Study: artificial sweeteners may increase weight gain

[lil brown bat]

A couple of studies (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=4271246&page=1) collect data that suggests that use of artificial sweeteners can increase the chance for weight gain. From the article:

""The taste buds taste sweet, but there's no calorie load that comes with it. There's a mismatch here. It seems it changes your brain chemistry in some way...Anything you put in your mouth, your body has a strong reaction to it. It's much more than counting calories. It seems normally with sweet foods that we rev up our metabolism."

Interesting...

[The Historian]

A couple of studies (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=4271246&page=1) collect data that suggests that use of artificial sweeteners can increase the chance for weight gain. From the article:

""The taste buds taste sweet, but there's no calorie load that comes with it. There's a mismatch here. It seems it changes your brain chemistry in some way...Anything you put in your mouth, your body has a strong reaction to it. It's much more than counting calories. It seems normally with sweet foods that we rev up our metabolism."

Interesting...

Last year, while undergoing physical therapy for my back, the therapist advised me to cut out AS because they allegedly promote water and fluid retention.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Some more than others. Saccharine is the worst for that. Too much Sodium.

Equal breaks down into Formaldehyde and phenylalanine, amongst others.

Splenda contains Chlorine in substitution for some of the Carbon Atoms in the polymer chain that comprises Sucralose vs Sucrose.

Last year, while undergoing physical therapy for my back, the therapist advised me to cut out AS because they allegedly promote water and fluid retention.

[bautieri]

Some more than others. Saccharine is the worst for that. Too much Sodium.

Equal breaks down into Formaldehyde and phenylalanine, amongst others.

Splenda contains Chlorine in substitution for some of the Carbon Atoms in the polymer chain that comprises Sucralose vs Sucrose.

Wow...makes me wonder who thought this was a good idea.

[Spartan112]

I need something in my coffee...you know what's bad for your health? Reading medical reports.

[bautieri]

I need something in my coffee...you know what's bad for your health? Reading medical reports.


You don't need anything in your coffee! All coffee needs is a cup.

[Spartan112]

You don't need anything in your coffee! All coffee needs is a cup.

Incorrect...All YOUR coffee needs s a cup...mine needs Splenda and non-dairy creamer.

[lil brown bat]

I need something in my coffee...you know what's bad for your health? Reading medical reports.

Not really. Not if you read them and draw your conclusions with intelligence. Personally, I find the whole, "Oh, a study said this and last week another study said that, it all contradicts itself, studies are worthless" reaction to be like sticking your head in the sand. The two studies seem to indicate that non-caloric sweeteners may not be the metabolic free ride that many of their users assume. I think that's good information. What you choose to do with it is up to you.

[The Historian]

I need something in my coffee...you know what's bad for your health? Reading medical reports.

I know a woman who uses six Splenda packets in her tea.

[dipy911]

In the Purdue study, the rats whose diets contained artificial sweeteners appeared to experience a physiological connection between sweet tastes and calories, which drove them to overeat.

I believe this is the more appropriate quote. They were overeating. Imaging this, people on diet soda overeating? Amazing!!!! Self-control seems to be lacking in some people.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Ironically, honey in your coffee isn't too bad. It metabolizes mostly through the liver, but can raise the blood fat levels. It has more calories than Sucrose, but is sweeter, so you use less.
1 tsp sucrose=50 calories/13 grams carbohydrates
1 tsp honey = 64 calories/17 grams carbohydrates


Honey also contains trace minerals sucrose doesn't.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/diabetes/AN00425

[bdinger]

I believe this is the more appropriate quote. They were overeating. Imaging this, people on diet soda overeating? Amazing!!!! Self-control seems to be lacking in some people.

Diet soda seems to be abused more, as well. I know I used to drink probably 6 diet sodas, or more, a day. My wife could put down that, or more. Heck, I know people that put down twelve packs, or more, of diet soda a day. I'm down to maybe one or two a day, and I feel much better for it.

Also, ever notice that those who drink "regular" soda seem to drink much less? Like, maybe one or two a day, whereas others really go nuts?

Regardless, I'm trying to stick to water and coffee with just milk in it. Fun times! :)

[back2biking]

Ironically, honey in your coffee isn't too bad. It metabolizes mostly through the liver, but can raise the blood fat levels. It has more calories than Sucrose, but is sweeter, so you use less.
1 tsp sucrose=50 calories/13 grams carbohydrates
1 tsp honey = 64 calories/17 grams carbohydrates


Honey also contains trace minerals sucrose doesn't.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/diabetes/AN00425

I've been using honey in my coffee for over ten years now instead of sugar, and I've never been a fan of artificial sweeteners. I don't like the taste, or as evidence suggests, the potential "side effects". I just try to limit the sugars I eat to "natural" sugars like honey, fruit, etc. I do this for my daughter as much as possible to. I can't believe all the juices for kids that have stuff in it that is completely unneccesary like high fructose corn syrup, dyes, and one neighbor of mine even gives his daughter one that has a lipid (yes fat) based substance in it. Needless to say she does not have juice boxes at the neighbors house.

Tamara

[TurboTurtle]

Some more than others. Saccharine is the worst for that. Too much Sodium.

Equal breaks down into Formaldehyde and phenylalanine, amongst others.

Splenda contains Chlorine in substitution for some of the Carbon Atoms in the polymer chain that comprises Sucralose vs Sucrose.

"Equal breaks down into Formaldehyde and phenylalanine..." Formaldehyde??? Need a source on that one. It is made up of two amino acids - aspartic acid and phenylalanine. - TF

[Tom Stormcrowe]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=7263

This is an op ed though, I'll have to go to subscription database. I'll post the results shortly.

[The Historian]

Diet soda seems to be abused more, as well. I know I used to drink probably 6 diet sodas, or more, a day. My wife could put down that, or more. Heck, I know people that put down twelve packs, or more, of diet soda a day. I'm down to maybe one or two a day, and I feel much better for it.

Also, ever notice that those who drink "regular" soda seem to drink much less? Like, maybe one or two a day, whereas others really go nuts?

Regardless, I'm trying to stick to water and coffee with just milk in it. Fun times! :)

I drank diet soda for years. I convinced myself I was "eating light" while in actuality stuffing myself up to 385 pounds, and probably beyond. Drinking diet beverages is a great way to fool yourself.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

*

Citation

Title:
Cytotoxic effects of methanol, formaldehyde, and formate on dissociated rat thymocytes: a possibility of aspartame toxicity.Find More Like This
Author(s):
Oyama Y; Sakai H; Arata T; Okano Y; Akaike N; Sakai K; Noda K
Author's Address:
Laboratory of Cellular Signaling, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokushima, Japan. oyama@ias.tokushima-u.ac.jp
Source:
Cell Biology And Toxicology [Cell Biol Toxicol] 2002; Vol. 18 (1), pp. 43-50.
Publication Type:
Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Language:
English
Journal Information:
Country of Publication: Netherlands NLM ID: 8506639 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 0742-2091 (Print) NLM ISO Abbreviation: Cell Biol. Toxicol. Subsets: MEDLINE
MeSH Terms:
Formaldehyde/*toxicity
Formic Acids/*toxicity
Methanol/*toxicity
T-Lymphocytes/*drug effects
T-Lymphocytes/*metabolism
Animals; Aspartame/metabolism; Aspartame/toxicity; Calcium/analysis; Cell Survival/drug effects; Cells, Cultured; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Flow Cytometry; Glutathione/metabolism; Rats; Rats, Wistar; T-Lymphocytes/pathology
Abstract:
Aspartame is a widely used artificial sweetener added to many soft beverages and its usage is increasing in health-conscious societies. Upon ingestion, this artificial sweetener produces methanol as a metabolite. In order to examine the possibility of aspartame toxicity, the effects of methanol and its metabolites (formaldehyde and formate) on dissociated rat thymocytes were studied by flow cytometry. While methanol and formate did not affect cell viability in the physiological pH range, formaldehyde at 1-3 mmol/L started to induce cell death. Further increase in formaldehyde concentration produced a dose-dependent decrease in cell viability. Formaldehyde at 1 mmol/L or more greatly reduced cellular content of glutathione, possibly increasing cell vulnerability to oxidative stress. Furthermore, formaldehyde at 3 mmol/L or more significantly increased intracellular concentration of Ca2+ ([Ca2+]i) in a dose-dependent manner. Threshold concentrations of formaldehyde, a metabolite of methanol, that affected the [Ca2+]i and cellular glutathione content were slightly higher than the blood concentrations of methanol previously reported in subjects administered abuse doses of aspartame. It is suggested that aspartame at abuse doses is harmless to humans.
CAS Registry Number:
0 (Formic Acids)
22839-47-0 (Aspartame)
50-00-0 (Formaldehyde)
64-18-6 (formic acid)
67-56-1 (Methanol)
70-18-8 (Glutathione)
7440-70-2 (Calcium)
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20020506 Date Completed: 20021030 Latest Revision: 20061115
Update Code:
20071207
PMID:
11991085
Persistent link to this record:
http://lafayette.libproxy.ivytech.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=11991085&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Database:
MEDLINE
View Links:
Check ArticleLinker to see if other resources contain this item.
Notes:
This title is not held locally

and

Title:
Formaldehyde derived from dietary aspartame binds to tissue components in vivo.Find More Like This
Author(s):
Trocho C; Pardo R; Rafecas I; Virgili J; Remesar X; Fernández-López JA; Alemany M
Author's Address:
Departament de Bioquímica i Biologia Molecular, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
Source:
Life Sciences [Life Sci] 1998; Vol. 63 (5), pp. 337-49.
Publication Type:
Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Language:
English
Journal Information:
Country of Publication: ENGLAND NLM ID: 0375521 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 0024-3205 (Print) NLM ISO Abbreviation: Life Sci. Subsets: MEDLINE
MeSH Terms:
Aspartame/*metabolism
Formaldehyde/*metabolism
Kidney/*metabolism
Liver/*metabolism
Administration, Oral; Animals; Aspartame/toxicity; Carbon Radioisotopes/diagnostic use; Chromatography, Thin Layer; DNA Adducts/metabolism; Formaldehyde/chemistry; Liver Cirrhosis, Experimental/metabolism; Male; Methanol/metabolism; Protein Binding; Rats; Rats, Wistar
Abstract:
Adult male rats were given an oral dose of 10 mg/kg aspartame 14C-labelled in the methanol carbon. At timed intervals of up to 6 hours, the radioactivity in plasma and several organs was investigated. Most of the radioactivity found (>98% in plasma, >75% in liver) was bound to protein. Label present in liver, plasma and kidney was in the range of 1-2% of total radioactivity administered per g or mL, changing little with time. Other organs (brown and white adipose tissues, muscle, brain, cornea and retina) contained levels of label in the range of 1/12 to 1/10th of that of liver. In all, the rat retained, 6 hours after administration about 5% of the label, half of it in the liver. The specific radioactivity of tissue protein, RNA and DNA was quite uniform. The protein label was concentrated in amino acids, different from methionine, and largely coincident with the result of protein exposure to labelled formaldehyde. DNA radioactivity was essentially in a single different adduct base, different from the normal bases present in DNA. The nature of the tissue label accumulated was, thus, a direct consequence of formaldehyde binding to tissue structures. The administration of labelled aspartame to a group of cirrhotic rats resulted in comparable label retention by tissue components, which suggests that liver function (or its defect) has little effect on formaldehyde formation from aspartame and binding to biological components. The chronic treatment of a series of rats with 200 mg/kg of non-labelled aspartame during 10 days resulted in the accumulation of even more label when given the radioactive bolus, suggesting that the amount of formaldehyde adducts coming from aspartame in tissue proteins and nucleic acids may be cumulative. It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts.
CAS Registry Number:
0 (Carbon Radioisotopes)
0 (DNA Adducts)
22839-47-0 (Aspartame)
50-00-0 (Formaldehyde)
67-56-1 (Methanol)
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 19980903 Date Completed: 19980903 Latest Revision: 20061115
Update Code:
20071207
PMID:
9714421
Persistent link to this record:
http://lafayette.libproxy.ivytech.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=9714421&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Database:
MEDLINE

These are abstracts from print journal articles, and there's enough info here for you to get them and draw your own conclusions. :D

[Air]

Instead of the sweeteners you could also try agave nectar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agave_syrup) - it's awesome.

I agree that if you take a step back and look at the overeating aspect it makes a lot of sense.

[bautieri]

Incorrect...All YOUR coffee needs s a cup...mine needs Splenda and non-dairy creamer.


Haha, maybe so. I was making a stab at an old Dennis Leary (I think) joke. Whatever you need is fine with me :). I used to drink my coffee with sugar and cream until I decided to drink it black for a week. After that I can't stand cream or sugar in it but to each his own.

[Spartan112]

As part of my change in diet (which includes an increase in whole grains/fruits/vegetables) I have replaced sugar in my coffee with Splenda and regular coke with diet. In the process I have lost 95# in the last year. YMMV.

[deraltekluge]

Sugar contains only 15 calories per level teaspoonful. You don't gain/lose much in the switch between sugar and artificial sweeteners in your coffee. How much butter do you put on your toast? One pat of butter is about 36 calories.

[TurboTurtle]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=7263

This is an op ed though, I'll have to go to subscription database. I'll post the results shortly.

OK, from the methanol (a result of breaking the bond between the two amino acids) at the levels in a glass of orange juice which the body easily takes care of. Proclaiming that, "Equal breaks down into Formaldehyde..." with no other information, is more than a bit excessive. - TF

[Missbumble]

I need something in my coffee...you know what's bad for your health? Reading medical reports.

I hear you ...and am here to the rescue... I may not have a bike just yet (Soon)... but I have an answer for you, my friend.

Here's an article about a sweetener I use....
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/wholebody/ingredients/stevia.html

Just a few drops of the liquid stevia works well. I mix water with Cranberry concenterate or pure cranberry juice and stevia and it helps me drink a ton of water. I also use it in my coffee... (I have given up Diet Coke and it is a very hard transition and Stevia Helps)

You can buy the liquid Stevia in nutrition stores or at Whole Foods..just ask the Customer Service where to find it as it is tricky to find...

No calories... and it's good for you....

[Tom Stormcrowe]

There are strong indications of a cumulative buildup in the tissues though. I suspect some people are better than others at elimination of the waste from it. OK, from the methanol (a result of breaking the bond between the two amino acids) at the levels in a glass of orange juice which the body easily takes care of. Proclaiming that, "Equal breaks down into Formaldehyde..." with no other information, is more than a bit excessive. - TF

[Spartan112]

Sugar contains only 15 calories per level teaspoonful. You don't gain/lose much in the switch between sugar and artificial sweeteners in your coffee. How much butter do you put on your toast? One pat of butter is about 36 calories.


None. I've never buttered my toast, bagels, muffins...always thought they tasted fine on their own. And considering the amount of coffee/diet coke I drink the sugar savings is significant.

[cohophysh]

I try to use stevia, it has a bit of a bitter taste if you use to much

[CliftonGK1]

Some more than others. Saccharine is the worst for that. Too much Sodium.

Equal breaks down into Formaldehyde and phenylalanine, amongst others.

Splenda contains Chlorine in substitution for some of the Carbon Atoms in the polymer chain that comprises Sucralose vs Sucrose.

Mmmmm.... Polychlorinated galactopyranosides... *drool*

[deraltekluge]

None. I've never buttered my toast, bagels, muffins...always thought they tasted fine on their own. And considering the amount of coffee/diet coke I drink the sugar savings is significant.Well, the diet soda is significant...saves 150 calories per 12 ounces. The coffee with one teaspoonful of sugar is 15 calories per cup. That's a pretty big difference.

[Black Bud]

The studies cited were all conducted in rats or using rat tissues. Rats are cute (at least to some people)...but they are NOT humans. Therefore, all that can be taken from any of the cited studies is that the question needs more study and should not be used by humans as a reason to support the "why" behind their food choices.

A better reason for NOT using artificial sweeteners (if one is not actually allergic to them) is best summed up as "Why bother?" They do nothing to aid in weight loss (what other changes in habits were made if someone claims that this change helped them lose weight, for instance) and are not even all that useful for diabetics (using artificial sweeteners really does little or nothing to help control blood glucose levels in the absence of very low carbohydrate intake).

These concoctions also are expensive and taste lousy to boot.

[lil brown bat]

The studies cited were all conducted in rats or using rat tissues.

No they weren't.

[Spartan112]

Well, the diet soda is significant...saves 150 calories per 12 ounces. The coffee with one teaspoonful of sugar is 15 calories per cup. That's a pretty big difference.

Yup, but I use 2 teaspoons (big ones) and drink 6+ cups of coffee a day, multiply it out and you get close to 200 calories or 10% of my suggested daily intake of calories. I say that's significant. 200 times 7 days is 1400 or somewhere around a 1/3 of a pound.

[Black Bud]

To those who question my last post? Go ahead and read the study extracts put up by Tom Stormcrowe again. Both rat studies.

As for the human studies? Are any of you sure they are not all--if they even exist--"data dredges"? If there are any that are not and have been published, I am sure you can come up with a few cites.

Not that it will support any argument you might have: Epidemiological studies consisting of a bunch of studies that have nothing to do with each other and may not have even tested for the data in question are worse than useless in theory or in application. All too often the "don't do this" or "do this instead" advice being handed out by even the medical establishment is nothing more than some computer model's GIGO that happens to "fit" someone's desired results and is then propagated by other equally lazy researchers. Or the "cr*p" is "pushed" like a "pram" in a medical journal because it fits the current memes and those defective "conclusions" are therefore adopted as "gospel" by most people,--including clinicians in practice--because THEY are too lazy to question what they are told.

Is the job to "Question Authority" important, even when it comes to whether to eat fake "sugar" or the real stuff? Yes: Questioning the data and/or its source is important when deciding what one should do--or eat--or shouldn't. The REAL conclusions--if any--that can be drawn from any data as actually garnered any such studies may say something some people don't want you to know because it will not help THEM make the all important $$$, which is really all that seems to matter these days.

[Black Bud]

...I use 2 teaspoons (big ones) and drink 6+ cups of coffee a day, multiply it out and you get close to 200 calories or 10% of my suggested daily intake of calories. I say that's significant. 200 times 7 days is 1400 or somewhere around a 1/3 of a pound.

Uh, no...

Using the "default" values which would work in a linear system in a system that is not linear (and which is far from fully understood)--such as human energy usage--is making an assumption that should not be used in deciding how much one wants to starve themselves (and that's what a weight-loss plan of any kind is: planned starvation). The suggestions for calorie intake per day are only very rough figures based on the simplistic "calories in, calories out" model that would be more useful in--with a change in name of the variable--determining gas mileage in one's SUV than the energy requirements of the human body. Conforming to the "default" value (3,500 kCal/lb) for determining how much one needs to eat (or not) to gain/lose one pound is a virtually useless exercise in determining what one should eat, especially if one's natural metabolism is low to begin with and/or one has dieted oneself into perpetual famine mode (and therefore one has reset oneself into a lower-energy-burning mode).

In other words, eating "fake" sugar to try to control weight is more of an exercise in self-deception to justify one's self-denial (plays to one's ego only) than of any real benefit to health.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Personally, I use a risk assessment, based off of the studies, and figure better safe that sorry ;) I know full well that there are physiological differences between rats and humans, but there are also sufficient physiological similarities that the results have sufficient merit for me to say no, I'm not going to put that in my body. ;) I can assure you it's not a position based on a meme, since I've studied Physiology. I also know, whether it be a placebo or actual physiological effect, that I feel better since I quit using the artificial sweeteners. Observed results are what count with me.

To those who question my last post? Go ahead and read the study extracts put up by Tom Stormcrowe again. Both rat studies.

As for the human studies? Are any of you sure they are not all--if they even exist--"data dredges"? If there are any that are not and have been published, I am sure you can come up with a few cites.

Not that it will support any argument you might have: Epidemiological studies consisting of a bunch of studies that have nothing to do with each other and may not have even tested for the data in question are worse than useless in theory or in application. All too often the "don't do this" or "do this instead" advice being handed out by even the medical establishment is nothing more than some computer model's GIGO that happens to "fit" someone's desired results and is then propagated by other equally lazy researchers. Or the "cr*p" is "pushed" like a "pram" in a medical journal because it fits the current memes and those defective "conclusions" are therefore adopted as "gospel" by most people,--including clinicians in practice--because THEY are too lazy to question what they are told.

Is the job to "Question Authority" important, even when it comes to whether to eat fake "sugar" or the real stuff? Yes: Questioning the data and/or its source is important when deciding what one should do--or eat--or shouldn't. The REAL conclusions--if any--that can be drawn from any data as actually garnered any such studies may say something some people don't want you to know because it will not help THEM make the all important $$$, which is really all that seems to matter these days.

[Spartan112]

Uh, no...

Using the "default" values which would work in a linear system in a system that is not linear (and which is far from fully understood)--such as human energy usage--is making an assumption that should not be used in deciding how much one wants to starve themselves (and that's what a weight-loss plan of any kind is: planned starvation). The suggestions for calorie intake per day are only very rough figures based on the simplistic "calories in, calories out" model that would be more useful in--with a change in name of the variable--determining gas mileage in one's SUV than the energy requirements of the human body. Conforming to the "default" value (3,500 kCal/lb) for determining how much one needs to eat (or not) to gain/lose one pound is a virtually useless exercise in determining what one should eat, especially if one's natural metabolism is low to begin with and/or one has dieted oneself into perpetual famine mode (and therefore one has reset oneself into a lower-energy-burning mode).

In other words, eating "fake" sugar to try to control weight is more of an exercise in self-deception to justify one's self-denial (plays to one's ego only) than of any real benefit to health.

As stated earlier in the thread I have changed my diet drastically in the last year, part of that change has included switching to foods that have sugar substitutes. I do this to help with my daily calorie count. As a result of my efforts I have lost 95# in the last year. The model is real for me. YMMV.

[deraltekluge]

Yup, but I use 2 teaspoons (big ones) and drink 6+ cups of coffee a day...Don't do that!

[Spartan112]

Don't do that!

Too late, already had the first 2....this motor runs on caffeine.

[lil brown bat]

To those who question my last post? Go ahead and read the study extracts put up by Tom Stormcrowe again. Both rat studies.

You said "the studies cited" without a quote or reference to what studies you were talking about. The studies referenced by the post that started this thread were not both rat studies. Remove chip from shoulder, please.