The relationship between various artificial sweeteners and weight
July 15, 2019 12:40 PM Subscribe
What is the relationship between various artificial sweeteners and weight gain / loss? I have been trying to figure out what the research actually shows, and it is incredibly confusing. It sounds like the various artificial sweeteners may have different effects on weight, some causing weight loss, some being pretty much neutral, and some causing weight gain. Is that so? Then, which ones are correlated with what? Has this been proven scientifically, or is it anecdotal? I am particularly interested in research that differentiates saccharine, aspartame, sucralose, monk fruit extract, stevia, and erythritol. A synthesis of the research would be especially useful.
Keep in mind, monk fruit extract, stevia, and erythritol are refined from plant material so are no more "artificial sweeteners" than sugar is. They are non-nutritive/low calorie sweeteners though.
posted by superna at 1:28 PM on July 15, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by superna at 1:28 PM on July 15, 2019 [6 favorites]
Here's a "mini-review" study from 2010: Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings which includes:
"...artificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence. Repeated exposure trains flavor preference [54]. A strong correlation exists between a person’s customary intake of a flavor and his preferred intensity for that flavor. Systematic reduction of dietary salt [55] or fat [56] without any flavorful substitution over the course of several weeks led to a preference for lower levels of those nutrients in the research subjects. In light of these findings, a similar approach might be used to reduce sugar intake. Unsweetening the world’s diet [15] may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic."
posted by rogerroger at 1:52 PM on July 15, 2019
"...artificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence. Repeated exposure trains flavor preference [54]. A strong correlation exists between a person’s customary intake of a flavor and his preferred intensity for that flavor. Systematic reduction of dietary salt [55] or fat [56] without any flavorful substitution over the course of several weeks led to a preference for lower levels of those nutrients in the research subjects. In light of these findings, a similar approach might be used to reduce sugar intake. Unsweetening the world’s diet [15] may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic."
posted by rogerroger at 1:52 PM on July 15, 2019
Fun, science-y conversation about artificial sweeteners.
posted by j_curiouser at 2:58 PM on July 15, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 2:58 PM on July 15, 2019 [2 favorites]
The science on this is evolving every day.
Here is a short writeup of a recent study that showed certain artificial sweeteners having a marked, extremely deleterious effect on gut flora in a way that seemed to be causing glucose intolerance, a condition which is often a precursor to obesity.
posted by fingersandtoes at 4:45 PM on July 15, 2019 [4 favorites]
Here is a short writeup of a recent study that showed certain artificial sweeteners having a marked, extremely deleterious effect on gut flora in a way that seemed to be causing glucose intolerance, a condition which is often a precursor to obesity.
posted by fingersandtoes at 4:45 PM on July 15, 2019 [4 favorites]
There's two different ways to approach this which is what might be causing confusion:
1. Social science. Observing average behavioral responses. Think studying the relationship between political policies and the economy.
2. Biological science. Studying things like neurobiology, microbiome, etc. on an individual level. This is likely a large factor in 1.
posted by ToddBurson at 6:15 AM on July 16, 2019 [1 favorite]
1. Social science. Observing average behavioral responses. Think studying the relationship between political policies and the economy.
2. Biological science. Studying things like neurobiology, microbiome, etc. on an individual level. This is likely a large factor in 1.
posted by ToddBurson at 6:15 AM on July 16, 2019 [1 favorite]
Here is a short writeup of a recent study that showed certain artificial sweeteners having a marked, extremely deleterious effect on gut flora in a way that seemed to be causing glucose intolerance, a condition which is often a precursor to obesity.
In mice.
From the case for diet soda article:
"Gardner was particularly dismissive of the idea that tiny quantities of anything could mess with your gut microbiome. “We pummel people with fiber to try and move the microbiome, with limited success,” he said. It’s not easy, and the research on probiotics, which are intended to change your gut bacteria, indicates that it’s hard to do even when you’re trying. Nevertheless, the gut microbiome has become the conspiracy theory of nutrition: It’s where people go to prove something’s dangerous when there’s really no evidence that it is.
In fact, although gut bacteria is probably the most frequent issue I hear about, I could find exactly one study about it on humans, and that was an afterthought tacked on a mouse study. In it, seven people were fed saccharin for a week. Four of them had “poorer glycemic responses.” The rest of the research was on mice. Or sometimes rats. And if you take a bunch of mice that are genetically very similar, make sure they have no gut bacteria to begin with, and feed them different things, you will see different results because there is no noise to compete with what might be a very, very small signal. In human guts, it’s chaos, and changes have to be very powerful to be meaningful."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:31 AM on July 16, 2019 [7 favorites]
In mice.
From the case for diet soda article:
"Gardner was particularly dismissive of the idea that tiny quantities of anything could mess with your gut microbiome. “We pummel people with fiber to try and move the microbiome, with limited success,” he said. It’s not easy, and the research on probiotics, which are intended to change your gut bacteria, indicates that it’s hard to do even when you’re trying. Nevertheless, the gut microbiome has become the conspiracy theory of nutrition: It’s where people go to prove something’s dangerous when there’s really no evidence that it is.
In fact, although gut bacteria is probably the most frequent issue I hear about, I could find exactly one study about it on humans, and that was an afterthought tacked on a mouse study. In it, seven people were fed saccharin for a week. Four of them had “poorer glycemic responses.” The rest of the research was on mice. Or sometimes rats. And if you take a bunch of mice that are genetically very similar, make sure they have no gut bacteria to begin with, and feed them different things, you will see different results because there is no noise to compete with what might be a very, very small signal. In human guts, it’s chaos, and changes have to be very powerful to be meaningful."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:31 AM on July 16, 2019 [7 favorites]
It's evolving regularly and digital will probably be better than print, however I just finished Bad Food Bible and one of his chapters is this exact issue. He's a medical researcher who analyzes the various findings on sweeteners, sugar, carbs, fats and other "bad" foods to present the truth, as well as science allows us. I found its framework helpful for understanding the media's yelling through headlines.
posted by TravellingCari at 9:50 AM on July 16, 2019
posted by TravellingCari at 9:50 AM on July 16, 2019
The Bad Food Bible is by Aaron Carroll; from 2015, his article The Evidence Supports Artificial Sweeteners Over Sugar: "There’s a potential, and probably real, harm from consuming added sugars; there are most likely none from artificial sweeteners."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:04 PM on July 16, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:04 PM on July 16, 2019 [3 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:47 PM on July 15, 2019 [5 favorites]