Why The Obesity Epidemic May Be Due To Artificial Sweeteners

Post by **tex** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:53 am

Hi All,

Could it be that the obesity epidemic that has developed during the last couple of decades is due at least in part, to the widespread use of artificial sweeteners? This is just my opinion, but IMO, it certainly could be true. Consider this:

Curiously, not one single randomised controlled trial assessing effects of artificial sweeteners on weight is to be found in the scientific literature.

Yes, you read that right - that's true. No one has ever proven that the use of artificial sweeteners is less likely to cause weight gain, than the use of sugar. Not only that, but it would seem to be a no-brainer that if weight loss from artificial sweeteners could be proven, surely some manufacturer of artificial sweeteners would have done so by now, and they would be parading that information before us on a regular basis, in tv ads, magazine ads, all over the internet, etc., and yet, curiously, that has never happened. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Also, there is some evidence, albeit in animals, that suggests artificial sweeteners might actually contribute to obesity. In one study, rats were fed with either saccharin or sugar-sweetened yoghurt in conjunction with their normal diet [1]. Compared to those eating sugar-sweetened yoghurt, the rats eating saccharin-laced yoghurt consumed more calories and got fatter too. The authors of this study concluded that, “…using artificial sweeteners in rats resulted in increased caloric intake, increased body weight, and increased adiposity [fatness]”, adding that “These results suggest that consumption of products containing artificial sweeteners may lead to increased body weight and obesity by interfering with fundamental homeostatic, physiological processes”.

One potential explanation for this phenomenon relates to the ability of artificial sweeteners to stimulate the appetite. There is some evidence, for instance, that artificial sweeteners might do this through effects on the brain. In one study, women were given a solution containing either the artificial sweetener sucralose or sucrose (table sugar) [2]. The women were unable to distinguish the source of the sweetness on the basis of taste. However, it seems their brain knew the difference: sugar activated ‘pleasure centres’ in the brain more than sucralose. It seems an artificial sweetener may simply not give the level of pleasure and satisfaction derived from sugar. This, in theory, could lead individuals to seek satisfaction from other foods (i.e. eat more).

Some evidence shows that artificial sweeteners have the ability to stimulate the appetite. For example, one study found that women given saccharin-sweetened lemonade were found to consume considerably more calories overall compared to those drinking regular (sugary) lemonade [3]. In another study, experimenters found that subjects who had eaten yoghurt sweetened with saccharin were inclined to eat more than those who had eaten yoghurt sweetened with sugar [4]. There is other evidence which suggests that aspartame, too, has the capacity to stimulate the appetite [5]. Sugar-sweetened foods are far from ideal, but it does seem that artificially-sweetened ones are simply not a good alternative.

The red emphasis is mine, of course.

Hmmmmmmmm again.

As Dr. Briffa points out:

One other issue that I have with artificial sweeteners, even supposedly healthier and more natural ones such as stevia and xylitol, is that they perpetuate the expectation and ‘need’ for very sweet tastes. That’s a dependence I encourage people to lose.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/07/14/obes ... weeteners/

Note that Dr. Briffa is not claiming that artificial sweeteners are responsible for the obesity epidemic, (that observation is my own theory), but the points that he has raised in that article certainly add support to my contention, (IMO).

As the punch line from the old Chiffon margarine commercial goes, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature".

Tex

Joefnh · Post by **Joefnh** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:52 am

Tex great post, I have wondered that for quite a while now, if there was data showing a reduction of weight that would be a marketing windfall. I would also venture to say that the companies manufacturing these sweeteners must have done multiple studies to date and know what the real answer is.

If I were them I would definitely run or fund these studies to see if there were data that marketing could use, that's standard procedure.

On a similar note just last night on the History Channel there was a segment on the history and uses of corn in the US. One of the doctors they interviewed came to the same conclusion with the use of high fructose corn syrup. He stated that people who consume it actual crave more calories than if they just had the same caloric dose of cane sugar. Another interesting point.

Joe

sarkin · Post by **sarkin** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:05 pm

I've always thought it was a mistake to train your tastebuds to "need" a giant dialup of sweetness - natural or otherwise. I've known many people who used so many of those pink (then blue, then yellow) packets, I wondered why they didn't just buy coffee ice cream ;) I feel really grateful that those things have never been part of my life, having watched friends struggle to give up a diet-soda habit... often by replacing it with some other chemical-laced goo. I used to lunch with a colleague who would have a diet coke, and then eat dessert to make up for it. (I don't eat dessert at lunch unless it's a very special occasion - birthday kinda special - but then, I haven't trained myself to crave sweetness.)

I bet you're right, Tex, that there's a very strong link between artificial sweeteners and obesity. And it makes sense that at some point, the body will beg us to stop eating sweets... but not pseudo-sweets.

(I also really like the actual tastes of certain foods - a little sourness, or tartness, or even bitterness is part of the experience of eating interesting things - grapefruit, lemon, coffee, chocolate... but that's a whole 'nother topic/recipe.)

And is sure is interesting that no one has ever studied this. Do you suppose that could be a funding issue?

WOW,

Sara

Post by **tex** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:04 pm

Joe,

Polly has mentioned that documentary on corn a time or two, and I keep looking for it on the local PBS stations, but so far, no luck. Hopefully, one of these days, I'll catch it and DVR it.

And is sure is interesting that no one has ever studied this. Do you suppose that could be a funding issue?

I'm pretty sure that's the reason. After doing hundreds of trials, with the wrong outcome every time, they're tired of throwing money down that rat hole, and they refuse to fund any more studies on it.

Tex

Gloria · Post by **Gloria** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:23 pm

I never liked the HFCS sodas. They always made me more thirsty. I drank the artificially sweetened sodas because they satisfied my thirst.

Now I just drink water with and w/o ice. It's easy, cheap, and quenches the thirst w/o any after effects.

Gloria

Zizzle · Post by **Zizzle** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:36 am

I've read that artificial sweeteners fool the body into thinking you've had sugar and starts the bodily processes of dealing with suger - i.e. releasing insulin, etc.
I personally can't stand the taste of them, and I won't let my children have anything with artificial sweeteners either. However, we do have the occasional stick of gum made with nutrasweet.

Post by **tex** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:01 am

Hmmmmmmmmm. I wasn't aware of that. That's veeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrry interesting, because if it's true, it certainly explains why the body would crave more food/sugar, following the ingestion of an artificial sweetener.

Insulin is a hormone central to regulating carbohydrate and fat metabolism in the body. Insulin causes cells in the liver, muscle, and fat tissue to take up glucose from the blood, storing it as glycogen in the liver and muscle.

Insulin stops the use of fat as an energy source by inhibiting the release of glucagon. With the exception of the metabolic disorder diabetes mellitus and Metabolic syndrome, insulin is provided within the body in a constant proportion to remove excess glucose from the blood, which otherwise would be toxic. When blood glucose levels fall below a certain level, the body begins to use fat as an energy source through glycogenolysis, for example, by transfer of lipids from adipose tissue to the liver for mobilization as an energy source.

Note the conflict here: When blood glucose levels fall below a certain level, the body begins to use fat as an energy source through glycogenolysis, for example, by transfer of lipids from adipose tissue to the liver for mobilization as an energy source.

But it can't use fat as the blood glucose levels fall, because the extra insulin inhibits the release of glucagon. If this isn't a prime example of, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature", I'm a monkey's uncle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin

Here's why that's not a good situation to be in:

Hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia describes the condition and effects of low blood glucose caused by excessive insulin. Hypoglycemia due to excess insulin is the most common type of serious hypoglycemia. It can be due to endogenous or injected insulin.

Manifestations of hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia vary by age and severity of the hypoglycemia. In general, most signs and symptoms can be attributed to (1) the effects on the brain of insufficient glucose (neuroglycopenia) or (2) to the adrenergic response of the autonomic nervous system to hypoglycemia. A few miscellaneous symptoms are harder to attribute to either of these causes. In most cases, all effects are reversed when normal glucose levels are restored.

There are uncommon cases of more persistent harm, and rarely even death due to severe hypoglycemia of this type. One reason hypoglycemia due to excessive insulin can be more dangerous is that insulin lowers the available amounts of most alternate brain fuels, such as ketones. Brain damage of various types ranging from stroke-like focal effects to impaired memory and thinking can occur. Children who have prolonged or recurrent hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia in infancy can suffer harm to their brains and may be developmentally delayed.

None of that sounds very healthy to me. It would appear that artificial sweeteners are little more than poison for the brain.

The red emphasis in all of the above quotes, is mine, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinsul ... poglycemia

Thanks for the info.

Tex

Zizzle · Post by **Zizzle** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:11 pm

Here's Dr. Mercola railing against Splenda, with links to other articles about Nutrasweet. This seems to be one of his biggest issues, and with the number of Diet Coke addicts out there, it's easy to see why these sweeteners could be damaging our health on a large scale.

In reality, these diet foods and drinks can cause serious distortions in your biochemistry and ruin your body's ability to control calories. As a matter of fact, it’s been shown that diet soft drinks can double your risk of obesity!

Nearly a decade ago, studies were already revealing that artificial sweeteners can:

•Stimulate your appetite
•Increase carbohydrate cravings
•Stimulate fat storage and weight gain

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... fects.aspx

Sheila · Post by **Sheila** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:51 pm

The discussion about artificial sweeteners and how we taste foods is interesting. There was an article a while ago about "super tasters". Super tasters apparently have more taste buds than normal and are more sensitive to bitter tastes and fattiness in foods. They tend to weigh less because they tend to avoid very fatty foods and sugary foods. Super tasters are extra sensitive to bitter compounds found in foods like broccoli, brussel sprouts etc. I think I am probably a super taster since I fit all of those criteria and feel vindicated for my life long distaste of broccoli and brussel sprouts!! Bitter foods actually cause discomfort in my mouth, a kind of pain way back on the sides. Weird. Anyway, there are all kinds of reasons why people choose to eat or drink certain foods and it isn't always just being persnickety.

Still strictly GF. Had to pass up the fabulous conch fritters my step son made yesterday.

He was making them for a crowd and so he could not make just a few for me. He did make some fresh caught snapper for me and that was great. We are going to figure out how to make conch fritters using GF flour. Still not accepting the other food intolerances and I'm carefully not thinking about it just now. Once I get my mind around being totally gluten free, no cheating so far, and being reconciled and not unhappy about it, then I'll think about the rest of it. I guess the entocort is protecting me from any problems when I eat eggs, soy etc. I feel really quite well just taking 1 entocort a day and no gluten.

I've informed my sons of the genetic tests. My youngest is promising to get a colonoscopy and test for MC. If he actually follows through, I'll be amazed. The older one has concerns for his children and will keep an eye out for any symptoms of food intolerances.

This group has been a wonderful resource and I'm very thankful for all of the information that has been accumulated and all of the advice and encouragement.

Post by **tex** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:38 pm

Sheila,

I'm probably just the opposite of you - I'm probably an "inferior taster", because I have no problem eating fatty foods, and too much sugar,

, and broccoli tastes just fine, to me.

Your approach to the diet seems sound to me. We have to deal with this disease one day at a time, and if that means one step at a time, so be it. Any "trick" that helps you to accept the principle of absolutely no cheating, is definitely beneficial, in the long run. You'll deal with the other issues when the time comes, and you are absolutely right to not worry about them, in the meantime. The Entocort should control your symptoms, at least until your gluten antibody production fades away to a much lower level, (probably at least a month or so).

Tex

sarkin · Post by **sarkin** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:41 pm

Sheila,

Good for you, on all fronts (and a little sympathetic weeping 'bout those conch fritters). It sounds as though you're doing really well, except for those moments of deprivation. You *know* those fritters will be awesome with the GF mix.

You may be right that the Entocort is protecting you from other symptoms. Or you could think of it another way - Entocort is buying you time while you figure out what else you have to adjust, going forward.

It sounds as though your sons as aware, but - thankfully - not symptomatic, so in a sense this is buying them time as well, to come to grips with the notion that the 'staff of life' might not be their best friend. Your older son has the additional motivation of caring for his whole family's long-term health.

I have had weird mouth sensations from foods sometimes, since I was a little kid (but I think I have ordinary tastebuds). We have a friend who we do believe is a super-taster, though he has not maintained his boyish figure - don't tell him I said that! And there have been times the past few months when I had really strong taste sensations that made foods really unpalatable. I kept asking my husband - does this seem bitter? I think he actually has a fussier palate than I do, mostly. And I do find, now that I've been GF for some months, that my sense of taste and smell seem more sensitive. (Also my hearing?!)

Glad to hear you're moving forward so positively, and wishing you some tasty fritters,

Sara

Post by **tex** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:59 pm

Sara wrote:(Also my hearing?!)

You're not the first member here to report improved hearing, upon reaching remission after adopting the diet. How about that?

Tex

Deb · Post by **Deb** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:35 am

Sheila, I make a batter with gluten free beer and brown rice flour that is every bit as good as the old one with regular flour, if not better. You may be able to use some version of that with your fritters. When doing oysters I'll sometimes use some fine corn meal too, which I can also tolerate.

Sheila · Post by **Sheila** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:10 am

Beer batter sounds great!!

Ah, hearing. I lost most of the hearing in my left ear after my very first bout of MC 2 years ago. I didn't know it was MC at the time. I took an antibiotic for an ear ache and got the worst D in my life. My husband was on a business trip or I would have ended up in the hospital sooner. I ended up in the hospital getting rehydrated after fainting at home. Apparently that huge loss of fluid so quickly and because I have a small frame and little fat, my eustachian tube lost so much fluid it got stuck open. It is called a patent eustachian tube. It's another "orphan" condition and the only med suggested did not work. Also tried Chinese herbs etc and that didn't work either. The only time I can hear well out of my left ear is when I'm lying down and the eustachian tube can close. It's a real bummer. I learned a big lesson from that situation. When I have D big time, I drink a lot of liquids including Propel. I wonder if anyone else had this happen to them. There was a small group of people on line with questions about the condition but almost none of them got relief. I would have to have surgery to "fix" it and that is no guarantee either.

Another bit of MC trivia to add to the collection.

sarkin · Post by **sarkin** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:26 am

WOW, Tex - that is amazing. And cool. I wonder whether that was another neuro symptom, or something else. It really is nice to have any health measure moving in the right direction at my age, and hearing is a tad more important to quality of life than gray hair...

Deb, that sounds de-licious.

And Sheila, what an additional distraction on top of all the other MC issues. I was a total chicken-broth addict, and still had trouble staying hydrated in my worst week or two. I was so relieved when I was able to turn that around without an ER visit.

My brother has a Eustachian tube problem... yet another hint that he may have his own version of these genes, and *might* be better off adopting a GF diet before something worse comes along. I'm not pushing, though - my niece saw the possibility of a connection right away, and I know I can count on her to take up the cause if he hits a health "pothole" on his road through life. Better to hear it from daddy's awesome girl than from annoying big sister, and I hope he never hits that pothole.

Trying not to be a GF evangelist urging people to 'repent' of their eating habits ;)

--Sara