The Latest on Artificial Sweeteners and Health
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- Are there harms of artificial sweeteners that outweigh the benefits? We’ve asked this question before at Healthcare Triage, and the answer was no! There are lots of data that suggest artificial sweeteners are bad, but none of those data are good. There are good data suggesting that artificial sweeteners are just fine, but somehow those get ignored.
Now we’ve got a study on another artificial sweetener, erythritol, and many of you have asked what our take is.
Related HCT episodes:
Sweeteners, Weight Gain, and the Challenges of Animal Research: • Weight Gain, Low-Calor...
Be sure to check out our podcast!
• Podcast
Other Healthcare Triage Links:
1. Support the channel on Patreon: vid.io/xqXr
2. Check out our Facebook page: goo.gl/LnOq5z
3. We still have merchandise available at www.hctmerch.com
4. Aaron's book "The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully" is available wherever books are sold, such as Amazon: amzn.to/2hGvhKw
Credits:
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Tiffany Doherty -- Writer and Script Editor
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Mark Olsen - Art Director, Producer
Images and Footage
blowbackphoto/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Suwanmanee99/Creatas Video+/Getty Images Plus
Phantom Gravity/Creatas Video+/Getty Images Plus
Sefa ozel/iStock/Getty Images Plus
I would be interested to see you cover the recent study that found that 20% of households without a car and without access to reliable public transit missed healthcare appointments due to inability to find a means of transportation. You've covered social determinants of health before and I think the public health barriers facing people without a car would be an interesting topic to cover. Love your channel!
I mean, I'm surprised that it's only 20% of households with no reliable form of transportation - but I'm not sure why a study was needed on this? People who can't get places miss medical appointments seems pretty intuitive.
I'd be interested in that, too. And other causes prevent people of lower income from accessing medical care beyond the direct expenses. People often don't realize the things needed that are harder for lower-income, and taken for granted by middle-income people, some of whom can't even afford a bus pass.
@@fevre_dream8542 They may have acces to reliable transportation, like walking or bikes. Still, 20% seems low.
@@miri2810 I think for a lot of people in these circumstances especially if in a public transport deficient country or state that walking or cycling is prohibitively time consuming. Cycling is bounds faster but even then compared to a car (especially in car centric countries) it's a time and energy effort that I don't think is practical let alone feasible for some. Especially for medical appointments where the issue may prohibit doing so at all. Let alone the monetary cost directly or indirectly via time / energy as mentioned. Just food for thought
Yay Healthcare Triage liked my comment! Also, the recent American society of Pediatrics statement in support of complete streets/vision zero as a way to reduce pedestrian deaths would be a good topic to cover that's somewhat related.
I was hoping you were going to cover the recent study on sucralose suggesting it is genotoxic...
This was a great video for me because I started drinking things with artificial sweeteners instead of sugar. Learned something today!
2 years no sugar 100 pounds I lost
I use artificial sugars🎉
The argument is that everyone is going to the hospital because of SUGAR RAMIFICATIONS.
Appreciate this after seeing recent mainstream media fear mongering on Erythritol. Over the past few months resolved to get better protein bars than I had been getting which were high in added sugar and aimed to get some that had high fiber content w/ minimal sugar while still liking the taste--fortunately both the ones I liked most contained similar amounts of Erythritol so came to the resolution of "whatever." Good to have it reaffirmed that the media was peddling BS about what's bad for you per normal.
And there was ANOTHER one on sucralose, I would love if you cover it, too.
"Sucralose, a Common Artificial Sweetener, May Increase Cancer Risk" are the headlines
Yes, it's all over the place, I'm hearing a lot about it.
yeah i saw that and literally wondered if he'd cover it, then saw this thumbnail and thought it would be about that one lol
On my way to look at it as we speak (meaning after I hit reply) - Tiffany :)
@@healthcaretriage hurrah!
Reducing sugar in your diet is a good way to reduce your weight. There is so much sugar _added_ to practically every processed food. Even produce is different from when I was young. In my youth, corn was rather starchy-tasting. Our treat was when we got Silver Queen variety corn, which was palpably sweeter. Nowadays, all corn is sweet.
Cucumbers, apples, oranges, even bok choy is less bitter than in my youth. Strawberries don't need sugar to eat on your shortcake, although the syrup made from sugar added to the berries is desired a lot. Blueberries, blackberries and raspberries are sweeter and bigger. Watermelons are sweeter (if they haven't been flooded with too much rain.)
Canned tomato paste is filled with sugar! Contadina is the only brand I've found that's not got any sugar in it at all. That's what my family uses for spaghetti sauce and chili. I buy spaghetti sauce at the store that doesn't have sugar in it. That means no Ragu and no Prego, and even no store brand.
Meanwhile, cheddar cheese is an excellent snack with no sugar and even no fat. It makes a great snack for this diabetic type 2, Yours Truly.
Cutting out sugars and carbs doesn't mean starving your brain of glucose and putting it in ketoacidosis (ketosis in extreme). It means keeping your blood sugar level at about 100 mg/dl while not going too low or too high. Glucose always fluctuates, too: after a meal it can be as high as almost 200 mg/dl. But with medicine, exercise, protein and unsaturated fats, glucose levels have the potential for staying at an even level and can be put into your cells. 25g carbs per meal and one snack is considered normal intake.
When comparing erythritol to heart disease, the baseline erythritol already in the body must be differentiated from that which is added to the diet.
Again, as you said, sample size is crucial. And self-reporting I'd unreliable. And even 40 people is still too low for statistical significance even if all participated.
Per the USDA, cheddar cheese has 10g of fat for every 28g serving. And as a product made of milk fat solids, I'd be VERY suspicious if it had no fat in it.
Hats off to surgeon admiral Sam after all these years
I feel like artificial sweeteners would be one of the easier foods to do randomized controlled studies of. I keep wondering if someone could use a Hellofresh type model to do something along the lines of randomized, controlled studies of food
Hello fresh customers being a representative sample of the general population is a huge assumption
@@FinneasJedidiah I more meant the model of sending premeasured meals out as a way to standardize what people eat. Hellofresh got it's name included solely by having a well timed ad running while I typed my comment
It's still very difficult to expect the test groups to eat and drink nothing but the prescribed foods for any prolonged period of time. The closest thing I can think of is maybe testing on a prison population, but inmate testing has largely been dropped globally even when it's something "harmless".
There no way you could do a controlled study like that, it's totally obvious whether you're in the artifical sweetener or sugar category, they taste nothing alike
@@driverjayne What you mean is you cant do a blind study on that. Controlling it is still totally possible. And unblinded studies are acceptable if blind is not a realistic option.
"Correlation does not equal causation" as SciShow used to say
This is a mantra that is far, far older than SciShow. If you study literally any field that performs any type of research, this is drilled into you.
@@tima6044 that's nice.
@yeetghostrat yes, yes it is. Thank you :)
This needs to be seen by the usual suspects over at r/science
A group of people who like the pop idea of science but have no idea what it is.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the recent WHO study and recommendations on aspartame claiming it's a possible cancer risk. The headlines are very scary. Aspartame is my favourite sweetener but after reading the headlines I've switched over to stevia or cylamate for the time being. Would be nice to have my aspartame back but I figure WHO's a fairly reliable source.
Wasnt there a new study about sucralose being bad for your gut/cell regeneration and damages your dna?
Can you please do a video on clinical trials? How does that work and upon whom these trials take place?
Quite sensible; I appreciate all you do.
Was this episode written before or after the WHO issued their recommendation against use of artificial sweeteners to control weight gain?
Is there a good place where you post links to the studies in question? Sometimes I'm interested in learning more, but it's a little annoying to track them down by pausing and typing in each one
Yessss it is always my intention to post them in the description and then I (Tiffany) forget...if there were a science god I'd be smote (as in smite, but smited didn't sound right?). Here they are!
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36849732/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9824470/
(Not a lot for this episode since it was focused on a single study)
@@healthcaretriage thanks!
nice work, nice to hear this and being diabetic sweeteners are really essential, thank you 👌 👏
Why was the study published early? Any change the Sugar Lobby got wind of the study? Maybe, made some donations?
I think this is one of those "It depends" things. Artificial sweeteners might be just fine for some people, while others experience negative effects from them.
Do you have any data to back this claim up?
People that are allergic to peanut butter will get sick or potentially die from it. Does that.mean nobody should eat peanut butter, and we should question what's in it?
The logic is the same with artificial sweeteners. Peanut butter is harmless if you are not allergic to it.
Great job doctor truth🎉
Can you comment on aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO? Is there any consistent data regarding on that?
I believe he already has ruclips.net/video/Mf82FfX-wuU/видео.htmlfeature=shared
And there is another one now. Please weight in on recent Who study and recommendations.
I've been hearing a lot on this platform recently, from RUclipsrs that seem to care about science based evidence, that because we've had artificial sweeteners in our diets for so long now, our bodies are starting to react to them the same way as sugar, with an insulin spike. Would love to hear more about this and whether this holds any water.
Hi! That is a phenomenal question. Quick answer: I can see most commercial blends definitely increasing blood glucose, and causing a corresponding insulin spike. This can be due to the face that some commercial blends have maltodextrose as a bulk filler. This is an easily digested carb. I can't see a scenario where purified sucralose would cause any spike in sugar or insulin release. That would quickly put someone in hypoglycemia and a rush to the emergency department if it was widely consumed in the amounts the mixed sucralose + dextrose comes in
Not a scientist, but it seems pretty unlikely that our bodies would create some new metabolic pathway within one generation. Changes in gut Flora, though, could happen on short timescales.
Haven't seen this in the 20 years that my daughter has had type 1 diabetes. She rarely drinks soda, but when she does, it's diet bc it doesn't cause an increase in her blood sugar.
What about the effects of artificial sweeteners on the gut biome. Dr. Li states that sugar substitutes negatively affect the gut biome, which causes issue with pre and probiotics, which affects cell permeability in the intestines, resulting in toxins being leaked into the body.
Thanks
Hey thanks!
*Back to my Stevia+Mint Tea it Is*
I believe some studies have suggested that whole leaf or crudely produced extract forms of stevia may have negative effects on the kidneys, cardiovascular system, and reproductive system.
Certainly don't take my word for it, though.
I really dislike how many products sneak in non-caloric sweeteners to be low sugar.
Stevia in loose tea, alcohol sugars in candies for example.
To be fair, in a lot of cases removing any sweet flavours from the food would make it so unpalatable or bland nobody would buy it. Cornflakes would be like eating cardboard, gummy sweets would be basically plain gelatin.
@@Croz89 I unironically use unsweetened but toasted cornflakes to add a subtle savory taste to homogenous foods like porridge, lol
This was very helpful. I'm gonna keep eating erythritol!
"...the authors were more careful with their conclusions than the media was." I feel like this is almost invariably the case.
Everybody's got their agendas.
I'm going to continue to use artificial sweeteners.
I recall a study in 2019 and 2021 the concluded the non-nutritive sweeteners altered the gut biome. I understand that this is not a direct affect but it does seem to be a negative affect of using these sweeteners. I did not read the studies directly but rather saw a summary in a Scientific Article. The conclusion there was that the sweetener's affect on the biome can actually cause weight gain - the opposite of what the sweeteners are being advertised for - can you speak to this?
weight gain is an energy process, more energy is consumed than used, your gut biome can not cause weight gain unless you eat more
@@samuel34676 Ah, that is what I used to think but then I found out that the gut biome has a HUGE affect on how much energy you can extract out of the food you eat. The article identified that when you change the mix of flora in your gut biome, you change the conversion efficiency. It proposed that then lowered calorie content of the food was causing the flora to change to get more calories out of the food being consumed.
This remind me of etn
The WHO just came out against all zero calorie sweeteners including non-artificial ones
What?! Are they mad?
My issue is that my stomach doesn't react well to sweetners.
There are more available now than there used to be, it may be worth making sure you've tried a few of them. By far the worst for me was stevia, but a lot of people react well to that one who don't react well to others.
@rapdactyl I tried sucralose, xylitol, aspartame, stevia and monk fruit. Monk fruit and stevia have a weird after taste and mildly irritate my stomach, and xylitol, aspartame and sucralose just kill my GI tract.
Same. Sucralose is by far the worst, but none of them leave me feeling good.
I tried artificial sweeteners years ago and they consistently made me feel like I had low blood sugar, so much so that I have avoided them.
Isn't that...precisely how they should work? Since they aren't sugar, so if you're not consuming sugar from other sources, then you would indeed have low blood sugar.
@@Silverizael They should absolutely not cause hypoglycemia.
@@Psychol-Snooper They wouldn't cause it. But if you aren't eating sugar because you are instead eating artificial sweeteners, then you wouldn't be consuming enough sugar to not have low blood sugar.
@@Silverizael Did you know you used a double negative? I don't think you said what you think you said, and I have no idea what you were trying to say. Also, if you are trying to be clever, why? To what end? You can't confuse me more than your first comment already has.
Whatever the case, as I stated that's how it made me feel. Further there has been research that seems to show a direct impact on blood glucose levels from artificial sweeteners. Rather than pestering me why not just go search "artificial sweeteners insulin levels," and educate yourself. I'm not your endocrinology professor.
Don't be one of those people trying to common sense your way through life. 😬
I read somewhere that insulin levels spike when your taste buds sense sweet flavours, because your body is expecting to consume sugary food. So if there isn't actually any sugar it can cause blood sugar levels to drop as the extra insulin causes more sugar to be pulled out of the bloodstream.
My partner is worried about a recent study of sucralose being a genotoxin breaking down in the gut and containing trace amounts of a supposedly harmful sucralose compound.
I have an ed and this stuff does make up most of what i eat and drink. I'm powered by sugar free energy drink, and in the UK the cheapest has sucralose. Idk what to do.
Rhe risks are likely far more nuanced than the headlines make it sound. I've havent read the study, and I'm also feeling anxious about it since I drink a good bit of a it a day and don't have an alternative. But it's the only study that's come to that conclusion, and it was not very extensive on the ultimate health risks. It is also far safer than real sugar and aspartame.
I was hoping this video might touch on something I've experienced. I'm confident artificial sweeteners give me sleep problems, but I can't seem to find any experts who've said it. One doctor dispassionately said "I think I have heard that.." when I told him, but that was about it.
I love artificial sweeteners. They let me eat more cake!
The artificial sweeteners do not digest well for me though.
Interesting claims. I am convinced that processed cane sugar causes diseases especially in obese people and artificial sweeteners seem less harmful. I used to eat cane sugar, then I used lots of artificial sweeteners for a decade or so. Now I am a strict organic vegetarian and strictly stick to honey. I think it has helped my health in a variety of ways.
Fwiw I may have abused artificial sweeteners by drinking way way too much diet soda for several years. I was in my 20s/30s and didn’t notice harmful effects. Had to piss a lot. I prefer organic teas now like hibiscus for potassium.
A lot of soda has caffeine, and that will cause you to pee frequently.
Don't know how to break this to you....but life is terminal.
Oh so coke zero tastes like ass now because of a misinformation campaign...
No one is really ringing the alarm over alcohol sugars though. Not for saccharine nor things like stevia or monk fruit, either. The only ones that large groups are complaining about are aspartame and sucralose.
It seems like everytime I click a Healthcare Triage video lately it's just one bit strawman, claiming "people are in a tizzy over something factually incorrect," which while true that the claim you present is incorrect, in reality no one is talking about.
We actually weren't going to cover this one since we've covered artificial sweeteners before, but we got so many requests for it that we went ahead with an episode! -Tiffany :)
Have you covered the recent claims that Aspartame causes cancer in rats? pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33845854/
I'd genuinely like to know if this study has any merit.