Tag Archive for: saccharin

Artificial Sweeteners—Still Your Choice

/in /by

The use of artificial sweeteners is always a contentious topic in the health field. Some people hate them, other people love them. I use them occasionally, but when it comes to benefits versus harms, I stick to the research. In this case, it’s what wasn’t stated in the headlines about the study that is important, but we can make a decision based only on what we read. This was an abstract of a presentation at a conference, so some details may have been left out that were included in the study.

The Rest of the Story

The authors established an increased risk of diabetes with artificially sweetened drinks and saccharin in any form, but there were no statistically significant diabetes symptoms linked with total intake of artificial sweeteners, sucralose, or aspartame in all foods. That means that artificial sweeteners used in other foods didn’t raise the risk of diabetes, such as added to coffee, used in ice cream or other dairy products, or used in baking. You have to wonder why it had no apparent impact.

It may be that the specific food delivery system has some impact on why it does or does not have an effect. One possibility is that if the sweetener reaches the gut bacteria, it’s modified in some way so that it doesn’t impact blood sugar or blood sugar release.

It seems odd that they used markers of diabetes as their criteria rather than physician diagnosis. They looked for fasting glucose of 126 mg/dl or more; oral glucose tolerance test 2-hour glucose of 200 mg/dl or more; hemoglobin A1C of 6.5% or more; or use of diabetes medications. The last one makes sense, because you don’t get the meds unless you have a diagnosis, but still, odd language.

FFQ—Again!

Even though the food frequency questionnaire is still a good assessment tool when used with interviews, I checked the validation studies. The correlations with food diaries and interviews for the food frequency questionnaire developed specifically for the CARDIA study were no better than 0.5, indicating a moderate positive relationship—maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. That’s much worse than other correlations used in large studies. Also, the first two nutritional assessments couldn’t have assessed sucralose because it wasn’t available until after they took place; I don’t know why sucralose was included when it wasn’t available for almost half the follow-up period.

The Bottom Line

The debate on artificial sweeteners will go on, because people love them or hate them. Based on the results of this observational study, nothing of worth has really been added to the knowledge base. The researchers called for more research to examine how artificial sweeteners impact glucose metabolism. We don’t know that it does from anything done in this study, but that doesn’t mean well-designed studies shouldn’t be done in the future. Until then, it’s up to you whether to use artificially sweetened drinks or not. Maybe a better idea is to give up the mega-burger and fries instead.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference:  Cur Devel in Nutr  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.107034

Artificial Sweeteners—Again

/in /by

“I’ll have the jumbo mega-burger with extra cheese, a large order of fries, and a diet cola.” Have you ever heard that when you’re standing in line? Have you maybe ordered that yourself? That’s what I thought of when I read the health headlines about the dangers of artificial sweeteners contributing to the development of diabetes.

The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study began in the early 1980s by recruiting and tracking young adults to determine which factors are associated with the development of heart disease. Nutrition was one of the primary factors that was tracked using a food frequency questionnaire with dietician interview. They tested the subjects at the beginning of the study, at year 7 of follow-up, and year 20 of follow-up.

After tracking the subjects for almost 25 years, they found that 14.8% of subjects developed metabolic changes that indicated diabetes. Comparing the highest quintile of artificially sweetened drink use with the lowest quintile, there was a 129% increased risk for developing diabetic symptoms in the highest quintile. The use of saccharin was also associated with 120% increased risk of developing diabetes.

Is there more to this study that wasn’t highlighted in the headlines? I’ll cover that in Saturday’s Memo.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference:  Cur Devel in Nutr  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.107034

Artificial Sweeteners and Your Digestive System

/in /by

Before I address the concerns of the study on artificial sweeteners I talked about on Tuesday, be assured that I’m bringing you the facts as I interpret them. If you don’t use artificial sweeteners, I’m not trying to convert you, but I’m not going to let slide inflammatory headlines that only seek to raise fear where none should exist. The problem with the artificial sweeteners study is that it didn’t use a systems approach.

Bench Science

What the researchers did would be considered bench science. It’s basic in its approach: create a medium where the bacteria will grow, throw in various quantities of the artificial sweeteners, and see what happens. That’s a good first step in any type of research to see an impact on an entire organism. The same is true for examining the effect of the artificial sweeteners on the bacteria in the cancer cell medium. They established that chronic exposure to artificial sweeteners cause two probiotics to become pathogenic.

However, that’s where it ends. Trying to explain an increase in the obesity and diabetic epidemics because of how artificial sweeteners may impact a couple of gut bacteria doesn’t make any sense. It’s stretching things way too far with no evidence that what they’re describing happens at all. In effect, they’re trying to explain a health issue by looking at potential causes. Fine, good start—but now there’s a whole lot of animal and human clinical research that has to take place in order to prove whether it’s true, because what happens in a lab is often not what happens in a human.

Bench science has its place for sure, but it has serious limitations. In our headline-a-minute world, everyone is too eager to claim credit for something that hasn’t been proved.

The Digestive System

The human body is made up of various systems; the digestive system is one of them, but it doesn’t begin and end with the epithelial cells of the intestine. Food (including artificial sweetener) starts in the mouth with its salivary glands, goes down the esophagus, enters the stomach with its specialized fluids, travels the 20 to 30 feet of small intestine where more unique fluids do their jobs, and then the 10 to 15 feet of large intestine before it exits the body. The digestive system doesn’t act alone; it requires input from other organs and systems along the way: the pancreas, the liver, and so on. Every one of those could have an impact on the metabolism and elimination of artificial sweeteners and could impact how bacteria behave in the digestive system.

I could write a book on this subject, but let me just point out one thing that should be obvious: they tested two probiotic lines. Two. As of the last count, there are at least 6,500 different microbes that coexist within our digestive system. There are also trillions of them, each with a role to play, and we still don’t know what each and every one does. As I said, it’s complicated.

The Bottom Line

This study illustrates where good research begins: in bench science. There’s a lot more science that has to happen before we become alarmed about whether or not artificial sweeteners directly impact our microbiome, but their approach does raise a question that I’ll talk about next week: a systems approach to Aging with a Vengeance. We look at pain or other conditions as something that stands alone, but in reality, we may need a systems approach to deal with it.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 5228. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijms22105228

Are Artificial Sweeteners Toxic to the Microbiome?

/in /by

If you use artificial sweeteners and you saw the words “danger,” “artificial sweeteners,” and “serious health issues” all in the same headline, you’d probably be concerned. The headline recently appeared in my newsfeed, and because many of us use artificial sweeteners, I had to check it out. Here’s what researchers found in a study published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences.

The researchers examined the impact of three artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin) on two strains of probiotics and one form of tissue from the digestive system. First, they tested whether the artificial sweeteners at various concentrations impacted the growth of the bacteria in a typical medium. They didn’t (with the exception of saccharin at the highest concentration.)

Then they tested whether the sweeteners affected the ability of the bacteria to produce a biofilm, something that’s important to our intestinal health. They didn’t.

Finally, they examined whether exposure to artificial sweeteners would cause changes in the bacteria to make them pathogenic; that can happen, for example, with E. coli. Using cell lines drawn from an established line of colon cancer in this experiment, they demonstrated that the bacteria could potentially become pathogenic and enter the cell walls of the epithelium. That means they could theoretically enter the bloodstream and impact our health.

That sounds pretty bad, right? It certainly seems to merit the use of the words “artificial sweeteners,” “dangers,” and “serious health issues” in a headline. But is it of any real concern to you and me? I’ll let you know in Saturday’s memo as we talk about an important topic related to Aging with a Vengeance.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 5228. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijms22105228