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
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Mar-19-18, 08:44
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,555
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default Consuming low-calorie sweeteners may predispose overweight individuals to diabetes

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80318144829.htm


Quote:
Consumption of low-calorie sweeteners could promote metabolic syndrome and predispose people to prediabetes and diabetes, particularly in individuals with obesity, a new study on human fat-derived stem cells and fat samples suggests. The research results will be presented Sunday, March 18, at ENDO 2018, the 100th annual meeting of the Endocrine Society in Chicago, Ill.

Metabolic syndrome is a group of risk factors -- high blood pressure, high blood sugar, unhealthy cholesterol levels and abdominal fat -- that double the risk of blood vessel and heart disease, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes. They increase the risk of diabetes by three to five times.

"Our stem cell-based studies indicate that low-calorie sweeteners promote additional fat accumulation within cells compared with cells not exposed to these substances, in a dose-dependent fashion -- meaning that as the dose of sucralose is increased more cells showed increased fat droplet accumulation," said Sabyasachi Sen, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "This most likely occurs by increasing glucose entry into cells through increased activity of genes called glucose transporters."

In addition to stem cells, the researchers also studied human fat samples collected from individuals with obesity who consumed low-calorie sweeteners. They found similar changes in gene expression in the same genes with increased activity of glucose transporters in both the stem cells and the fat cells, Sen noted.

He noted these findings are of greatest concern for people who have obesity and prediabetes or diabetes, since they are already at heightened risk of heart attacks and strokes. "We think the effect is more pronounced in overweight and obese people rather than their normal weight counterparts because they have more insulin resistance and may have more glucose in their blood," he said.

Sen and his colleagues tested sucralose, a popular low-calorie sweetener, on stem cells -- cells that could change into mature fat, muscle, cartilage or bone cells -- taken from human fat tissue. They placed these cells in Petri dishes for 12 days in media that promotes fat production, to mimic an environment that promotes obesity.

At a 0.2-millimolar sucralose dose similar to the concentration found in the blood of people with high consumption of low-calorie sweeteners -- equal to four cans of diet soda per day -- the researchers said they observed increased expression of genes that are markers of fat production and inflammation.

With this evidence, the investigators then conducted a separate experiment. They analyzed biopsy samples of abdominal fat obtained from 18 subjects who said they consumed low-calorie sweeteners (mainly sucralose and a trace of aspartame, and/or acesulfame potassium).

Four of the subjects were healthy weight, and fourteen had obesity. In the healthy weight subjects, the difference in gene expressions were not significant. However, in the subjects with obesity or overweight, the researchers noted significant evidence of increased glucose (sugar) transport into cells and overexpression of known fat-producing genes, compared with fat biopsy samples from subjects who did not consume low-calorie sweeteners.

Sen previously conducted the same study on a total of eight subjects with similar results. "Because we found the same results with the, larger sample size, we have much more confidence that low-calorie sweeteners are causing metabolic dysfunction," Sen said.

In a new cell culture study, Sen found that sucralose appears to promote oxygen radical accumulation -- a highly reactive particles that can cause disease and inflammation inside cells. These oxygen radicals interfere with cell activity and slow down metabolism, which promotes accumulation of fat in the cell. "This provides another explanation of how sucralose may interfere with metabolism," he said.



Quote:
compared with fat biopsy samples from subjects who did not consume low-calorie sweeteners.


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.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Mar-21-18, 06:39
Squarecube's Avatar
Squarecube Squarecube is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 853
 
Plan: atkins/paleo/IF
Stats: 186.5/159.0/160 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: NYC
Default

I find it very annoying. Sucralose is a rare bird in soda, even today. And where are the controls with sugar use.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Mar-21-18, 07:13
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,555
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Mar-21-18, 08:24
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 6,695
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/205/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 102%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Mar-21-18, 09:27
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,555
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

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:
How obesity dulls the sense of taste
Obese mice had about 25 percent fewer taste buds than lean mice in study


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.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Mar-21-18, 13:04
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,175
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Mar-21-18, 19:23
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 10,395
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Mar-21-18, 22:08
barb712's Avatar
barb712 barb712 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 476
 
Plan: Atkins Maintenance
Stats: 239/209/209 Female 5 feet 11 inches
BF:27%
Progress: 100%
Location: USA
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Mar-30-18, 10:18
CarlN CarlN is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 108
 
Plan: Atkins:Very Low Carb(VLC)
Stats: 265/241/165 Male 5'8"
BF:40/36/15
Progress: 24%
Location: Palmer, Alaska
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squarecube
I find it very annoying. Sucralose is a rare bird in soda, even today. And where are the controls with sugar use.


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
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Mar-30-18, 13:46
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,391
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

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:
Endocrinologists are at the core of solving the most pressing health problems of our time, from diabetes and obesity to infertility, bone health, and hormone-related cancers. The Endocrine Society is the worldís oldest and largest organization of scientists devoted to hormone research and physicians who care for people with hormone-related conditions.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, Mar-30-18, 14:12
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,391
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sat, Mar-31-18, 06:06
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 10,395
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Can't trust the Endocrine Society anymore, not that I ever did before, but now it's for sure, Jack.


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...
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Tue, May-01-18, 06:40
LittleElla LittleElla is offline
New Member
Posts: 11
 
Plan: Target 100
Stats: 207/170/135 Female 5'2"
BF:
Progress: 51%
Default

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 Iím 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. Iíll take sugar subs over sugar any day. My study of 1 is enough for me.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Tue, May-01-18, 06:51
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,555
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Tue, May-01-18, 07:57
LittleElla LittleElla is offline
New Member
Posts: 11
 
Plan: Target 100
Stats: 207/170/135 Female 5'2"
BF:
Progress: 51%
Default

Exactly Teaser. Plus, Iíve 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. Iím back to low carbing, stricter than what I grew up with, and I wonít ever leave again.
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 03:08.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.