Artificial Sweeteners May Disrupt Body’s Blood Sugar Controls

By KENNETH CHANG

Artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar, causing metabolic changes that can be a precursor to diabetes, researchers are reporting.

That is “the very same condition that we often aim to prevent” by consuming sweeteners instead of sugar, said Dr. Eran Elinav, an immunologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, at a news conference to discuss the findings.

The scientists performed a multitude of experiments, mostly on mice, to back up their assertion that the sweeteners alter the microbiome, the population of bacteria that is in the digestive system.

The different mix of microbes, the researchers contend, changes the metabolism of glucose, causing levels to rise higher after eating and to decline more slowly than they otherwise would.

The findings by Dr. Elinav and his collaborators in Israel, including Eran Segal, a professor of computer science and applied mathematics at Weizmann, are being published Wednesday by the journal Nature.

Cathryn R. Nagler, a professor of pathology at the University of Chicago who was not involved with the research but did write an accompanying commentary in Nature, called the results “very compelling.”

She noted that many conditions, including obesity and diabetes, had been linked to changes in the microbiome. “What the study suggests,” she said, “is we should step back and reassess our extensive use of artificial sweeteners.”

Previous studies on the health effects of artificial sweeteners have come to conflicting and confusing findings. Some found that they were associated with weight loss; others found the exact opposite, that people who drank diet soda actually weighed more.

Some found a correlation between artificial sweeteners and diabetes, but those findings were not entirely convincing: Those who switch to the products may already be overweight and prone to the disease.

While acknowledging that it is too early for broad or definitive conclusions, Dr. Elinav said he had already changed his own behavior.

“I’ve consumed very large amounts of coffee, and extensively used sweeteners, thinking like many other people that they are at least not harmful to me and perhaps even beneficial,” he said. “Given the surprising results that we got in our study, I made a personal preference to stop using them.

“We don’t think the body of evidence that we present in humans is sufficient to change the current recommendations,” he continued. “But I would hope it would provoke a healthy discussion.”

In the initial set of experiments, the scientists added saccharin (the sweetener in the pink packets of Sweet’N Low), sucralose (the yellow packets of Splenda) or aspartame (the blue packets of Equal) to the drinking water of 10-week-old mice. Other mice drank plain water or water supplemented with glucose or with ordinary table sugar. After a week, there was little change in the mice that drank water or sugar water, but the group getting artificial sweeteners developed marked intolerance to glucose.

Glucose intolerance, in which the body is less able to cope with large amounts of sugar, can lead to more serious illnesses like metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes.

When the researchers treated the mice with antibiotics, killing much of the bacteria in the digestive system, the glucose intolerance went away.

At present, the scientists cannot explain how the sweeteners affect the bacteria or why the three different molecules of saccharin, aspartame and sucralose result in similar changes in the glucose metabolism.

To further test their hypothesis that the change in glucose metabolism was caused by a change in bacteria, they performed another series of experiments, this time focusing just on saccharin. They took intestinal bacteria from mice that had drunk saccharin-laced water and injected them in mice that had never been exposed to any saccharin. Those mice developed the same glucose intolerance. And DNA sequencing showed that saccharin had markedly changed the variety of bacteria in the guts of the mice that consumed it.

Next, the researchers turned to a study they were conducting to track the effects of nutrition and gut bacteria on people’s long-term health. For 381 nondiabetic participants in the study, the researchers found a correlation between the reported use of any kind of artificial sweeteners and signs of glucose intolerance. In addition, the gut bacteria of those who used artificial sweeteners were different from those who did not.

Finally, they recruited seven volunteers who normally did not use artificial sweeteners and over six days gave them the maximum amount of saccharin recommended by the United States Food and Drug Administration. In four of the seven, blood-sugar levels were disrupted in the same way as in mice.

Further, when they injected the human participants’ bacteria into the intestines of mice, the animals again developed glucose intolerance, suggesting that effect was the same in both mice and humans.

“That experiment is compelling to me,” Dr. Nagler said.

Intriguingly — “superstriking and interesting to us,” Dr. Segal said — the intestinal bacteria of the people who did experience effects were different from those who did not. This suggests that any effects of artificial sweeteners are not universal. It also suggests probiotics — medicines consisting of live bacteria — could be used to shift gut bacteria to a population that reversed the glucose intolerance.

Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health who did not take part in the study, called it interesting but far from conclusive and added that given the number of participants, “I think the validity of the human study is questionable.”

The researchers said future research would examine aspartame and sucralose in detail as well as other alternative sweeteners like stevia.

Correction: September 20, 2014
An article Thursday about the effect of artificial sweeteners on metabolism misstated the title of a researcher who commented on the study. Dr. Frank Hu is a professor of nutrition and epidemiology, not immunology, at the Harvard School of Public Health.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/artificial-sweeteners-may-disrupt-bodys-blood-sugar-controls/

3 ‘Healthy’ Sweeteners That Actually Are Bad For You

Written by: Susan Patterson

We are a country infatuated with sugar. From the time we are young, food manufacturers inundate us with multi-million dollar advertising campaigns targeted to get us to consume more and more sugar-laden foods. Sugar is cheap, and sugar sells.

But sugar contributes to a plethora of life-threatening conditions such as hypertension, depression, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and even cancer. Consuming an excess of sugar may cause mood swings, hormone problems, gallstones, asthma, accelerated aging, suppressed immune system functioning, acne and even arthritis.

Even if you are not overweight, consuming excess sugar increases your risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Most of the sugar consumed today is in the form of high fructose corn syrup found in soft drinks and other processed and fast foods.

The average American consumes 22 teaspoons of sugar each day, with the average child consuming even more – 32 teaspoons. Over the last 10 years, overall sugar consumption in the US has escalated a whopping 23 percent.

The American Heart Association says women should consume no more than 6 teaspoons of sugar per day, men 9.

OK, so you are ready to give up sugar, once and for all, right? No more soda, no more sweet tea, no more candy. But what do you do when you crave something sweet but don’t want to go back to sugar or foods loaded with high fructose corn syrup?

Perhaps try a “healthy” alternative? Unfortunately, these alternatives can actually end up being equally unhealthy — if not more unhealthy — than sugar itself.

Here are three sugar substitutes that are marketed as healthy, but in fact are not:

1. Truvia. This product is actually manufactured by Coca-Cola and is touted as being natural. The main ingredient in this concoction is called rebiana, a highly refined type of stevia. In addition, this sugar substitute contains erythritol, which doubles as an insecticide.

In one study, researchers found that fruit flies that ate Truvia died within a week compared to their normal 39-51 day lifespan.

More research is necessary to determine if Truvia is only selectively poisonous to insects and is safe for humans. Still, it is important to understand that this product is not natural, but rather is highly processed and synthetic. Unfortunately, many of the studies claiming Truvia to be safe have been conducted by the company, Cargill, which manufactures it along with Coca-Cola.

2. Agave nectar. You may have heard that agave nectar, the amber-colored liquid that is adored by the gluten-free crowd and suitable for vegan diets, is a suitable natural replacement for sugar. If so, you heard wrong. The problem is that manufacturers have taken an entirely natural and beautiful plant — the blue agave — and processed and refined its syrup to create a super sweet sugar alternative that masquerades as natural. In reality, the syrup is almost entirely refined fructose, which makes its glycemic level low, but it has the same impact on the body as high fructose corn syrup.

Story continues below the video

When you consume fructose in its natural form in fruits such as apples, it can be healthy. But when it is commercially concentrated, it comes without fiber, antioxidants or vitamins — and at a great metabolic price. Consumption of synthetic fructose causes such things as metabolic syndrome, liver and kidney disease, lowered immune system, heart disease and accelerated aging.

While a little agave nectar certainly won’t kill you, it is wrong to assume it is good for you or even a safe alternative to table sugar. The reality is that it is equally as bad for you as is high fructose corn syrup.

3. Sucralose. More commonly referred to by its brand name, Splenda, this synthetic sugar substitute — which is 600 time sweeter than sugar — also goes by other names such as SucraPlus, Candys, Nevella and Cukren. It was first discovered by researchers in 1976 who were trying to find ways to use sucrose as a chemical intermediate in non-traditional areas. It has absolutely no nutritional value.

The American Council on Exercise says consuming too much sucrose can lead to mood swings brought about by a sharp elevation in blood sugar followed by a dramatic “crash. This may be followed by irritability and fatigue. In addition, because sucrose is digested so rapidly, it shoots glucose into the blood faster than it can be burned, which results in excess glucose being stored as fat. Sucrose may also trigger food cravings and cause you to overeat.

Sucrose also promotes the growth of bacteria on teeth which can lead to accelerated tooth decay and can result in poor insulin sensitivity, which is a precursor for type 2 diabetes.

Splenda recently was downgraded from “safe” to “caution” by the Center for Public Interest. This change in rating followed an Italian study which showed a link between an increased risk of leukemia in lab animals and consumption of Splenda.

Safe alternatives

If you are ready to give up sugar but not your sweet desires, try some of these safe and deliciousalternatives:

New Book Reveals How To Survive Diabetes During A Disaster.

Organic coconut crystals

A great natural way to sweeten beverages and other foods is by using organic coconut crystals. These super sweet golden nuggets come from the sap of the coconut flower and are delicious. Not only do they taste good, but they also contain a load of minerals and B vitamins, making them a wonderful and nutritious alternative to refined sugar.

Organic whole leaf stevia

Stevia (Stevia rebaudiana) hails from South America, and its leaves are about 40 times sweeter than sugar. Look for whole, organic stevia leaves and simply crush them and add them to your favorite dish or beverage.

(Want more info? Read 11 All-Natural Sweeteners You Can Grow In Your Backyard.)

Raw local honey

Raw local honey is loaded with nutrients and is another great natural sweetening option. It contains vitamin C, as well as B vitamins and a host of minerals such as potassium, calcium and magnesium. It has antiviral, antibacterial and anti-fungal properties and supports healthy digestive flora. Check for local honey at your farmer’s market or local health shops.

No matter what you do, just be sure that you do your research on the type of sugar substitute you are using. Look for products that are 100 percent real and organic. And don’t take the manufacturer’s word for it.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/11/07/3-healthy-sweeteners-that-actually-are-bad-for-you/

Calorie-free Sweetener Safe for Humans, Kills Fruit Flies

Janet Fang


Forget capturing, forget honey. You can kill more flies with sugar substitute.

Many common insecticides are made of synthetic molecules, and they’re used all over, often to the detriment of the environment, human and animal health, and non-targeted insects like bees. Insect pests are even developing resistance to them. Now, researchers show that the main component of a top-selling sweetener, Truvia, is toxic to fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster). The findings may lead to an effective, small scale insecticide that leaves humans unharmed.

Erythritol is a naturally occurring, non-nutritive sugar alcohol that was approved for use as a flavor enhancer and food additive by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration back in 2001. The agency labeled it: “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). You can find it in little green and white packets of Truvia, marketed as a natural sweetener born from the leaves of the stevia plant.

A Drexel University team led by Daniel Marenda and Sean O'Donnell raised fruit flies on food containing erythritol and other sweeteners, including artificial sugar substitutes as well as table sugar and corn syrup. The flies seemed to prefer erythritol even when sugar was around. But those flies raised on food containing Truvia showed noticeable motor impairments​ and lived for only 5.8 days on average -- compared to the 38.6 to 50.6 days for flies raised on control and experimental foods without Truvia. Pictured above, (dead) flies raised in tubes containing Truvia.

The study began as a sixth-grade science fair project three years ago. Study coauthor Simon Kaschock-Marenda asked his parents why they stopped eating white sugar when they were trying to eat healthier. “He asked if he could test the effects of different sugars and sugar substitutes on fly health and longevity for his science fair, and I said, 'Sure!'" Marenda recalls in a news release. The two bought every type of sugar and sugar substitute they could find at their local supermarket; Marenda’s lab supplied baby flies and growth medium.

“After six days of testing these flies in our house, he came back to me and said, ‘Dad, all the flies in the Truvia vials are dead…” Marenda says. “To which I responded, ‘OK… we must have screwed up somehow. Let’s repeat the experiment!'" Under more rigorous testing conditions in the lab, they replicated their results. That's when they teamed up with O'Donnell, an entomologist down the hall, and turned the science project into a full-blown study. “Indeed what we found is that the main component of Truvia, the sugar erythritol, appears to have pretty potent insecticidal activity in our flies,” Marenda says.

No other sweeteners tested had these toxic effects -- not even PureVia, which also contains the same stevia plant extract found in Truvia. The team is now pursuing a patent on erythritol as an insecticide to be used on small scales. They’re also continuing to study its effectiveness (or toxicity) in other insects like termites, roaches, and bed bugs, as well as bugs higher up in the food chain, like the mantis.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/calorie-free-sweetener-safe-humans-kills-fruit-flies