New study over artificial sweetners: more confusion

[Jack 855]

Odd science here, depending on your point of view, regardless of what the study showed, there is considerable disagreement on what it means:

"

NEW YORK (AP) -- Using artificial sweeteners may set the stage for diabetes in some people by hampering the way their bodies handle sugar, suggests a preliminary study done mostly in mice.

The authors said they are not recommending any changes in how people use artificial sweeteners based on their study, which included some human experiments. The researchers and outside experts said more study is needed, while industry groups called the research limited and said other evidence shows sweeteners are safe and useful for weight control."

read more at

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_ARTIFICIAL_SWEETENERS_?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-17-13-11-30

further quote:

"

The results are not pretty:

In a series of experiments, researchers found that several of the most widely used types of non-calorie sweeteners in food and drinks — saccharin, sucralose and aspartame — caused mice to experience increased risk of glucose intolerance, a condition that can lead to diabetes.

"We are talking about very dramatic increases," said one of the study's co-authors, Eran Segal, a computational biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel.

The same scientists also monitored what happened to seven human volunteers who did not typically use artificial sweeteners but were given regular doses of saccharin over the course of a week. Four developed significant glucose intolerance, and the others saw no blood sugar benefits from using artificial sweeteners. [The Washington Post]"

NOTE: I've followed similar link around and various articles list either SCIENCE or NATURE as being the source of the study.

In any case, depending on your link, the emphasis of the report seems to mutate.

Good luck.

....oh, and don't use the stuff, IMHO.....

Edited September 17, 2014 by Jack

[labwalker 1,177]

I agree, don't use the stuff... but, these anything that appears in a newspaper or similar, and not a peer reviewed medical or scientific journal I always take with a grain of salt. Studies can be influenced by the sample base; and reporters are good at amplifying the facts that generates readership. From what I've read over the years everything we eat can kill us... it must be true, since no one has beaten the odds.

[2muchfun 8,928]

"Christopher Gardner, a nutrition expert at Stanford University who didn't participate in the study, said saccharin doses given the volunteers were within federal dietary guidelines but still much higher than what a typical person would consume - the equivalent of 42 12-once sodas a day for a person weighing 150 pounds"

42- 12 oz sodas? Egads. I think I'll wait till the randomized double blind studies come out. Till then, pass the Splenda

[Jack 855]

yes, there has been considerable and vastly under reported NON scientific results of far too many 'scientific studies' being affected by 1) who does the study and THEIR biases admitted & otherwise; 2) who funds the study; 3) various non scientific interests surrounding any given 'desirable' result.

Actual 'science' is difficult enough without such influences.

[Bandista 7,466]

I don't use any artificial sweeteners and believe they are poison. Stevia is getting a lot of attention -- it's a plant and I'd rather get my food from a garden than a lab any day. It's a shame that 100% stevia is a little more difficult to find -- have to check labels very carefully. Even Coca-Cola sees the handwriting on the wall. They are partners in Tru-Via (probably spelling that wrong.....).