Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A study published in the journal Cell Metabolism found that the common artificial sweetener sucralose in combination with carbohydrates can swiftly turn a healthy person into one with high blood sugar.
"From whole grain English muffins to reduced-sugar ketchup, sucralose is found in thousands of baked goods, condiments, syrups and other consumer packaged goods---almost all of them containing carbs."
"The finding follows a study in the journal JAMA last year that found consumption of two or more glasses of artificially sweetened soft drinks a day increased deaths from circulatory diseases. And a 2008 study by scientists at Purdue University showed that artificial sweeteners alone could result in higher blood pressure, weight gain, and increased risk of diabetes, stroke and heart disease in rats."
....
"Small and her team say the carbs and sucralose work together to confuse the brain, which then miscommunicates with the rest of the body and blunts its ability to metabolize sugar appropriately."
I agree. It's easy for me because real foods taste so much better.
These findings suggest that artificial sweeteners may have contributed to the rise in diabetes, especially in children.
The “study” cited is blatantly flawed in its methods and lack of controls. It wouldn’t surprise me if the whole thing was funded by a sugar refiner. Stevia is a so-called natural non-nutritive sweetener that mimics the effects of sugar on the taste buds — just like sucralose. If the brain-to-pancreas link is real, then why didn’t they try to confirm it with a test of stevia + maltodextrin? Where is the control in this experiment of a drink sweetened solely with maltodextrin?
The “study” cited is blatantly flawed in its methods and lack of controls. It wouldn’t surprise me if the whole thing was funded by a sugar refiner. Stevia is a so-called natural non-nutritive sweetener that mimics the effects of sugar on the taste buds — just like sucralose. If the brain-to-pancreas link is real, then why didn’t they try to confirm it with a test of stevia + maltodextrin? Where is the control in this experiment of a drink sweetened solely with maltodextrin?
IMO the whole thing is BS.
There is no such thing as a perfect study. I bet they would appreciate it if you left your comments at the bottom of the study Short-term Consumption of Sucralose with, but Not without, Carbohydrate Impairs Neural and Metabolic Sensitivity to Sugar in Humanshttps://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism...-41312030057-7
I doubt that anyone here will die if they choose to replace sucralose foods with whole foods to see how it affects their health.
It's not going to be the sucralose that did it it's going to be the carbohydrates itself if anything. I eat rolled oats and I wouldn't want to eat them without sucralose. Starches like rolled oats just break down to glucose in the body and while glucose has a sweet flavor starch does not.
This argument that sucralose messes with blood sugar really doesn't have any merit. Most of the time it's going to be everything else in a person's diet that's making them unhealthy. How much pizza does a person who consumes sucralose eat in their diet? They're not using the sucralose on the pizza or maybe they are. They're just eating too many carbs and too much junk food.
Made the argument to a conspiracy theorist once who suggested I ingest chlorine dioxide to cure myself of every illness... Asked them why they're worried about the chlorine in sucralose but then encourage me to go and ingest chlorine compounds like sodium chlorite and chlorine dioxide and they didn't have an answer. In the end I tend to trust government authorities rather than internet conspiracy theorists and these holistic internet quacks that frequent forums like curezone in some of these matters. It's been my observation that they're not going to approve something they don't deem as safe in moderation. I used to be one of these quacks so I can make fun of myself and the entire movement.
What sucralose will do is make you crave sweet things so you need to be able to moderate that craving otherwise don't use it.
You can test to see what foods do to your blood sugar. Get a diabetes test kit, test before eating a food, then again half an hour, one hour, and two hours later.
I don't eat sucralose, but discovered stevia doesn't change my blood sugar. My thyroid meds do, though.
A study published in the journal Cell Metabolism found that the common artificial sweetener sucralose in combination with carbohydrates can swiftly turn a healthy person into one with high blood sugar.
"From whole grain English muffins to reduced-sugar ketchup, sucralose is found in thousands of baked goods, condiments, syrups and other consumer packaged goods---almost all of them containing carbs."
"The finding follows a study in the journal JAMA last year that found consumption of two or more glasses of artificially sweetened soft drinks a day increased deaths from circulatory diseases. And a 2008 study by scientists at Purdue University showed that artificial sweeteners alone could result in higher blood pressure, weight gain, and increased risk of diabetes, stroke and heart disease in rats."
....
"Small and her team say the carbs and sucralose work together to confuse the brain, which then miscommunicates with the rest of the body and blunts its ability to metabolize sugar appropriately."
All I know is that I started using artificial sweeteners almost 50 years ago. Here I am in my late 60's, in excellent health, with a normal weight and almost the same weight & measurements I had when I was in my 20s.
I use Equal in my several cups of coffee every morning, and have for almost 50 years. When I drink soft drinks, they are sugarless (altho I gave up drinking soft drinks regularly a couple of decades ago...that acid eats your teeth enamel + I switched to the health green tea - with Equal).
That is what I know about artificial sweeteners.
I do know that not all artificial sweeteners are "equal." Cyclamates - those are proven to cause cancer. But so is beef. So are other things.
I think the sugar industry is hard at work trying to regain its share of the market. Sugar is poison, in some ways. Still, I do eat sugar, although I try to limit it. So it's clear I can eat sugar sometimes, and artificial sweeteners every day, and be the picture of good health. I don't eat beef, however.
Remember that not all studies are as accurate as they seem at first. The studies that "prove" synthetic hormones cause breast cancer in women once they are on them for a certain period of time...it's now known that the women in those studies, and the ones who got cancer, had other serious issues, like obesity and other health issues, which no doubt at the very least could've been considered to twist the test results. Does HRT cause healthy women to have a much increased risk of breast cancer? We don't know. There have been no studies of health women for that.
Plastic causing serious health issues does seem to have some truth, though. Cooking with it, microwaving, drinking from it (cups or straws), etc. (And not just plastic with BP in it.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
