When it comes to artificial sweeteners the nutrition camp is divided. Many consider them “foe,” blaming artificial sweeteners for a host of health problems. To others they’ve been “friend,” helping to kick sugar addiction one diet cola at a time. But the “friend” camp may be getting smaller, because new research suggests artificial sweeteners increase the risk of glucose intolerance, a condition of chronically high blood glucose (a.k.a. blood sugar) that usually leads to diabetes.
These findings go against the grain of what artificial sweeteners were believed to be good for to begin with—helping people lose weight and/or control blood sugar levels. Still, it’s important to note that this is just one study in a sea of research that finds the benefits and harms of artificial sweeteners to be inconclusive.
What did the new study find? The study, published in Nature, shows consuming artificial sweeteners can alter the types of bacteria in the “gut microbiome” (a collection of bacteria naturally occurring in your intestines). This alteration affects metabolism, specifically the way the body regulates blood glucose.
The nitty-gritty experiment details Researchers from Weizmann Institute of Science devised an animal experiment. They separated lab mice into three groups and assigned them one of three drinks:
- Water flavored with artificial sweeteners (aspartame, acesulfame, or sucralose)
- Water flavored with real sugar (glucose or sucrose)
- Plain Water
Which mice had higher blood sugar levels after one week? Surprising to many, the group given artificially-sweetened water had higher blood glucose than the other two groups.
To determine how different sweeteners affected the mice’s gut bacteria, researchers gave all of the mice antibiotics. The antibiotics were meant to kill off all bacteria in the gut and when this happened…POOF! The metabolic changes of the mice given artificially-sweetened water disappeared.
To further test the effect of artificial sweeteners on the gut microbiome of the mice, researchers transplanted bacteria-laced feces from mice in the artificially-sweetened water group into sterile mice, which had no gut bacteria of their own. When the bacteria took hold in the sterile mice, they also showed signs of glucose intolerance.
What does this mean for humans? The researchers didn’t just look at mice. Their paper referred to another study they had done, which tracked 381 non-diabetic human individuals, and found artificial sweeteners consumption to be positively associated with glucose intolerance in people. To investigate further, the researchers recruited 7 volunteers who normally didn’t consume artificial sweeteners and had them drink the artificially-sweetened stuff. They found 4 of the 7 developed signs of glucose intolerance—the other 3 were fine.
What does this mean for you? If you drinks diet sodas or eat foods that contain artificial sweeteners regularly, this research should give you pause. (It’s a good idea to limit your consumption of added sweeteners—artificial or not.) But because the main study was based on mice (and we all know humans and mice are very different), and the human trial only sampled 7 people, the results are still considered inconclusive. Until more research is done, it’s probably fine for you to enjoy an occasional diet soda.
Photo: Gregg McBride
44 Responses
I’m not an advocate for pounding away sugary/artificially sweetened drinks but I do enjoy a Splenda in my coffee in the morning and a Splenda at night with my iced tea. The acceptable daily intake (according to the FDA) for Sucralose is 5 milligrams per kilogram or the equivalent of 6 cans of diet pop. I would never say or condone drinking that much pop/soda, BUT I don’t think enjoying your favorite beverage once a day with a meal is going to kill ya.
Its not about killing ya. Its about killing your metabolism and causing problems with regards to your weight loss/fitness.
It’s a figure of speech. I wasn’t literally meaning it was going to kill. I have lost 80 pounds and still enjoy two packets of Splenda a day. My point is the study is misleading and many use stuff like this and take it to another level whilst promoting junk science.
yes because your personal story trumps the ‘junk science’ published in NATURE. I actually had to lol at that…
Maybe your losing weight but that isn’t everything. Plenty of thin people develop diabetes also.
Did not say it did. And I backed up my opinion with FDA regulation, I do not think consumption of artificial sweetener is healthy. But anything in excess is bad for you. You do realize studies can be misinformative and misleading? Maybe you should read the article again and look up other studies in comparison as well as FDA regulations. LOLOLOLOLOL i acutally had to lol at that…way to read.
I noticed that although Sweet n’ Low is shown in the related photo, saccharin is not part of the study. The research I have seen on saccharin is that it leaves the body in the same form it entered, it has been around for more than a hundred years, and a hundred years ago we didn’t have the same health problems we do today. So, in my book……Sweet n’ Low it is!!!!
This article is misleading in general. Not all zero calorie sweeteners are created equally.
Saccharin actually is the artificial sweetener used in the study.
Is Stevia considered an artificial sweetener or is it somehow 0 calorie natural sugar?
Stevia is all natural and comes from the Stevia plant (Stevia rebaudiana). You can Google it and do your own research which is always a good idea to do if you are questioning something. Get the facts.
So basically this study told us nothing conclusive about humans because the sample was too small. So it was pretty pointless and therefore so is an article talking about it.
Any kind of artificial sweetener gives me terrible migraines, so I believe that’s my body’s way of telling me when something isn’t supposed to be there.
Seriously? a one week study done on mice is worth writing about? So misleading and not very informative.
…just a thought here… but if you consume artificial sweeteners, you are basically training your body not to produce insulin to counter the “sweetness” – since it’s not real sugar. Then, when you DO eat real sugar, the body thinks it’s still just the fake stuff, so it ignores is… thus… you become glucose intolerant.
…similarly… consuming artificial sweeteners before your body is “trained”… would result in too much insulin without enough sugar to consume, thus you’d cause a low-blood-sugar scenario, and trigger the headache.
Well you got me to click. I guess that was a success of some kind…
I think this study may be a bit cloudy as they didn’t seem to differentiate between various artificial sweeteners, just lumped the results together. They may have in the actual study, but it wasn’t apparent from the link or reading through the notes. Was one artificial sweetener more the culprit vs. another? Were all sweeteners used in equal samples? Were the sweeteners combined and used in a single solution? It seems like those studies where they studied trans-fats and saturated fats and attributed the effects of trans-fats to both fats since both were used in the study. Not enough usable valid information to make a truly informed decision.
This is not a sugar addiction, it is a sweetener addiction of which sugar is one part. We become conditioned by our families to consume sweets, it is even considered to be a reward. The problem is that most illnesses are based in some part by the overuse of sweeteners. The so called addiction is nothing more than a sum of the choices one makes in harming his body. The active choice of the adult or the passive choice by children and these lab mice ends in the same result. One way to make a correct choice is to confine your intake to one serving of whole fruit per meal and avoid any artificial sugar or added whole sugar to foods. You will notice a distinct decrease in your appetite and an increased feeling of wellness as a result.
Specifically what artificial sweeteners were included in this study and article? I assume aspartame (Nutrasweet), saccharin (Sweet ‘N Low), and sucralose (Splenda). Correct? What about stevia (Truvia)?
From what I have read truvia and stevia are not the same, personally truvia gave me a pounding migraine, as does most artificial sweeteners, I have not tried pure stevia, it is a leaf I believe.
You cannot put Aspartame in the same category as Sucralose! Aspartame rips up my stomach with aches and pain, but after 2 years of using Sucralose… no such problems at all, 25 pounds lighter and I feel better than I have in 20 years.
Really. A group of mice and seven people. Not enough to put any stock in. Do a real study using a large group of humans (500 min) and then post the results. This is nothing but opinion and speculation. Even with the seven test subjects nothing conclusive could be reached.
I’m Type2, so should I stay away from the artificial stuff? What other alternatives?
oh… my diet pepsi it’s been long time but its time to divorce 🙁
and yet we still have a sticky how we shouldn’t be afraid of them?
The the sugar industry fund directly or indirectly this research.
Nope, conflicts of interest are openly displayed on research papers, and it is stated that there are no financial conflicts of interest.
This article ws very interesting and I certainly hope that further research is undertaken on this topic.
am interested in more info related to Type I (isulin dependent) Diabetes Mellitus, where the pancreas is not working. My teenager has this condition, and drinks a lot–water, flavored water (artificially sweetened), and diet colas. Are the negatives for Type I same as for Type II? The doctors and nutritionists at his Children’s Hospital-connected out-patient clinic don’t seem concerned. Any info appreciated.
Ich stelle immer wieder fest, das gesättigte Fettsäuren empfohlen werden. Omega 3 Fettsäuren gehören meines Wissens zu den ungesättigten und von denen sollte man mehr aufnehmen als von gesättigten Fettsäuren.
Omega 3 ist definitiv eine wichtige ungesättigte Fettsäure. Butter, besonders Bio-Butter, besitzt allerdings einen hohen Anteil an Omega 3. Zusätzlich werden die gesättigten Fettsäuren, zum Beispiel im Kokosöl, immer noch unterschätzt. Besonders mittelkettige Fettsäuren liefern schnelle Energie ohne anzusetzen.
Genau diese Frage stelle ich mir auch.
Butter und erst recht Kokosöl geben sicher ein gutes Aroma, aber empfohlen wird doch stets ‘(am besten sogar mehrfach) ungesättigte statt gesättigte Fettsäuren’ – wie passt das jetzt zusammen?
Im Text ist ein Schreibfehler denn Omega-3 und Omega-6 Fettsäuren sind beide mehrfach Ungesättigte Fettsäuren die Zahl weißt darauf hin das an der dritten bzw sechsten Stelle eine funktionelle Gruppe. Ungesättigte Fettsäuren sind deshalb gesünder da sie einfacher weiter reagieren als gesättigte Fettsäuren.
Also sind gesättigte schlechter als ungesättigte.
Welches MCT ist denn empfehlenswert?
Ich persönlich bevorzuge das Brain Octane von Bulletproof, da es nur die kürzeste Fettsäure, Caprylsäure, des Kokosöls hat. Diese kann von der Leber schnell verstoffwechselt und als Energie genutzt werden ohne dabei anzusetzen. Ansonsten gibt es noch Mischungen von verschiedenen Fettsäuren.
das mit der butter ist schön ung gut! dennoch wird für die verbrennung von fett zucker alias kohlehydrat benötigt! ebenso wie zum muskelaufbau eiweiß benötigt wird!
der großteil der menschen ist auf dieses schere stein papier prinzip angewiesen! eine umstellung von jetzt auf gleich ist langwierig und keinesfalls leichtfertig und schon gar nicht ohne aufsicht durch zu führen! vor allem ausdauerathleten sollten hierbei vorsichtig sein!
und cafe auf nüchternen magen ist auch nicht jedermanns sache!
oberstes prinzip: jeder mensch ist individuell und das ist zu beachten! immer!!!
mit iphone geschrieben!
Auch eine Alternative fpr einen leckeren und gesunden Kaffe der die Fettverbrennung fördert ist 1/2 bis 1 TL Kokosöl in den Kaffee zu mischen. Schmeckt etwas süßlich /nussig und du tust dem körper damit etwas sehr gutes. Kokosöl ist gesund und reich an guten Fetten 🙂
Lg Kia
Kaffee und Butter ist wirklich eine schräge Kombi… ich probiere es mal 🙂 geht Süßstoff statt Zucker??? ich kann keinen ungesüßten Kaffee trinken, geht einfach nicht runter 🙁
Das würde mich auch interessieren
Süßstoff ist beim abnehmen eigentlich totales Gift. Der Körper schüttet auf Süßstoff mehr Insulin aus, als auf Zucker. Im Endeffekt ist Süßstoff also sogar schlechter als Zucker.
Interessant – gibt es dazu Quellen, die dies belegen?
Süßstoff ist schädlicher als Zucker, da Süßstoff in meistens Aspartam enthalten ist. Aspartam ist krebserregend und verändert deine Botenstoffe im Gehirn, sodass du erst Recht Hunger bekommst. Finger weg von Aspartam bzw Süßstoff!!
Alternativ mit Kokosöl und nach Belieben auch noch etwas Zimt. Sehr lecker, gesund und hat den gleichen effekt 🙂
bin durch YouTube auf die Idee von Max Gotzler gestoßen. Hört sich interessant an und kling logisch… kann man da einfach so einsteigen?
Hallo, kann man nicht Sahne nehmen? Butter wird doch aus Sahne gemacht oder?