There are so many sweeteners out there now. Allulose, stevia, monk fruit, erythritol... to name some of the ones I use now. So rehashing that the very few that have been studied isn't exactly new news.

Also pointing out that people who use them are fat isn't terribly helpful without knowing which way the causation arrow points. And, everything changes the gut biome. What you ate for lunch changed it.

Funny thing is, sugar doesn't get anywhere near the scrutiny. How many times does it cause disease including cancer, dementia, diabetes... and on and on.

I do get that the WHO is trying to discourage people from eating processed foods, but making that so specific about non-caloric sweeteners doesn't really send that message.

A whole lot of these arguments sound like the ones people make about eating fat or meat. There's probably a whole lot of "healthy user" effect going on in these studies. People who are concerned about health are going to limit the sort of processed foods that cause issues, like cola (diet or not), and other sweets.

As someone who is concerned about sugar, I do feel there is possibly a fair chance some of the criticism about aspartame, ace-k (maybe), and sucralose, so I avoid those. I feel better about sweeteners that are found in nature.

Erythritol
Monk Fruit
Allulose
Stevia (I hate the taste of it, so don't use it much)