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 Tue, Oct-02-18, 04:18
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,402
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default 6 artificial sweeteners that can hurt microbiome

Yet again, clues why artificial sweeteners donít work for weight loss, and may actually harm.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...81001101932.htm

Quote:
Artificial sweeteners have toxic effects on gut microbes
Date: October 1, 2018
Source: American Associates, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Summary: The collaborative study indicated relative toxicity of six artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame, and acesulfame potassium-k) and 10 sport supplements containing these artificial sweeteners. The bacteria found in the digestive system became toxic when exposed to concentrations of only one mg./ml. of the artificial sweeteners.

FDA-approved artificial sweeteners and sport supplements were found to be toxic to digestive gut microbes, according to a new paper published in Molecules by researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) in Israel and Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

The collaborative study indicated relative toxicity of six artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame, and acesulfame potassium-k) and 10 sport supplements containing these artificial sweeteners. The bacteria found in the digestive system became toxic when exposed to concentrations of only one mg./ml. of the artificial sweeteners.

"We modified bioluminescent E. coli bacteria, which luminesce when they detect toxicants and act as a sensing model representative of the complex microbial system," says Prof. Ariel Kushmaro, John A. Ungar Chair in Biotechnology in the Avram and Stella Goldstein-Goren Department of Biotechnology Engineering, and member of the Ilse Katz Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology and the National Institute for Biotechnology in the Negev. "This is further evidence that consumption of artificial sweeteners adversely affects gut microbial activity which can cause a wide range of health issues."

Artificial sweeteners are used in countless food products and soft drinks with reduced sugar content. Many people consume this added ingredient without their knowledge. Moreover, artificial sweeteners have been identified as emerging environmental pollutants, and can be found in drinking and surface water, and groundwater aquifers.

"The results of this study might help in understanding the relative toxicity of artificial sweeteners and the potential of negative effects on the gut microbial community as well as the environment.

Furthermore, the tested bioluminescent bacterial panel can potentially be used for detecting artificial sweeteners in the environment," says Prof. Kushmaro

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 05:30
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 4,824
 
Plan: ~25NC/IF
Stats: 342.2/196/000 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 43%
Default

Sack the Sucralose, Sweep away the Stevia, Ashcan the Aspartame - I could keep going. I use a stevia/eurithratol or whatever you call it blend, maybe it's time to drop it and the sweet thing all together. I've done it in 3 month chucks before - it's doable, just change in habit.

Maybe I'll wait till the new year, like everything else. Tomorrow never comes tho.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 07:28
s93uv3h's Avatar
s93uv3h s93uv3h is online now
 
Plan: Atkins & IF
Stats: 000/014.5/015 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 97%
Default

I still see the natural sweetener stevia recommended in the recent books I've read. While I have some, I don't use it anymore as I've gone to drinking my coffee black (again). Don't miss the fufu (cream, sugar, artificial sweetener, stevia).

Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 07:29
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 2,384
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Stevia wasn't included in the study, and it's not considered an "artificial" sweetener. It would have been good to have included some of the "natural processed" sweeteners like stevia to understand the results. Good practice to avoid the artificials if you want better health.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 08:49
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,923
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

1 mg/ml? Relative sweetness of artificial sweeteners versus sugar can be hundreds of times. So let's see, that works out to a gram per liter, or the sweetness of 200 grams of sugar per liter, or of 50 grams per cup...

For splenda, it's 600 times, so sweetness of 150 grams of sugar per cup. A can of coke has 35 grams sugar.

Incidentally, I got this statement looking the can of coke up;

"Find out how much sugar there is in a can of coke so you can include it in a healthy, balanced lifestyle." Coca-Cola UK.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 08:53
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,629
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/218/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 31%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

WHile I understand the full implications of the study ( killing off the bacteria in the gut = poor health of the host) I recently put together aspartame and tyrosine to get the same benefits of ADD/ ADHD meds, which is to increase my dopamine levels. Will look for other phenylalanine sources.....
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 09:33
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,923
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/23/10/2454/htm

Quote:
The collaborative study indicated relative toxicity of six artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame, and acesulfame potassium-k) and 10 sport supplements containing these artificial sweeteners. The bacteria found in the digestive system became toxic when exposed to concentrations of only one mg./ml. of the artificial sweeteners.


Here it sounds like all it takes is one mg/ml... go to the study itself, various bacterial strains, various sweeteners--that 1 mg/ml was only a result in one strain of bacteria, with one sweetener (splenda).

Quote:
An inhibition response pattern may be observed in the response of sucralose in all the tested strains: TV1061 (MLIC = 1 mg/mL), DPD2544 (MLIC = 50 mg/mL) and DPD2794 (MLIC = 100 mg/mL). It is also observed in neotame in the DPD2544 (MLIC = 2 mg/mL) strain. On the other hand, the induction response pattern may be observed in its response in saccharin in TV1061 (MLIndC = 5 mg/mL) and DPD2794 (MLIndC = 5 mg/mL) strains, aspartame in DPD2794 (MLIndC = 4 mg/mL) strain, and ace-k in DPD2794 (MLIndC = 10 mg/mL) strain. The results of this study may help in understanding the relative toxicity of artificial sweeteners on E. coli, a sensing model representative of the gut bacteria. Furthermore, the tested bioluminescent bacterial panel can potentially be used for detecting artificial sweeteners in the environment, using a specific mode-of-action pattern.


Even with sucralose/splenda, other than that one strain that reacted at 1 mg/ml, the other strains tested took massive concentration--1 mg/ml is already comparable to a very sweet beverage, never mind 50 or 100 mg/ml.

I'm not sure how my poop feels about all this. At this point, I feel pretty good and that's what I'm more concerned with. When I'm a bit more certain that I can micromanage my gut biome to my advantage, I'll give it a shot, for now I have to go by my macro-response.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 10:05
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,629
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/218/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 31%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Thanks Teaser for posting the link to the original paper.

I did not know that these artificial sugars did not break down, and affected the viability of microbes. In this study only E coli was listed. As to its effect on the environmental biome I would want to see studies using other microbes. In antibiotics , only some are broad spectrum, others are very specific.

Otherwise, E coli is noted for causing disease, and is kept in check by a healthy variety of other bacteria, fungi, etc in the gut. That makes these artificial sugars a good thing.

As usual. Im left with more questions than answers.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 10:22
s93uv3h's Avatar
s93uv3h s93uv3h is online now
 
Plan: Atkins & IF
Stats: 000/014.5/015 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 97%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
Stevia wasn't included in the study, and it's not considered an "artificial" sweetener. It would have been good to have included some of the "natural processed" sweeteners like stevia to understand the results. Good practice to avoid the artificials if you want better health.
Exactly! I'll keep the stevia around in case I try some recipes for stuff.

Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 10:35
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,923
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

When I first started my current sort of dirty carnivore/ketogenic diet, I went off of artificial sweeteners, as much to save money as anything else. Adding back in artificial sweeteners doesn't seem to have changed anything, unless maybe I was on the road to being super-ripped.

With the E coli--maybe, but we don't really know effects on other bacteria. One thing mentioned in the study was possible differences when the bugs are exposed to artificial sweeteners with high or low carbohydrate availability.

I did an experiment with inulin as a fermentable fiber once, found I enjoyed it too much mixed with heavy cream. It's slightly sweet, sort of reminds me of powdered coffee mate in the mouth. Now that I live on heavy cream, I might give it another shot. I'm thinking it might give fat bombs a good mouth-feel. I've read it's used in some confections in Japan.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 10:47
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,923
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

If a long list of artificial sweeteners had been shown to be poisonous to bacteria at a low dose, I'd be suspicious of stevia as well--after all, what do sucralose, aspartame, and saccharin have in common otherwise? Fortunately this is just bad reporting, and that wasn't the case. If you take ten artificial sweeteners, and they all have the same bad effect (they didn't), the most likely thing to me seems to be not that they had this effect because they're artificial--a somewhat nebulous characteristic--but because they're sweet, have an effect on sweet receptors, etc. For this reason--I'd be as worried about stevia as about any artificial sweetener.

edited to add--which is not very.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 13:26
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,284
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I know erythritol doesn't really make it to the gut where the bacteria live. It is absorbed out of the small intestines and excreted through urine. I think sucralose might be as well since they're using sucralose in swimming pools as a marker to measure how much pee is in the water. LOL!
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 14:47
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,284
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I always wonder if people have looked at other stuff's effect on bowel flora... like broccoli, or coffee and tea, or sugar.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 16:27
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 2,384
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
If a long list of artificial sweeteners had been shown to be poisonous to bacteria at a low dose, I'd be suspicious of stevia as well--after all, what do sucralose, aspartame, and saccharin have in common otherwise? Fortunately this is just bad reporting, and that wasn't the case. If you take ten artificial sweeteners, and they all have the same bad effect (they didn't), the most likely thing to me seems to be not that they had this effect because they're artificial--a somewhat nebulous characteristic--but because they're sweet, have an effect on sweet receptors, etc. For this reason--I'd be as worried about stevia as about any artificial sweetener.

edited to add--which is not very.

Agree with your suspicion about stevia. I use sweeteners of any kind rarely and can count on one hand how often I've used them in a year. It would have been good methodology to have included stevia with the other artificial sweeteners to better understand the mechanism at play. Is it purely a chemical toxin from the sweetener, or is it something that the bacteria can't use for fuel that causes harm? What about adding table sugar for a secondary control? Providing this data would have been a better representation about what is really at play with bacteria and sweeteners of all varieties.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Tue, Oct-02-18, 16:43
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,277
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Most E. coli strains are good and are found in healthy digestive systems. There are some strains of it that do cause problems.
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 16:15.


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