blood sugar after massive doses of artificial sweeteners into mice that had no gut bugs of their own. These mice went on to develop high blood sugar too.

According to Elinav, the study shows that artificial sweeteners may contribute to higher blood sugar in mice and some people. One possible explanation is that artificial sweeteners let some microbes thrive at the expense of others, leaving a population that extracts more energy from the diet than normal.

“This large body of work we’ve performed should be studied further because of the potentially harmful effects that could be happening from sweetener consumption to very large subsets of the population,” said Eran Segal, a co-author of the paper.

There are studies that report more diabetes among people who consume lots of diet drinks. But in many cases it is impossible to work out what is to blame. Lots of people are already fat and on course to develop diabetes when they turn to diet drinks to lose weight.

Nita Forouhi, head of nutritional epidemiology at Cambridge, said the study suggested artificial sweeteners were not the “innocent magic bullets” they were intended to be. “But it does not yet provide sufficient evidence to alter public health and clinical practice,” she said.

Christopher Corpe of King’s College London, who studies how the gut senses sugars, said that future work needed to draw on much larger numbers of healthy and obese or diabetic people who consume more realistic amounts of artificial sweeteners.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 12:24
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,764
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Quote:
Genetic analyses of the gut microbes from mice fed on saccharin found that as a group they behaved differently, breaking down more carbohydrate in the diet than normal.

Low -carbers don't have to worry about this as they consume few carbs.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 13:22
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 37,223
 
Plan: LC paleo
Stats: 241/188/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger
Low -carbers don't have to worry about this as they consume few carbs.
hi Mike,

I know that's a popular belief, but I admit my interest is piqued about the gut microbe association. I hope they do more follow-up with this study.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's another version of this story, from CBC (Canada) just hitting the news in the last couple of hours.
Quote:
Artificial sweeteners linked to obesity epidemic, scientists say

CBC News Posted: Sep 17, 2014 1:28 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 17, 2014 1:38 PM ET


Artificial sweeteners may exacerbate, rather than prevent, metabolic disorders such as Type 2 diabetes, a study suggests.

Calorie-free artificial sweeteners are often chosen by dieters in part because they are thought not to raise blood sugar levels.

In Wednesday’s issue of the journal Nature, researchers report that artificial sweeteners increase the blood sugar levels in both mice and humans by interfering with microbes in the gut. Increased blood sugar levels are an early indicator of Type 2 diabetes and metabolic disease.

The increase in consumption of artificial sweeteners coincides with the obesity and diabetes epidemics, Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and his co-authors said.

"Our findings suggest that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight."


Link to gut bacteria

The study included a series of experiments.

Mice whose drinking water was supplemented with glucose and a sweetener developed glucose intolerance compared with mice drinking water alone, or water with just sugar in it. The effect occurred both in mice fed normal chow and those on a high-fat diet.

When antibiotics were used to kill off gut bacteria, the artificial sweetener effect on glucose intolerance in mice fed either diet was restored to normal.

Taken together, the data indicate that artificial sweeteners "may contribute to, rather than alleviate, obesity-related metabolic conditions, by altering the composition and function of bacterial populations in the gut," Cathryn Nagler and Taylor Feehley of the pathology department at the University of Chicago said in a journal commentary.

In the human part of the research, gut bacteria were analyzed from 381 non-diabetics averaging age 43 who were participating in an ongoing nutrition study. They found differences in the gut bacteria among those who consumed artificial sweeteners compared with those who did not.

Artificial sweetener consumers showed "markers" for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance.


More research needed

In the final portion of the study, seven human volunteers who didn’t normally consume artificial sweeteners added it to their diets for seven days. After four days, blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment.

To confirm the findings, the researchers also transferred feces from people who consume artificial sweeteners into mice that were bred to have sterile intestines and never consumed it before. The mice who had saccharin became glucose intolerant, which suggests that the artificial sweetener caused the unhealthy effect.

It could be that artificial sweeteners lead to an expansion of bacterial species that extract energy from food that often gets stored as fat, contributing to obesity, Nagler said. It's also possible the sweeteners could suppress the growth of other bacteria that seem to stave off insulin resistance, she said.

The commentators suggested studies to identify specific bacterial populations that promote resistance to weight gain or improve glucose tolerance could be useful as treatments.

Other experts who were not involved in the research called the findings intriguing, but noted that the human findings in particular were very preliminary in terms of considering changes to nutrition recommendations.

"This research raises caution that [non-caloric artificial sweeteners] may not represent the 'innocent magic bullet' they were intended to be to help with the obesity and diabetes epidemics, but it does not yet provide sufficient evidence to alter public health and clinical practice," said Nita Forouhi, program leader at the Medical Research Council's epidemiology unit at Cambridge University.


link to article
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 15:11
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Interesting. I wonder if intra-gastric delivery--so the rodents or people couldn't taste the sweeteners, would make a difference? It might not, there are sweet "taste" receptors in the gut. But of course it might be sweet taste receptors in the bacteria themselves up-regulating their demand for sugar, spurring them to break down sugars for their own needs. Does this affect the speed of digestion of carbohydrate--make "slow" carbs fast? Starch act a bit more like sugar?

Do have to wonder how/if this matters if there's no carbs for them to break down.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 15:12
locarb4avr locarb4avr is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 261
 
Plan: My own plan
Stats: 220/126/132 Male 65in
BF:
Progress: 107%
Location: 92646
Default

This is another version --
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/2014...ers-blood-sugar

It says there are roughly 4lbs of them in our body.
If you just want to lose 1 or 2 lbs, just kill them and you are done.(just kidding)

FYI, there are some carb in the fat and protein. This is how no carb or extreme low carb people get their carb.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 15:54
aj_cohn's Avatar
aj_cohn aj_cohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165 Male 65 in.
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
Default

Quote:
"Our findings suggest that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight."

No agenda there — no sirree.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 16:24
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Yes, because if you're drinking a ton of diet soda and eating the SAD, artificial sweeteners are the worst issue you and your gut biome face.

On the bright side it's nice to see any attention to gut biome.

On the down side, I'm tempted to think this is corporate-sponsored propaganda back down the line somewhere. Sugar and HFCS are the "entrenched competitors."

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 17:20
coachjeff's Avatar
coachjeff coachjeff is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 635
 
Plan: Very Low Carb
Stats: 211/212/210 Male 72
BF:
Progress: -100%
Location: Shreveport, LA
Default

Here's the NY Times take on it...

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...ntrols/?src=twr


Artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar, causing metabolic changes that can be a precursor to diabetes, researchers are reporting.

That is “the very same condition that we often aim to prevent” by consuming sweeteners instead of sugar, said Dr. Eran Elinav, an immunologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, at a news conference to discuss the findings.

The scientists performed a multitude of experiments, mostly on mice, to back up their assertion that the sweeteners alter the microbiome, the population of bacteria that is in the digestive system.

The different mix of microbes, the researchers contend, changes the metabolism of glucose, causing levels to rise higher after eating and to decline more slowly than they otherwise would.

The findings by Dr. Elinav and his collaborators in Israel, including Eran Segal, a professor of computer science and applied mathematics at Weizmann, are being published Wednesday by the journal Nature.

Cathryn R. Nagler, a professor of pathology at the University of Chicago who was not involved with the research but did write an accompanying commentary in Nature, called the results “very compelling.”

She noted that many conditions, including obesity and diabetes, had been linked to changes in the microbiome. “What the study suggests,” she said, “is we should step back and reassess our extensive use of artificial sweeteners.”

Previous studies on the health effects of artificial sweeteners have come to conflicting and confusing findings. Some found that they were associated with weight loss; others found the exact opposite, that people who drank diet soda actually weighed more.

Some found a correlation between artificial sweeteners and diabetes, but those findings were not entirely convincing: Those who switch to the products may already be overweight and prone to the disease.

While acknowledging that it is too early for broad or definitive conclusions, Dr. Elinav said he had already changed his own behavior.

“I’ve consumed very large amounts of coffee, and extensively used sweeteners, thinking like many other people that they are at least not harmful to me and perhaps even beneficial,” he said. “Given the surprising results that we got in our study, I made a personal preference to stop using them.

“We don’t think the body of evidence that we present in humans is sufficient to change the current recommendations,” he continued. “But I would hope it would provoke a healthy discussion.”

In the initial set of experiments, the scientists added saccharin (the sweetener in the pink packets of Sweet’N Low), sucralose (the yellow packets of Splenda) or aspartame (the blue packets of Equal) to the drinking water of 10-week-old mice. Other mice drank plain water or water supplemented with glucose or with ordinary table sugar. After a week, there was little change in the mice who drank water or sugar water, but the group getting artificial sweeteners developed marked intolerance to glucose.

Glucose intolerance, in which the body is less able to cope with large amounts of sugar, can lead to more serious illnesses like metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes.

When the researchers treated the mice with antibiotics, killing much of the bacteria in the digestive system, the glucose intolerance went away.

At present, the scientists cannot explain how the sweeteners affect the bacteria or why the three different molecules of saccharin, aspartame and sucralose result in similar changes in the glucose metabolism.

To further test their hypothesis that the change in glucose metabolism was caused by a change in bacteria, they performed another series of experiments, this time focusing just on saccharin. They took intestinal bacteria from mice who had drank saccharin-laced water and injected them in mice that had never been exposed any saccharin. Those mice developed the same glucose intolerance. And DNA sequencing showed that saccharin had markedly changed the variety of bacteria in the guts of the mice that consumed it.

Next, the researchers turned to a study they were conducting to track the effects of nutrition and gut bacteria on people’s long-term health. For 381 nondiabetic participants in the study, the researchers found a correlation between the reported use of any kind of artificial sweeteners and signs of glucose intolerance. In addition, the gut bacteria of those who used artificial sweeteners were different from those who did not.

Finally, they recruited seven volunteers who normally did not use artificial sweeteners and over six days gave them the maximum amount of saccharin recommended by the United States Food and Drug Administration. In four of the seven, blood-sugar levels were disrupted in the same way as in mice.

Further, when they injected the human participants’ bacteria into the intestines of mice, the animals again developed glucose intolerance, suggesting that effect was the same in both mice and humans.

“That experiment is compelling to me,” Dr. Nagler said.

Intriguingly — “superstriking and interesting to us,” Dr. Segal said — the intestinal bacteria of the people who did experience effects were different from those who did not. This suggests that any effects of artificial sweeteners are not universal. It also suggests probiotics — medicines consisting of live bacteria — could be used to shift gut bacteria to a population that reversed the glucose intolerance.

Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and immunology at the Harvard School of Public Health who did not take part in the study, called it interesting but far from conclusive and added that given the number of participants, “I think the validity of the human study is questionable.”

The researchers said future research would examine aspartame and sucralose in detail as well as other alternative sweeteners like stevia.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 20:52
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,863
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Quote:
40 cans of diet cola

Strikes me as rather a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Wed, Sep-17-14, 21:15
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,573
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/150/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Each dose was enough to sweeten around 40 cans of diet cola.


That was the dose each day? Holy moley, that would be a LOT of soda!

I didn't start drinking diet cola (and I hadn't drunk any sodas at all for about 30 years) until long after I was diabetic & after I had started LC. I've tested after drinking a can of diet Pepsi with aspartame & there is never a BG spike - not even a blip. I've never drunk more than 3 cans in one day; that seems to be my natural limit - I just don't want more than that. Usually I have only 1 or 2 cans.

I wonder if the people who gain weight or become diabetic while drinking diet soda are those who make that one change, but continue eating as many carbs as before. I'm sure we've all known people who drink diet soda, or put non-sugar sweetener in their coffee, yet eat plenty of wheat & sugar products.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Sep-18-14, 04:14
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 13,431
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

And Science Daily's summary:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...40917131634.htm

Quote:
Artificial sweeteners -- promoted as aids to weight loss and diabetes prevention -- could actually hasten the development of glucose intolerance and metabolic disease, and they do so in a surprising way: by changing the composition and function of the gut microbiota -- the substantial population of bacteria residing in our intestines. These findings, the results of experiments in mice and humans, were published September 17 in Nature. Dr. Eran Elinav of the Weizmann Institute of Science's Department of Immunology, who led this research together with Prof. Eran Segal of the Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, says that the widespread use of artificial sweeteners in drinks and food, among other things, may be contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemic that is sweeping much of the world.

For years, researchers have been puzzling over the fact that non-caloric artificial sweeteners do not seem to assist in weight loss, with some studies suggesting that they may even have an opposite effect. Graduate student Jotham Suez in Dr. Elinav's lab, who led the study, collaborated with lab member Gili Zilberman-Shapira and graduate students Tal Korem and David Zeevi in Prof. Segal's lab to discover that artificial sweeteners, even though they do not contain sugar, nonetheless have a direct effect on the body's ability to utilize glucose. Glucose intolerance -- generally thought to occur when the body cannot cope with large amounts of sugar in the diet -- is the first step on the path to metabolic syndrome and adult-onset diabetes.

The scientists gave mice water laced with the three most commonly used artificial sweeteners, in amounts equivalent to those permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These mice developed glucose intolerance, as compared to mice that drank water, or even sugar water. Repeating the experiment with different types of mice and different doses of the artificial sweeteners produced the same results -- these substances were somehow inducing glucose intolerance.

Next, the researchers investigated a hypothesis that the gut microbiota are involved in this phenomenon. They thought the bacteria might do this by reacting to new substances like artificial sweeteners, which the body itself may not recognize as "food." Indeed, artificial sweeteners are not absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract, but in passing through they encounter trillions of the bacteria in the gut microbiota.

The researchers treated mice with antibiotics to eradicate many of their gut bacteria; this resulted in a full reversal of the artificial sweeteners' effects on glucose metabolism. Next, they transferred the microbiota from mice that consumed artificial sweeteners to "germ-free," or sterile, mice -- resulting in a complete transmission of the glucose intolerance into the recipient mice. This, in itself, was conclusive proof that changes to the gut bacteria are directly responsible for the harmful effects to their host's metabolism. The group even found that incubating the microbiota outside the body, together with artificial sweeteners, was sufficient to induce glucose intolerance in the sterile mice. A detailed characterization of the microbiota in these mice revealed profound changes to their bacterial populations, including new microbial functions that are known to infer a propensity to obesity, diabetes, and complications of these problems in both mice and humans.

Does the human microbiome function in the same way? Dr. Elinav and Prof. Segal had a means to test this as well. As a first step, they looked at data collected from their Personalized Nutrition Project (www.personalnutrition.org), the largest human trial to date to look at the connection between nutrition and microbiota. Here, they uncovered a significant association between self-reported consumption of artificial sweeteners, personal configurations of gut bacteria, and the propensity for glucose intolerance. They next conducted a controlled experiment, asking a group of volunteers who did not generally eat or drink artificially sweetened foods to consume them for a week, and then undergo tests of their glucose levels and gut microbiota compositions.

The findings showed that many -- but not all -- of the volunteers had begun to develop glucose intolerance after just one week of artificial sweetener consumption. The composition of their gut microbiota explained the difference: the researchers discovered two different populations of human gut bacteria -- one that induced glucose intolerance when exposed to the sweeteners, and one that had no effect either way. Dr. Elinav believes that certain bacteria in the guts of those who developed glucose intolerance reacted to the chemical sweeteners by secreting substances that then provoked an inflammatory response similar to sugar overdose, promoting changes in the body's ability to utilize sugar.

Prof. Segal states, "The results of our experiments highlight the importance of personalized medicine and nutrition to our overall health. We believe that an integrated analysis of individualized 'big data' from our genome, microbiome, and dietary habits could transform our ability to understand how foods and nutritional supplements affect a person's health and risk of disease." According to Dr. Elinav, "Our relationship with our own individual mix of gut bacteria is a huge factor in determining how the food we eat affects us. Especially intriguing is the link between use of artificial sweeteners -- through the bacteria in our guts -- to a tendency to develop the very disorders they were designed to prevent; this calls for reassessment of today's massive, unsupervised consumption of these substances."
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Sep-18-14, 04:48
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

This from Seth Robert's essay explaining the science behind the Shangri-la Diet is about weight gain, but makes me wonder just how they went about giving both the rodents and the people in these studies the sweeteners;

Quote:
Ramirez (1990a) found that adding saccharin to a liquid diet caused rats to gain weight.
The effect had some puzzling characteristics:
1. Prior experience with saccharin eliminated it. The effect did not appear when rats
drank saccharin-flavored water for several days before being given the liquid diet.
Ramirez observed this twice.
2. Prior experience with the liquid diet eliminated it. When rats ate the liquid diet for 1-3
weeks before the addition of saccharin, the effect did not occur. Ramirez observed this
twice.
3. It took about one week to reach full strength. The effect was weaker during the first
week of saccharin than during later weeks.


http://media.sethroberts.net/about/...odfattening.pdf

You don't have to buy Seth's theory that flavour/calorie association makes food fattening. But if you want to do a study looking at the effect of artificial sweeteners and metabolism, you might need to take into account just how the sweetener was administered. Associated with food? With carbohydrate? Not? Used with new foods? Using massive amounts of the sweetener--equivalent dose of 40 diet cokes a day--might constitute enough sweetness that it counts as a novel stimulus--so that any associations/non-associations that have developed for a person, over the years, don't come into play. Whether people are washing down food with water with the sweetener added to it, taking it fasted, after meals, just before meals, might matter. As well as what those meals contain.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Sep-18-14, 05:09
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Another thing that I think should probably be corrected for (or studies be done to see if it needs to be corrected for). Change meal pattern, and you can change glucose tolerance. What does excessive sweetness normally tell us? Too much sugar, it's part of the defense against excess consumption. The sweetness of forty cokes? What effect does that have? Does it temporarily blot out any desire for sweet--or even carbohydrate--changing meal patterns, putting them out of accord with normal daily circadian rhythm? We're talking about a dose that tests the effect of aversion to sweetness, maybe, rather than palatable sweetness. Conversely, such a large dose of sweet could just be down-regulating sweet receptors--so it takes more carbohydrate to do the job. Not really conversely, because both effects could be in play. Hard to make the leap from the effect of the maximum dose to people who take a packet of Splenda in their coffee.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Sep-18-14, 07:51
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,863
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Anytime I have tested my BG after drinking diet soda, it hasn't budged.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Thu, Sep-18-14, 07:55
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

I'm wondering: is it possible that a wide range of different substances, to include some kinds of food with fiber, given at a fairly massive dose (enough sweetener for 40 sodas a day?), would have gut biome changes that "could actually hasten the development of glucose intolerance and metabolic disease"?

In other words, is this more a "doh!" of course thing, than a revelation? What substance that does not digest in upper bowel but isn't 100% washed out -- in short, will digest at least somewhat in the bowel -- and was eaten in large dose very abruptly and consistently -- would NOT have some effect?

PJ
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:18.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.