Tag Archive for: sucralose

The New Research Isn’t Really About Sucralose

/in /by

Those of you who actually read the research paper mentioned in the last Memo didn’t have to go past the title to find out that it was not about sucralose—it was about a contaminant called sucralose-6-acetate that may be found in commercially available sucralose used in drinks and baking products. I said the tests were complicated; I’m going to give you the results of the eight tests in everyday terms as much as possible.

Test Results

Researchers were able to test only half of the questions on their list; in the other cases, they relied on prior research on sucralose, not sucralose-6-acetate. Here’s what they found:

  • The first test assessed the potential for altering DNA; the results indicated that sucralose-6-acetate was genotoxic, but sucralose was not.
  • The second test assessed the potential for DNA damage in specific types of cells called TK6 cells; the results for sucralose-6-acetate were that it was genotoxic. They didn’t test sucralose, but prior studies demonstrated that it doesn’t damage DNA in these cells.
  • The third test also assessed the potential for causing damage to DNA. The results for sucralose-6-acetate were somewhat positive, while the results for sucralose were not.
  • The fourth test assessed DNA mutations in bacteria; neither sucralose-6-acetate nor sucralose induced mutations.
  • The fifth test assessed electrical resistance and permeability in the colon’s epithelial cells. Both sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate affected monolayers of colon cells grown in test tubes.
  • The sixth test attempted to examine the same type of colon cells for damage to RNA sequencing. A total of 12,553 genes were analyzed. There were changes with sucralose-6-acetate but in no specific pattern. In other words, we don’t know what many of those genes do, so we don’t know whether this is impactful or not. As for sucralose versus the control group, only two genes out of over 12,000 seemed to have some sort of variation.
  • The seventh test examined the stability of minute cellular structures called microsomes in liver cells from a variety of animals including humans. There seemed to be some impact of both chemicals on this single layer of cells.
  • The eighth test looked at the inhibition of cytochrome P450 detox enzymes in human liver microsomes. Sucralose-6-acetate seems to impact two of the detoxification genes, while sucralose had no impact.

What Do the Results Mean in the Real World?

As I pondered that question, I ended up with dozens more questions. I’m not a bench chemist, so it’s difficult to know whether the tests used are the correct ones; I’m not sure that all the authors are familiar with the testing procedures either. They didn’t do the testing in their own laboratory; they hired laboratories to do it. From one perspective that excludes any bias the researchers may have had; on the other hand, they may or may not have the experience with specific testing methods to fully understand the results.

My major question is related to the chemicals used in the testing. They contracted with chemical companies to have sucralose made to a standard level of 0.5% sucralose-6-acetate. They also had sucralose-6-acetate made to a standard level of 0.3% purity. Neither of those are used commercially. The little yellow packets are primarily fillers such as dextrose and maltodextrin because the sucralose is so sweet, only a tiny amount is required.

Another question is about the potential genotoxicity. When the body makes a mistake in DNA, that mistake usually is addressed and the chemicals are recycled before any mutation becomes permanent. When you do bench studies, there is no such defense mechanism present. We have no idea how the body handles it.

As I said, I had many questions but these are the primary ones. If you’re interested to hear more, become an Insider; I covered this study in the call for this month. The Insider Conference Calls are available on-line for six months.

The Bottom Line

I think this study demonstrates that human trials are needed to confirm or refute some of the impact of sucralose-6-acetate on DNA and the microbiome performed in these bench studies. While there is evidence of DNA damage and impact on the microbiome, we don’t know if that causes any health issues. Further, they need to include scientists with expertise in nutrition as well as bioengineering.

As I said on Thursday, not everyone can use artificial sweeteners such as sucralose due to pre-existing genetic mutations and compromised microbiomes, but we have 35 years of experience with sucralose as a sweetener. To date, there have been no large-scale studies that have raised any question about its impact on the health of humans. When there is more to know, I’ll be sure to keep you informed.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903

New Research on Sucralose

/in /by

Everybody seems to be talking about sucralose. In the past week, I’ve gotten more emails about the artificial sweetener sucralose than I ever have before; I’ve also seen more commentaries on sucralose in health news feeds. The problem is that the issue really isn’t the sweetener itself—it’s a contaminant that may be found in the sweetener called sucralose-6-acetate. On top of all that, the primary author of the study is continually muddying the results of the study by using the term sucralose when she means sucralose-6-acetate.

The sweetener sucralose is as safe as it always has been. Some people are opposed to artificial sweeteners of all types, and that’s fine, but there’s nothing in this research update nor any of the other studies on sucralose that presents any type of major concern. That doesn’t mean it’s for everybody; genetic factors and microbiome issues may affect some people. But that aside, there’s nothing to be fearful of, so let’s check out the study that’s attracting so much attention.

Let’s start with what the researchers did. They attempted to examine six historical claims about sucralose:

  • Sucralose passes through the gut unchanged
  • It has no effect on the microbiome
  • It has no effect on intestinal tract
  • It doesn’t accumulate in human tissue
  • It has no effect on metabolism including blood glucose or insulin
  • It won’t disrupt the DNA

To say the tests to examine these questions were complicated is an understatement. I’ll give you my interpretation of the published results on Saturday. However, if you want to read the study yourself, click the link below.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903

Sucralose: A Treatment for Auto-Immune Disease?

/in /by

In test-tube and rodent research, researchers have found that sucralose given in high amounts may help reduce the immune response, thereby preventing the body from attacking itself, which is the essence of an auto-immune disease. How about that? For all the negative comments about sucralose, wouldn’t it be a kicker if it turns out that this artificial sweetener may actually help people?

But let’s take a closer look at what they found and what they didn’t find. The researchers made sure to point out that when the amount of sucralose necessary in rodents is translated to human amounts, they would be at the top end of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI).

In reality, humans don’t normally get that much sucralose. It would be logical to think that perhaps lower amounts of sucralose may be compromising the immune system for normal users, but researchers tested it and didn’t find any issue. They found the blunting of the immune response only in high amounts.

There is a lot of research to go before any clinical trials are done to eliminate or test other factors such as the microbiome. Still what has been cursed by many might be their treatment plan in the future.

The Bottom Line

I think these two studies on sucralose and eyedrops illustrate the unintended consequences of pharmaceuticals and artificial foods and that the consequences may be positive or negative. They just might have a function that can be beneficial to our health beyond what we know today. Of course, we may find out other substances may be more detrimental than we thought. We have to understand both are possible. In the meantime, we still must sustain a good diet and exercise program.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05801-6 Received: 15 September 2021

The Actual Effects of Sucralose

/in /by

Continuing the examination of the study on diet drinks and appetite, let’s get into the details of the study. The MRI portion of the study is difficult to interpret for the layperson. The researchers seemed to think that based on the brain response, obese women would be more susceptible to overeating after consuming a drink with sucralose than sucrose. Did they eat more? More important, did their blood values vary abnormally?

Blood Response to Sucralose

To me, the most significant finding was that there were no abnormal physical responses to sucralose. A prior study suggested that sucralose raises blood insulin in anticipation of sugar following a drink sweetened with artificial sweeteners, but that didn’t happen in this study. There were no differences in blood sugar, insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1, or other measures in response to sucralose that differed from drinking water (the placebo). That in and of itself is a significant finding.

Eating Response to Sucralose

The average buffet intake two hours after consuming the drinks was about 900 calories regardless of whether the subjects had the drinks with sucrose, sucralose, or plain water.

It should be noted that the food intake varied by +/- 450 calories. When analyzed by weight class and gender, obese women ate about 100 calories more after the sucralose drink, but that’s still fewer calories than if they’d consumed a 300-calorie sugar drink. The subjects served as their own controls, meaning they were tested under each drink condition.

In this case, seeing the raw data for every subject might have helped. The subjects were tested in random order but by the third exposure to the same buffet items, they might have decided to eat more or less of their favorite snack foods.

More

The NPR science writer chose the title “Diet soda may prompt food cravings, especially in women and people with obesity.” In a television courtroom drama, they’d call that “assuming facts not in evidence.” Here’s why that title was particularly misleading: there was no diet soda used in this study. The drinks weren’t soda and they weren’t carbonated—they were more like Kool-Aid. It’s tempting to extend the idea to diet soda, but that wouldn’t take into account the effect of carbonation.

There was also no measure of food cravings. People were offered food and they ate it or they didn’t, so the headline was doubly misleading.

The Bottom Line

The study did contribute to the knowledge about artificial sweeteners, especially as they impact blood sugar and insulin. If you use sucralose, there’s no reason to stop. If you don’t, you have to decide for yourself whether you want to use it or not. Artificial sweeteners can be part of a weight loss effort, but the only way they help is if you don’t eat more to make up for the calories you’re not getting when using them. “I’m getting a diet soda, so I’ll get the large fries”—if that’s how you’re thinking, you’re missing the whole point of diet drinks. If you can maintain or decrease your caloric intake of all other foods and drinks but substitute sucralose for sugar, then you’ll be ahead of the game.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. Allison Aubrey YOUR HEALTH NPR. Diet soda may prompt food cravings, especially in women and people with obesity. October 7, 2021.
2. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(9): doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.26313

Does Diet Soda Increase Appetite?

/in /by

“Diet soda may prompt food cravings.” If you regularly drink diet soda with non-nutritive sweeteners such as sucralose, that headline would give you pause. Could drinking drinks with artificial sweeteners cause you to compensate later for being cheated out of calories? That’s what researchers attempted to find out in a very complex study conducted at the University of Southern California.

When I say complex, here’s what I mean. The researchers used an MRI to perform brain scans in response to photographs of different types of foods and non-foods. The 74 subjects were all tested under three conditions: after drinking 300 mL (1.25 cup) of water, 75 grams of sucrose (sugar) mixed in 300 mL water, or 300 mL of a sucralose drink matched for sweetness to the sucrose drink. Blood was tested before and after drinking the fluid at regular intervals up to two hours afterward. Then the subjects were allowed to eat as much as they wanted at a snack buffet with high-fat, high-sugar choices as well as healthy choices.

The researchers found differences in the way men and women responded to the drinks as well as the way normal, overweight, and obese subjects responded, both in the brain scans and in how much they ate at the buffet: obese women responded by eating more at the snack buffet than men or other weight classifications.

Is it time to stop drinking diet soda? A little more information from the study would be helpful before you clean out the fridge and go buy a case of Coke.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. Allison Aubrey YOUR HEALTH NPR. Diet soda may prompt food cravings, especially in women and people with obesity. October 7, 2021.
2. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(9): doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.26313

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

The Bottom Line on the Latest Sucralose Study

/in /by

“Sucralose causes cancer.”

“Sucralose prevents cancer.”

You’ve got to be confused when you read those recent headlines about the same research study! You read or listen to my messages because you want to know what I dig out of the original research to get past the confusion. Well, let’s get to it.

 

The Data

The data were messy (1). When you look at the numbers in the table that reported the incidences of cancers, the patterns were not clear. Using the data on the male mice, the incidence of cancers went . . .

We're sorry, but this content is available to Members and Insiders only.

If you're already a DrChet.com Member or Insider, click on the Membership Login link on the top menu. Members may upgrade to Insider by going to the Store and clicking Membership; your membership fee will be prorated automatically.

Does Sucralose Prevent Cancer?

/in /by

After Tuesday’s message, I’m sure that you were reading labels and getting ready to throw out foods that contain sucralose based on that single study (1). I’d wait a while, at least until I get finished reviewing this study. Today let’s take a look at another headline that says sucralose prevents cancer in some mice (2). This was an article written by Emily Willingham, a regular contributor to Forbes. She did what I usually do: read the actual research paper and then check out the claims the authors made. I’ve read it, but . . .

We're sorry, but this content is available to Members and Insiders only.

If you're already a DrChet.com Member or Insider, click on the Membership Login link on the top menu. Members may upgrade to Insider by going to the Store and clicking Membership; your membership fee will be prorated automatically.

Sucralose: A Tale of Two Headlines

/in /by

One of my biggest complaints about health news is science by headline. Over the weekend, the headlines exploded with the news that in a recently published study, sucralose caused cancer! You know that’s going to catch my attention. Artificial sweeteners are part of the third-rail of health topics that include GMOs, soy, and vaccinations. What made this so interesting was that there was another headline based on the same study that said sucralose reduced the rate of cancer. That’s what we’re going to talk about this week.

Let’s start with the “sucralose causes cancer” headlines . . .

We're sorry, but this content is available to Members and Insiders only.

If you're already a DrChet.com Member or Insider, click on the Membership Login link on the top menu. Members may upgrade to Insider by going to the Store and clicking Membership; your membership fee will be prorated automatically.