|
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease
NBC Nightly News Maggie Fox Researchers trying to figure out whether artificial sweeteners really do make people fat think they’ve found a possible explanation — they may disrupt the bacteria in some people’s bodies. Their findings may shed light on why studies often contradict one another, with some finding that people who drink lots of diet drinks are more likely to be obese, with others finding they may help people keep weight off. Their answer: it may depend on what kind of gut bacteria you have to start with. They found clear evidence that artificial sweeteners, including saccharine and sucralose, can affect gut bacteria, which in turn affect how food is digested and metabolized. Mice and a very few people given artificial sweeteners for the first time showed distinct changes in the way their bodies processed sugar. It’s not a final answer, but the study, published in the journal Nature, may point research in a new direction. “Our findings suggest that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight,” they wrote in their report. “I think we must stress that by no means are sugary drinks healthy." “By no means do we believe that based on the results of this study are we prepared to make recommendations as to the use and the dose of artificial sweeteners,” said Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, who worked on the study. But, he added, “In none of these experiments have we seen any beneficial effects.” He said the findings should at least prompt closer examination of the very widespread popularity or artificial sweeteners. How could artificial sweeteners, which have no calories, affect metabolism? Segal pointed out that bacteria in the guts of both mice and people digest compounds that animals normally cannot, and they could thrive on chemicals that would not normally be used as food by people or animals. It’s another example of how the microbiome — the population of microbes living in and on our bodies — can have huge effects on health. Most of the study was done in mice. They fed the mice large amounts of sweeteners of all kinds and measured their gut bacteria and tested their metabolisms. Bacteria living in the intestines and colon are known to help digest food, and more and more studies are showing they can affect obesity and even appetite, as well as a tendency to disease. Mice fed the sweeteners had definite changes in both gut bacteria and metabolism. Sugar did not have the same effect. To make sure it was the gut bacteria, the researchers removed bacteria from mice that had not eaten sweeteners, and grew them in lab dishes along with artificial sweeteners. They then put these sweetener-fed bacteria into new mice. The new mice began to show the same changes in metabolism as mice directly fed sweeteners. The main flaws? Artificial sweeteners seemed to encourage a group of bacteria called Bacteroides and seemed to kill off another group called Clostridiales. Scientists are just beginning to understand what kinds of bacteria people have living inside their digestive systems and what balance might be healthy. But having too many Bacteroides and too few Clostridiales is a pattern sometimes seem in people with diabetes. The researchers used mostly saccharine in their controlled experiments, but they said in early tests the mice responded the same whatever sweetener they used – saccharine, sucralose, aspartame or others. This baffled them, because the sweeteners are chemically very different from one another. It’s worth more research, they said. Mice are different from people, of course, but they tried the experiment in a small group. Seven people who did not normally use artificial sweeteners were given large amounts for a week. In four of them, their blood sugar shot up and they had other changes to metabolism associated with weight gain and pre-diabetes. Larger studies have also suggested similar patterns – some people are adversely affected by sweeteners, while others are not. It may be a very individual thing, Segal said. "Water is the best drink to control our blood sugar.” “We are identifying many foods which are considered as healthy food to have potential adverse effects for large subsets of individuals,” he told reporters in a telephone briefing. Genetic differences already demonstrate that some people can smoke tobacco with little effect, while most develop heart disease or cancer. “What was super-striking and interesting to us was that we could predict ahead of time (who would be affected by the sweeteners),” Segal said. They profiled the microbiomes of their volunteers and found two distinct patterns. While everyone’s microbiome is different, there were larger overall patterns, and these predicted who would be affected by the sweeteners, Segal said. “I think we must stress that by no means are sugary drinks healthy and that sugary drinks should be brought back as a healthy part of our nutrition,” added Eran Elinav, who led the research. Researchers not involved in the study were skeptical, but most said it’s worth looking into more. “The study is based primarily on mouse experiments and only seven human subjects were studied,” said endocrinologist Dr. Katarina Kos of the University of Exeter in Britain. “Meanwhile, these findings support the widespread understanding that water is the healthiest drink option and that we should avoid sweet and sweetened drinks. Water is the best drink to control our blood sugar.” First published September 17th 2014, 11:01 am |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease > NBC Nightly News > Maggie Fox > A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why people drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first place. Graham |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:52:34 -0600, graham > wrote:
>On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote: >> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease >> NBC Nightly News >> Maggie Fox >> >A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why people >drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first place. >Graham addiction Janet US |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
Janet Bostwick > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:52:34 -0600, graham > wrote: > >> On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote: >>> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease >>> NBC Nightly News >>> Maggie Fox >>> >> A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why people >> drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first place. >> Graham > addiction > Janet US Stupidity. -- jinx the minx |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
Janet Bostwick wrote:
> >Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease Probably diet soda with too much scotch. LOL |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:52:34 -0600, graham > wrote:
>On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote: >> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease >> NBC Nightly News >> Maggie Fox >> >A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why people >drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first place. Stupidity and laziness. |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:44:11 AM UTC-10, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease > > NBC Nightly News > > Maggie Fox > > > > Researchers trying to figure out whether artificial sweeteners really > > do make people fat think they�ve found a possible explanation � they > > may disrupt the bacteria in some people�s bodies. > > > > Their findings may shed light on why studies often contradict one > > another, with some finding that people who drink lots of diet drinks > > are more likely to be obese, with others finding they may help people > > keep weight off. > > > > Their answer: it may depend on what kind of gut bacteria you have to > > start with. > > > > They found clear evidence that artificial sweeteners, including > > saccharine and sucralose, can affect gut bacteria, which in turn > > affect how food is digested and metabolized. Mice and a very few > > people given artificial sweeteners for the first time showed distinct > > changes in the way their bodies processed sugar. > > > > It�s not a final answer, but the study, published in the journal > > Nature, may point research in a new direction. �Our findings suggest > > that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed > > to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to > > fight,� they wrote in their report. > > > > �I think we must stress that by no means are sugary drinks healthy." > > > > �By no means do we believe that based on the results of this study are > > we prepared to make recommendations as to the use and the dose of > > artificial sweeteners,� said Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of > > Science in Rehovot, Israel, who worked on the study. But, he added, > > �In none of these experiments have we seen any beneficial effects..� He > > said the findings should at least prompt closer examination of the > > very widespread popularity or artificial sweeteners. > > > > How could artificial sweeteners, which have no calories, affect > > metabolism? Segal pointed out that bacteria in the guts of both mice > > and people digest compounds that animals normally cannot, and they > > could thrive on chemicals that would not normally be used as food by > > people or animals. > > > > It�s another example of how the microbiome � the population of > > microbes living in and on our bodies � can have huge effects on > > health. > > > > Most of the study was done in mice. They fed the mice large amounts of > > sweeteners of all kinds and measured their gut bacteria and tested > > their metabolisms. Bacteria living in the intestines and colon are > > known to help digest food, and more and more studies are showing they > > can affect obesity and even appetite, as well as a tendency to > > disease. > > > > Mice fed the sweeteners had definite changes in both gut bacteria and > > metabolism. Sugar did not have the same effect. To make sure it was > > the gut bacteria, the researchers removed bacteria from mice that had > > not eaten sweeteners, and grew them in lab dishes along with > > artificial sweeteners. They then put these sweetener-fed bacteria into > > new mice. The new mice began to show the same changes in metabolism as > > mice directly fed sweeteners. > > > > The main flaws? Artificial sweeteners seemed to encourage a group of > > bacteria called Bacteroides and seemed to kill off another group > > called Clostridiales. Scientists are just beginning to understand what > > kinds of bacteria people have living inside their digestive systems > > and what balance might be healthy. But having too many Bacteroides and > > too few Clostridiales is a pattern sometimes seem in people with > > diabetes. > > > > The researchers used mostly saccharine in their controlled > > experiments, but they said in early tests the mice responded the same > > whatever sweetener they used � saccharine, sucralose, aspartame or > > others. This baffled them, because the sweeteners are chemically very > > different from one another. > > > > It�s worth more research, they said. > > > > Mice are different from people, of course, but they tried the > > experiment in a small group. Seven people who did not normally use > > artificial sweeteners were given large amounts for a week. In four of > > them, their blood sugar shot up and they had other changes to > > metabolism associated with weight gain and pre-diabetes. > > > > Larger studies have also suggested similar patterns � some people are > > adversely affected by sweeteners, while others are not. It may be a > > very individual thing, Segal said. > > > > "Water is the best drink to control our blood sugar.� > > > > �We are identifying many foods which are considered as healthy food to > > have potential adverse effects for large subsets of individuals,� he > > told reporters in a telephone briefing. Genetic differences already > > demonstrate that some people can smoke tobacco with little effect, > > while most develop heart disease or cancer. > > > > �What was super-striking and interesting to us was that we could > > predict ahead of time (who would be affected by the sweeteners),� > > Segal said. They profiled the microbiomes of their volunteers and > > found two distinct patterns. While everyone�s microbiome is different, > > there were larger overall patterns, and these predicted who would be > > affected by the sweeteners, Segal said. > > > > �I think we must stress that by no means are sugary drinks healthy and > > that sugary drinks should be brought back as a healthy part of our > > nutrition,� added Eran Elinav, who led the research. > > > > Researchers not involved in the study were skeptical, but most said > > it�s worth looking into more. > > > > �The study is based primarily on mouse experiments and only seven > > human subjects were studied,� said endocrinologist Dr. Katarina Kos of > > the University of Exeter in Britain. > > > > �Meanwhile, these findings support the widespread understanding that > > water is the healthiest drink option and that we should avoid sweet > > and sweetened drinks. Water is the best drink to control our blood > > sugar.� > > > > First published September 17th 2014, 11:01 am That's one goofy study. Diet soda does not cause obeseity. Obese people are more likely to drink diet soda. That's like claiming large sized clothes cause obeseity. There's no causative link between diet soda and heart disease. That's like saying that there's a link between large sized clothes and heart disease. Who the hell are these "researchers?" |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:44:14 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote: >On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:44:11 AM UTC-10, Janet Bostwick wrote: >> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease > >That's one goofy study. Diet soda does not cause obeseity. Obese people are more likely to drink diet soda. That's like claiming large sized clothes cause obeseity. > >There's no causative link between diet soda and heart disease. That's like saying that there's a link between large sized clothes and heart disease. Who the hell are these "researchers?" You've done it again. Hypothetically, if your life absolutely depended on your perceptions and logic, you wouldn't have made it very far at all. |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:05:24 PM UTC-5, Jinx the Minx wrote:
> Janet Bostwick > wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:52:34 -0600, graham > wrote: > > > > > >> On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote: > > >>> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease > > >>> NBC Nightly News > > >>> Maggie Fox > > >>> > > >> A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why people > > >> drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first place. > > >> Graham > > > addiction > > > Janet US > > > > Stupidity. > It is because diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. > > jinx the minx --Bryan |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Janet Bostwick > wrote:
>"Water is the best drink to control our blood sugar.” Absolutely. It is the only paleo beverage. And if you need a caffeine hit, you can heat up the water and steep some green tea in it. Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom). |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
"Bryan-TGWWW" > wrote in message ... > On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:05:24 PM UTC-5, Jinx the Minx wrote: >> Janet Bostwick > wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:52:34 -0600, graham > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote: >> >> >>> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease >> >> >>> NBC Nightly News >> >> >>> Maggie Fox >> >> >>> >> >> >> A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why >> >> people >> >> >> drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first place. >> >> >> Graham >> >> > addiction >> >> > Janet US >> >> >> >> Stupidity. >> > It is because diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. >> I think it is because diet sodas taste chalky and make you thirsty. |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
"Pico Rico" > wrote in message ... > > "Bryan-TGWWW" > wrote in message > ... >> On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:05:24 PM UTC-5, Jinx the Minx wrote: >>> Janet Bostwick > wrote: >>> >>> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:52:34 -0600, graham > wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote: >>> >>> >>> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease >>> >>> >>> NBC Nightly News >>> >>> >>> Maggie Fox >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why >>> >> people >>> >>> >> drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first place. >>> >>> >> Graham >>> >>> > addiction >>> >>> > Janet US >>> >>> >>> >>> Stupidity. >>> >> It is because diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. >>> > > > I think it is because diet sodas taste chalky and make you thirsty. They don't taste chalky. |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:03:21 PM UTC-5, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Bryan-TGWWW" > wrote in message > > ... > > > On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:05:24 PM UTC-5, Jinx the Minx wrote: > > >> Janet Bostwick > wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:52:34 -0600, graham > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote: > > >> > > >> >>> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease > > >> > > >> >>> NBC Nightly News > > >> > > >> >>> Maggie Fox > > >> > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> >> A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why > > >> >> people > > >> > > >> >> drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first place. > > >> > > >> >> Graham > > >> > > >> > addiction > > >> > > >> > Janet US > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Stupidity. > > >> > > > It is because diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. > > >> > > > > > > I think it is because diet sodas taste chalky and make you thirsty. Those of us who enjoy them are more likely to feel that it is because diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. I find them thirst quenching. --Bryan |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
"dsi1" > wrote in message ... On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:44:11 AM UTC-10, Janet Bostwick wrote: > Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease > > NBC Nightly News > > Maggie Fox > > > > Researchers trying to figure out whether artificial sweeteners really > > do make people fat think they�ve found a possible explanation � they > > may disrupt the bacteria in some people�s bodies. > > > > Their findings may shed light on why studies often contradict one > > another, with some finding that people who drink lots of diet drinks > > are more likely to be obese, with others finding they may help people > > keep weight off. > > > > Their answer: it may depend on what kind of gut bacteria you have to > > start with. > > > > They found clear evidence that artificial sweeteners, including > > saccharine and sucralose, can affect gut bacteria, which in turn > > affect how food is digested and metabolized. Mice and a very few > > people given artificial sweeteners for the first time showed distinct > > changes in the way their bodies processed sugar. > > > > It�s not a final answer, but the study, published in the journal > > Nature, may point research in a new direction. �Our findings suggest > > that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed > > to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to > > fight,� they wrote in their report. > > > > �I think we must stress that by no means are sugary drinks healthy." > > > > �By no means do we believe that based on the results of this study are > > we prepared to make recommendations as to the use and the dose of > > artificial sweeteners,� said Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of > > Science in Rehovot, Israel, who worked on the study. But, he added, > > �In none of these experiments have we seen any beneficial effects.� He > > said the findings should at least prompt closer examination of the > > very widespread popularity or artificial sweeteners. > > > > How could artificial sweeteners, which have no calories, affect > > metabolism? Segal pointed out that bacteria in the guts of both mice > > and people digest compounds that animals normally cannot, and they > > could thrive on chemicals that would not normally be used as food by > > people or animals. > > > > It�s another example of how the microbiome � the population of > > microbes living in and on our bodies � can have huge effects on > > health. > > > > Most of the study was done in mice. They fed the mice large amounts of > > sweeteners of all kinds and measured their gut bacteria and tested > > their metabolisms. Bacteria living in the intestines and colon are > > known to help digest food, and more and more studies are showing they > > can affect obesity and even appetite, as well as a tendency to > > disease. > > > > Mice fed the sweeteners had definite changes in both gut bacteria and > > metabolism. Sugar did not have the same effect. To make sure it was > > the gut bacteria, the researchers removed bacteria from mice that had > > not eaten sweeteners, and grew them in lab dishes along with > > artificial sweeteners. They then put these sweetener-fed bacteria into > > new mice. The new mice began to show the same changes in metabolism as > > mice directly fed sweeteners. > > > > The main flaws? Artificial sweeteners seemed to encourage a group of > > bacteria called Bacteroides and seemed to kill off another group > > called Clostridiales. Scientists are just beginning to understand what > > kinds of bacteria people have living inside their digestive systems > > and what balance might be healthy. But having too many Bacteroides and > > too few Clostridiales is a pattern sometimes seem in people with > > diabetes. > > > > The researchers used mostly saccharine in their controlled > > experiments, but they said in early tests the mice responded the same > > whatever sweetener they used � saccharine, sucralose, aspartame or > > others. This baffled them, because the sweeteners are chemically very > > different from one another. > > > > It�s worth more research, they said. > > > > Mice are different from people, of course, but they tried the > > experiment in a small group. Seven people who did not normally use > > artificial sweeteners were given large amounts for a week. In four of > > them, their blood sugar shot up and they had other changes to > > metabolism associated with weight gain and pre-diabetes. > > > > Larger studies have also suggested similar patterns � some people are > > adversely affected by sweeteners, while others are not. It may be a > > very individual thing, Segal said. > > > > "Water is the best drink to control our blood sugar.� > > > > �We are identifying many foods which are considered as healthy food to > > have potential adverse effects for large subsets of individuals,� he > > told reporters in a telephone briefing. Genetic differences already > > demonstrate that some people can smoke tobacco with little effect, > > while most develop heart disease or cancer. > > > > �What was super-striking and interesting to us was that we could > > predict ahead of time (who would be affected by the sweeteners),� > > Segal said. They profiled the microbiomes of their volunteers and > > found two distinct patterns. While everyone�s microbiome is different, > > there were larger overall patterns, and these predicted who would be > > affected by the sweeteners, Segal said. > > > > �I think we must stress that by no means are sugary drinks healthy and > > that sugary drinks should be brought back as a healthy part of our > > nutrition,� added Eran Elinav, who led the research. > > > > Researchers not involved in the study were skeptical, but most said > > it�s worth looking into more. > > > > �The study is based primarily on mouse experiments and only seven > > human subjects were studied,� said endocrinologist Dr. Katarina Kos of > > the University of Exeter in Britain. > > > > �Meanwhile, these findings support the widespread understanding that > > water is the healthiest drink option and that we should avoid sweet > > and sweetened drinks. Water is the best drink to control our blood > > sugar.� > > > > First published September 17th 2014, 11:01 am That's one goofy study. Diet soda does not cause obeseity. Obese people are more likely to drink diet soda. That's like claiming large sized clothes cause obeseity. There's no causative link between diet soda and heart disease. That's like saying that there's a link between large sized clothes and heart disease. Who the hell are these "researchers?" Most studies are very flawed. |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
"Bryan-TGWWW" > wrote in message ... > On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:03:21 PM UTC-5, Pico Rico wrote: >> "Bryan-TGWWW" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:05:24 PM UTC-5, Jinx the Minx wrote: >> >> >> Janet Bostwick > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:52:34 -0600, graham > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> NBC Nightly News >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Maggie Fox >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why >> >> >> >> people >> >> >> >> >> >> >> drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first >> >> >> place. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Graham >> >> >> >> >> >> > addiction >> >> >> >> >> >> > Janet US >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Stupidity. >> >> >> >> >> > It is because diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think it is because diet sodas taste chalky and make you thirsty. > > Those of us who enjoy them are more likely to feel that it is because > diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. I find them > thirst quenching. > > --Bryan I suppose if nobody did they would not be on the shelves. |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote: > > First published September 17th 2014, 11:01 am > > That's one goofy study. Diet soda does not cause obeseity. Obese people are > more likely to drink diet soda. That's like claiming large sized clothes > cause obeseity. > > There's no causative link between diet soda and heart disease. That's like > saying that there's a link between large sized clothes and heart disease. > Who the hell are these "researchers?" > > Most studies are very flawed. so the studies you posted on why Diet Coke is good for you wasn't flawed? |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 9/17/2014 12:16 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> > "dsi1" > wrote in message > ... > On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:44:11 AM UTC-10, Janet Bostwick wrote: >> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease >> >> NBC Nightly News >> >> Maggie Fox >> >> >> >> Researchers trying to figure out whether artificial sweeteners really >> >> do make people fat think they�ve found a possible explanation � they >> >> may disrupt the bacteria in some people�s bodies. >> >> >> >> Their findings may shed light on why studies often contradict one >> >> another, with some finding that people who drink lots of diet drinks >> >> are more likely to be obese, with others finding they may help people >> >> keep weight off. >> >> >> >> Their answer: it may depend on what kind of gut bacteria you have to >> >> start with. >> >> >> >> They found clear evidence that artificial sweeteners, including >> >> saccharine and sucralose, can affect gut bacteria, which in turn >> >> affect how food is digested and metabolized. Mice and a very few >> >> people given artificial sweeteners for the first time showed distinct >> >> changes in the way their bodies processed sugar. >> >> >> >> It�s not a final answer, but the study, published in the journal >> >> Nature, may point research in a new direction. �Our findings suggest >> >> that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed >> >> to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to >> >> fight,� they wrote in their report. >> >> >> >> �I think we must stress that by no means are sugary drinks healthy." >> >> >> >> �By no means do we believe that based on the results of this study are >> >> we prepared to make recommendations as to the use and the dose of >> >> artificial sweeteners,� said Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of >> >> Science in Rehovot, Israel, who worked on the study. But, he added, >> >> �In none of these experiments have we seen any beneficial effects.� He >> >> said the findings should at least prompt closer examination of the >> >> very widespread popularity or artificial sweeteners. >> >> >> >> How could artificial sweeteners, which have no calories, affect >> >> metabolism? Segal pointed out that bacteria in the guts of both mice >> >> and people digest compounds that animals normally cannot, and they >> >> could thrive on chemicals that would not normally be used as food by >> >> people or animals. >> >> >> >> It�s another example of how the microbiome � the population of >> >> microbes living in and on our bodies � can have huge effects on >> >> health. >> >> >> >> Most of the study was done in mice. They fed the mice large amounts of >> >> sweeteners of all kinds and measured their gut bacteria and tested >> >> their metabolisms. Bacteria living in the intestines and colon are >> >> known to help digest food, and more and more studies are showing they >> >> can affect obesity and even appetite, as well as a tendency to >> >> disease. >> >> >> >> Mice fed the sweeteners had definite changes in both gut bacteria and >> >> metabolism. Sugar did not have the same effect. To make sure it was >> >> the gut bacteria, the researchers removed bacteria from mice that had >> >> not eaten sweeteners, and grew them in lab dishes along with >> >> artificial sweeteners. They then put these sweetener-fed bacteria into >> >> new mice. The new mice began to show the same changes in metabolism as >> >> mice directly fed sweeteners. >> >> >> >> The main flaws? Artificial sweeteners seemed to encourage a group of >> >> bacteria called Bacteroides and seemed to kill off another group >> >> called Clostridiales. Scientists are just beginning to understand what >> >> kinds of bacteria people have living inside their digestive systems >> >> and what balance might be healthy. But having too many Bacteroides and >> >> too few Clostridiales is a pattern sometimes seem in people with >> >> diabetes. >> >> >> >> The researchers used mostly saccharine in their controlled >> >> experiments, but they said in early tests the mice responded the same >> >> whatever sweetener they used � saccharine, sucralose, aspartame or >> >> others. This baffled them, because the sweeteners are chemically very >> >> different from one another. >> >> >> >> It�s worth more research, they said. >> >> >> >> Mice are different from people, of course, but they tried the >> >> experiment in a small group. Seven people who did not normally use >> >> artificial sweeteners were given large amounts for a week. In four of >> >> them, their blood sugar shot up and they had other changes to >> >> metabolism associated with weight gain and pre-diabetes. >> >> >> >> Larger studies have also suggested similar patterns � some people are >> >> adversely affected by sweeteners, while others are not. It may be a >> >> very individual thing, Segal said. >> >> >> >> "Water is the best drink to control our blood sugar.� >> >> >> >> �We are identifying many foods which are considered as healthy food to >> >> have potential adverse effects for large subsets of individuals,� he >> >> told reporters in a telephone briefing. Genetic differences already >> >> demonstrate that some people can smoke tobacco with little effect, >> >> while most develop heart disease or cancer. >> >> >> >> �What was super-striking and interesting to us was that we could >> >> predict ahead of time (who would be affected by the sweeteners),� >> >> Segal said. They profiled the microbiomes of their volunteers and >> >> found two distinct patterns. While everyone�s microbiome is different, >> >> there were larger overall patterns, and these predicted who would be >> >> affected by the sweeteners, Segal said. >> >> >> >> �I think we must stress that by no means are sugary drinks healthy and >> >> that sugary drinks should be brought back as a healthy part of our >> >> nutrition,� added Eran Elinav, who led the research. >> >> >> >> Researchers not involved in the study were skeptical, but most said >> >> it�s worth looking into more. >> >> >> >> �The study is based primarily on mouse experiments and only seven >> >> human subjects were studied,� said endocrinologist Dr. Katarina Kos of >> >> the University of Exeter in Britain. >> >> >> >> �Meanwhile, these findings support the widespread understanding that >> >> water is the healthiest drink option and that we should avoid sweet >> >> and sweetened drinks. Water is the best drink to control our blood >> >> sugar.� >> >> >> >> First published September 17th 2014, 11:01 am > > That's one goofy study. Diet soda does not cause obeseity. Obese people > are more likely to drink diet soda. That's like claiming large sized > clothes cause obeseity. > > There's no causative link between diet soda and heart disease. That's > like saying that there's a link between large sized clothes and heart > disease. Who the hell are these "researchers?" > > Most studies are very flawed. This one looks like the kind of "studies" high school kids fabricate. |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
I'm skeptical.
1. Where's the peer review? For that matter, where is anything but a news release? It's normal to release the study to a peer-reviewed journal and then talk to the press. 2. The Institute is now offering to tailor a diet for you...presumably for a price, although you can sign up for the program free. http://www.weizmann-usa.org/e-news/1...on-project.htm 3. Who funded the study? It's normal to disclose funding sources for such research and a peer-review journal would require that disclosure. 4. No human testing (and only a minimal amount of animal testing) was done with any artificial sweetener other than saccharine. 5. Where's the mechanism? What mechanism causes the reported changes in gut bacteria. 6. All of these sweeteners use maltodextrin as a bulking agent. Where's the process data showing how maltodextrin was excluded? 7. Where's the dose relationship? All we have from the released information is that people were fed the *maximum* safe dose of saccharine for 7 days. What about lower doses? What's the relationship between dose and effect? How does that dose differ with the various different sweeteners, which are all chemically different from one another? 8. Studies of how sucralose and aspartame are processed in the gut have already been done and no such effects were noted. 9. How did they control for the diet consumed by the test subjects both before and during the test? Did they keep kosher? How much saturated fat was in the diet? -- Mike |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 9/17/2014 7:32 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:49:40 GMT, "Mike Muth" > > wrote: > >> I'm skeptical. >> >> 1. Where's the peer review? For that matter, where is anything >> but a news release? It's normal to release the study to a >> peer-reviewed journal and then talk to the press. > > You MUST NOT question the Net, all ON the Net is real, and true. Neo? >> 2. The Institute is now offering to tailor a diet for >> you...presumably for a price, although you can sign up for the >> program free. > > But you have to live near their location in Israel. Huh? What about Hamas? |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:49:40 GMT, "Mike Muth"
> wrote: >I'm skeptical. snip Perhaps you would prefer to read the article in Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam...ndly-bacteria/ or go to the original article in Nature I merely provided an article for thought But I appreciate the time you took to lay out your criteria for research approbation. Janet US |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:52:09 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote: >On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW > wrote: > >>On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:03:21 PM UTC-5, Pico Rico wrote: > >>> I think it is because diet sodas taste chalky and make you thirsty. >> >>Those of us who enjoy them are more likely to feel that it is because >>diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. I find them >>thirst quenching. > >I always thought that kind of stuff was for children. Wait a moment, I >still think that. I don't understand why adults would want to drink soda. Most don't eat candy, yet they still scoff down the soda... |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:32:20 -0700, The Other Guy
> wrote: >>2. The Institute is now offering to tailor a diet for >>you...presumably for a price, although you can sign up for the >>program free. > >But you have to live near their location in Israel. I guess pork soda is out of the question then. |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:55:25 +1000, JohnJohn >
wrote: >On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:37:53 +1000, Jeßus > wrote: > >>On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:52:09 +1000, JohnJohn > >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW > wrote: >>> >>>>On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:03:21 PM UTC-5, Pico Rico wrote: >>> >>>>> I think it is because diet sodas taste chalky and make you thirsty. >>>> >>>>Those of us who enjoy them are more likely to feel that it is because >>>>diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. I find them >>>>thirst quenching. >>> >>>I always thought that kind of stuff was for children. Wait a moment, I >>>still think that. >> >>I don't understand why adults would want to drink soda. >>Most don't eat candy, yet they still scoff down the soda... > >Maybe they eat candy too. John Candy? |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
"JohnJohn" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:37:53 +1000, Jeßus > wrote: > >>On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:52:09 +1000, JohnJohn > >>wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW > wrote: >>> >>>>On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:03:21 PM UTC-5, Pico Rico wrote: >>> >>>>> I think it is because diet sodas taste chalky and make you thirsty. >>>> >>>>Those of us who enjoy them are more likely to feel that it is because >>>>diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. I find them >>>>thirst quenching. >>> >>>I always thought that kind of stuff was for children. Wait a moment, I >>>still think that. >> >>I don't understand why adults would want to drink soda. >>Most don't eat candy, yet they still scoff down the soda... > > Maybe they eat candy too. Most of the adults I know do eat candy. |
I thinks diet Soda is packed with salt. The reason it is packet with salt is because salt helps to balance out the taste for the lack of sugar. Diet soda doesn't make me eat more, I've never heard of that.
Orange County Gym |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:49:40 GMT, "Mike Muth"
> wrote: >I'm skeptical. > >1. Where's the peer review? For that matter, where is anything >but a news release? It's normal to release the study to a >peer-reviewed journal and then talk to the press. > >2. The Institute is now offering to tailor a diet for >you...presumably for a price, although you can sign up for the >program free. >http://www.weizmann-usa.org/e-news/1...on-project.htm > >3. Who funded the study? It's normal to disclose funding >sources for such research and a peer-review journal would require >that disclosure. > >4. No human testing (and only a minimal amount of animal >testing) was done with any artificial sweetener other than >saccharine. > >5. Where's the mechanism? What mechanism causes the reported >changes in gut bacteria. > >6. All of these sweeteners use maltodextrin as a bulking agent. >Where's the process data showing how maltodextrin was excluded? > >7. Where's the dose relationship? All we have from the released >information is that people were fed the *maximum* safe dose of >saccharine for 7 days. What about lower doses? What's the >relationship between dose and effect? How does that dose differ >with the various different sweeteners, which are all chemically >different from one another? > >8. Studies of how sucralose and aspartame are processed in the >gut have already been done and no such effects were noted. > >9. How did they control for the diet consumed by the test >subjects both before and during the test? Did they keep kosher? >How much saturated fat was in the diet? There is a lot of background at the online site for Nature, Mike. You cannot access the whole article, but you can get a authors' info and a lot more. Why not write to one of them? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13793.html Boron |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 17-Sep-2014, Janet Bostwick > wrote: > Perhaps you would prefer to read the article in Forbes > http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam...ndly-bacteria/ > or go to the original article in Nature The article in Forbes is just an article. I did drill through to "Nature". $32 for the article. I think not. Still, it appears that it has been submitted to a peer-review journal, although not the one I would expect for something medical. Now to wait for responses as people review the data, if they can get it.. I do like the skeptical tone in the last part of the Forbes article. > I merely provided an article for thought I understand and have no problem with that or you. > But I appreciate the time you took to lay out your criteria for > research approbation. I'm sorry if I cam across as critical of you. I did not intend to. I was a bit disturbed by the way so many on-line publications and new sources jumped on this without seeing or citing the study. One publication seems to have published a somewhat informed article and the herd of "journalists" jumped on the band wagon. It's ineresting that Atkins (40 years ago) recommended supplementation (particularly acidophilus) to maintain gut bacterial health and balance. I'm still put off by most of the points I mention, though - especially the conclusions drawn about artificial sweeteners in general when the study was essentially focused on saccharine after the initial rounds of tests on mice. This is pretty obvious from the data points shown below abstract of the article. The supplementary data make no mention of artificial sweeteners other than saccharine. My point about the maltodextrin used in the sweeteners still remains. The study used commercially available sweeteners. Also, no word of who funded the study. Weizmann Institute is a for-profit research organization. Money for this came from somewhere. [on a personal note: Studies like this and the publicity they receive always remind me of the 7 nations study (the flawed study which used cherry-picked data and led to the present low-fat dietary guidelines) and the "study" which linked Autism to vaccines.] -- Mike |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
"Mike Mouth" wrote:
>Janet Bostwick wrote: > >> Perhaps you would prefer to read the article in Forbes >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam...ndly-bacteria/ >> or go to the original article in Nature > >The article in Forbes is just an article. I did drill through to >"Nature". $32 for the article. I think not. > >Still, it appears that it has been submitted to a peer-review >journal, although not the one I would expect for something >medical. Now to wait for responses as people review the data, if >they can get it.. > >I do like the skeptical tone in the last part of the Forbes >article. > >> I merely provided an article for thought > >I understand and have no problem with that or you. > >> But I appreciate the time you took to lay out your criteria for >> research approbation. > >I'm sorry if I cam across as critical of you. I did not intend >to. I was a bit disturbed by the way so many on-line >publications and new sources jumped on this without seeing or >citing the study. One publication seems to have published a >somewhat informed article and the herd of "journalists" jumped on >the band wagon. > >It's ineresting that Atkins (40 years ago) recommended >supplementation (particularly acidophilus) to maintain gut >bacterial health and balance. > >I'm still put off by most of the points I mention, though - >especially the conclusions drawn about artificial sweeteners in >general when the study was essentially focused on saccharine >after the initial rounds of tests on mice. This is pretty >obvious from the data points shown below abstract of the article. > The supplementary data make no mention of artificial sweeteners >other than saccharine. > >My point about the maltodextrin used in the sweeteners still >remains. The study used commercially available sweeteners. > >Also, no word of who funded the study. Weizmann Institute is a >for-profit research organization. Money for this came from >somewhere. > >[on a personal note: Studies like this and the publicity they >receive always remind me of the 7 nations study (the flawed study >which used cherry-picked data and led to the present low-fat >dietary guidelines) and the "study" which linked Autism to >vaccines.] Everything in moderation... everyone has to die of something... you are going to die from verbosity, sound and fury saying nothing. |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 18/09/2014 5:01 AM, Mike Muth wrote:
> On 17-Sep-2014, Janet Bostwick > wrote: > >> Perhaps you would prefer to read the article in Forbes >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam...ndly-bacteria/ >> or go to the original article in Nature > > The article in Forbes is just an article. I did drill through to > "Nature". $32 for the article. I think not. > > Still, it appears that it has been submitted to a peer-review > journal, although not the one I would expect for something > medical. FFS, "Nature" is the most widely respected scientific journal out there! Graham |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 18-Sep-2014, graham > wrote: > > Still, it appears that it has been submitted to a peer-review > > journal, although not the one I would expect for something > > medical. > > FFS, "Nature" is the most widely respected scientific journal > out there! I wasn't knocking Nature. I just think that something like this is more often published in pubs like Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, or The Journal of American Medicine. I,m not sure why something like this didn't wind up there or in something devoted to nutrition. -- Mike |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:49:40 GMT, "Mike Muth"
> wrote: >I'm skeptical. Ok...let's take this a bit at a time.... > >1. Where's the peer review? For that matter, where is anything >but a news release? It's normal to release the study to a >peer-reviewed journal and then talk to the press. That is cleared up now, isn't it? Nature is, of course, a respected, peer-reviewed journal. > >2. The Institute is now offering to tailor a diet for >you...presumably for a price, although you can sign up for the >program free. >http://www.weizmann-usa.org/e-news/1...on-project.htm This isn't a 1 room schoolhouse, but a huge research institution. They do a lot. The link above is really about another one of their research projects. That is what these guys do...research....and they do a *lot* of it about nutrition. This isn't Mercola or Dr. Oz. No ducks visible. >3. Who funded the study? It's normal to disclose funding >sources for such research and a peer-review journal would require >that disclosure. It is more normal to disclose potential conflicts of interest, which is done at the Nature page. > >4. No human testing (and only a minimal amount of animal >testing) was done with any artificial sweetener other than >saccharine. No so. Go read up on it some more. > >5. Where's the mechanism? What mechanism causes the reported >changes in gut bacteria. This is one research paper, not the Rosetta Stone. One step at a time. > >6. All of these sweeteners use maltodextrin as a bulking agent. >Where's the process data showing how maltodextrin was excluded? I do not know why you think you came up with something these guys might have overlooked. Whey not write to one of them? > >7. Where's the dose relationship? All we have from the released >information is that people were fed the *maximum* safe dose of >saccharine for 7 days. What about lower doses? What's the >relationship between dose and effect? How does that dose differ >with the various different sweeteners, which are all chemically >different from one another? There is a lot more to the research than that. Again, if you want the details, you will have to pay. > >8. Studies of how sucralose and aspartame are processed in the >gut have already been done and no such effects were noted. Well, now there is some research that shows it. All you need to know about how quickly these areas are advancing insofar as detectability is in that invitation to participate in the study you cited above. That would have been impossible even a few short years ago. > >9. How did they control for the diet consumed by the test >subjects both before and during the test? Did they keep kosher? >How much saturated fat was in the diet? There are a *lot* of statisticians listed on the paper. Between their expertise and that of the clinicians in setting up sample and controlling for variables, I do not see any specific places you can shoot holes in this so far. The study authors cannot be blamed for any of the publicity and ****-poor media write-ups the article engenders. I am not going to pay $BigBucks for the full Nature article, either, and little of the actual article is available for free, but the studies did cover saccharine, aspartame and sucralose. Keep in mind that the Nature article is key, not the NBC or Forbes write-ups. As you and I know, science writing in the media is pretty rotten. The microbiome research is really in its infancy and it is this general finding that I find the most interesting. There is no question that the gut mix plays a huge role in absorption, protection and any other number of things that are just being looked into. Still, the article is a peer-reviewed and in Nature, not some self-published piece of crap online. The authors and the Weizmann Institute of Science all have good reps, too, the Institute in particular is as highly rated as it gets. You'd be hard pressed to find negative press about their scientific and medical integrity. Boron |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:01:57 GMT, "Mike Muth"
> wrote: > >On 17-Sep-2014, Janet Bostwick > wrote: > >> Perhaps you would prefer to read the article in Forbes >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam...ndly-bacteria/ >> or go to the original article in Nature > >The article in Forbes is just an article. I did drill through to >"Nature". $32 for the article. I think not. > >Still, it appears that it has been submitted to a peer-review >journal, although not the one I would expect for something >medical. Now to wait for responses as people review the data, if >they can get it.. > >I do like the skeptical tone in the last part of the Forbes >article. > >> I merely provided an article for thought > >I understand and have no problem with that or you. > >> But I appreciate the time you took to lay out your criteria for >> research approbation. > >I'm sorry if I cam across as critical of you. I did not intend >to. I was a bit disturbed by the way so many on-line >publications and new sources jumped on this without seeing or >citing the study. One publication seems to have published a >somewhat informed article and the herd of "journalists" jumped on >the band wagon. > >It's ineresting that Atkins (40 years ago) recommended >supplementation (particularly acidophilus) to maintain gut >bacterial health and balance. > >I'm still put off by most of the points I mention, though - >especially the conclusions drawn about artificial sweeteners in >general when the study was essentially focused on saccharine >after the initial rounds of tests on mice. This is pretty >obvious from the data points shown below abstract of the article. > The supplementary data make no mention of artificial sweeteners >other than saccharine. > >My point about the maltodextrin used in the sweeteners still >remains. The study used commercially available sweeteners. > >Also, no word of who funded the study. Weizmann Institute is a >for-profit research organization. Money for this came from >somewhere. > >[on a personal note: Studies like this and the publicity they >receive always remind me of the 7 nations study (the flawed study >which used cherry-picked data and led to the present low-fat >dietary guidelines) and the "study" which linked Autism to >vaccines.] You and I looked at different things. I immediately noticed how often the word 'may' or similar was used. That made me comfortable. No one was telling me this was ironclad fact. Then, I was fascinated by the idea that gut bacteria populations may be altered and thus may cause a problem with certain individuals of the human population. Of course, I have no problem accepting gut bacteria alteration when taking medication. But, soda? However, last month? there was a study that purported that diet soda may lead to heart disease. It seems diet soda is under scrutiny. Janet US |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 9/17/2014 5:52 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:03:21 PM UTC-5, Pico Rico wrote: > >>> I think it is because diet sodas taste chalky and make you thirsty. >> >> Those of us who enjoy them are more likely to feel that it is because >> diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. I find them >> thirst quenching. > > I always thought that kind of stuff was for children. Wait a moment, I > still think that. Parents should not give artificial sweeteners to children, unless they have a medical reason, their bodies are still forming. If adults want to drink them, that is their choice. Becca |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 9/17/2014 2:52 PM, graham wrote:
> On 17/09/2014 12:44 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote: >> Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease >> NBC Nightly News >> Maggie Fox >> > A more interesting study might be one that tries to determine why people > drink such large quantities of these junk drinks in the first place. > Graham > That would be key, Graham, since I doubt mice actually drink diet soda. ;) Jill |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:01:57 GMT, "Mike Muth" > > wrote: > >> >>On 17-Sep-2014, Janet Bostwick > wrote: >> >>> Perhaps you would prefer to read the article in Forbes >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam...ndly-bacteria/ >>> or go to the original article in Nature >> >>The article in Forbes is just an article. I did drill through to >>"Nature". $32 for the article. I think not. >> >>Still, it appears that it has been submitted to a peer-review >>journal, although not the one I would expect for something >>medical. Now to wait for responses as people review the data, if >>they can get it.. >> >>I do like the skeptical tone in the last part of the Forbes >>article. >> >>> I merely provided an article for thought >> >>I understand and have no problem with that or you. >> >>> But I appreciate the time you took to lay out your criteria for >>> research approbation. >> >>I'm sorry if I cam across as critical of you. I did not intend >>to. I was a bit disturbed by the way so many on-line >>publications and new sources jumped on this without seeing or >>citing the study. One publication seems to have published a >>somewhat informed article and the herd of "journalists" jumped on >>the band wagon. >> >>It's ineresting that Atkins (40 years ago) recommended >>supplementation (particularly acidophilus) to maintain gut >>bacterial health and balance. >> >>I'm still put off by most of the points I mention, though - >>especially the conclusions drawn about artificial sweeteners in >>general when the study was essentially focused on saccharine >>after the initial rounds of tests on mice. This is pretty >>obvious from the data points shown below abstract of the article. >> The supplementary data make no mention of artificial sweeteners >>other than saccharine. >> >>My point about the maltodextrin used in the sweeteners still >>remains. The study used commercially available sweeteners. >> >>Also, no word of who funded the study. Weizmann Institute is a >>for-profit research organization. Money for this came from >>somewhere. >> >>[on a personal note: Studies like this and the publicity they >>receive always remind me of the 7 nations study (the flawed study >>which used cherry-picked data and led to the present low-fat >>dietary guidelines) and the "study" which linked Autism to >>vaccines.] > > You and I looked at different things. I immediately noticed how often > the word 'may' or similar was used. That made me comfortable. No one > was telling me this was ironclad fact. Then, I was fascinated by the > idea that gut bacteria populations may be altered and thus may cause a > problem with certain individuals of the human population. Of course, > I have no problem accepting gut bacteria alteration when taking > medication. But, soda? > However, last month? there was a study that purported that diet soda > may lead to heart disease. It seems diet soda is under scrutiny. Of course it is and so are countless other things. Like eggs, dairy, red meat... |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
"Becca EmaNymton" > wrote in message ... > On 9/17/2014 5:52 PM, JohnJohn wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW >> > wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:03:21 PM UTC-5, Pico Rico wrote: >> >>>> I think it is because diet sodas taste chalky and make you thirsty. >>> >>> Those of us who enjoy them are more likely to feel that it is because >>> diet soft drinks taste good and feel good going down. I find them >>> thirst quenching. >> >> I always thought that kind of stuff was for children. Wait a moment, I >> still think that. > > Parents should not give artificial sweeteners to children, unless they > have a medical reason, their bodies are still forming. If adults want to > drink them, that is their choice. Says who? |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
Sent by e-mail because I find rfc isn't a good place to conduct a rational discussion. On 18-Sep-2014, Boron Elgar > wrote: > >4. No human testing (and only a minimal amount of animal > >testing) was done with any artificial sweetener other than > >saccharine. > > No so. Go read up on it some more. I did. Their own statements and the data sets make it clear that human testing was only done with saccharine. Because the first tests with mice showed similar results for other sweeteners, the saccharine results were extrapolated onto other sweeteners. Really, they do say that. > >5. Where's the mechanism? What mechanism causes the reported > >changes in gut bacteria. > This is one research paper, not the Rosetta Stone. One step at > a time. Perhaps, but without a plausible mechanism, it could be that the data was skewed by something else. Saturated fats, carbohydrates, and other dietary elements. What did the test subjects eat in the weeks before the test and during the test. And, let's not forget that the sweeteners they used are bulked up with maltodextrin, which has a higher glycemic index than glucose. Perhaps it was the maltodextrin which is the culprit. > >6. All of these sweeteners use maltodextrin as a bulking > >agent. > >Where's the process data showing how maltodextrin was > >excluded? > I do not know why you think you came up with something these > guys might have overlooked. Whey not write to one of them? I've done that (written) with other studies in the past. When I got a response, it was along the lines of: "maltodextrin has minimal effect" or "we used what was on the market." The write-up indicated they used "commercially available sweeteners", although it seems to only been saccharine after the early round(s). > >7. Where's the dose relationship? All we have from the > >released > >information is that people were fed the *maximum* safe dose of > >saccharine for 7 days. What about lower doses? What's the > >relationship between dose and effect? How does that dose > >differ > >with the various different sweeteners, which are all > >chemically > >different from one another? > > There is a lot more to the research than that. Again, if you > want the details, you will have to pay. The datasets and supplemental data made available with the Nature article seem to indicate that dosage was constant. Yeah, I'm not willing to pay unless I also get to find out who funded the study. > >9. How did they control for the diet consumed by the test > >subjects both before and during the test? Did they keep > >kosher? > >How much saturated fat was in the diet? > > There are a *lot* of statisticians listed on the paper. Between > their > expertise and that of the clinicians in setting up sample and > controlling for variables, I do not see any specific places you > can shoot holes in this so far. Lots of statisticians is no guarantee. Nutritional studies are almost always riddled with major holes. Unless you put the test subjects in a controlled environment, you can't control for dietary variables. > but the > studies did cover saccharine, aspartame and sucralose. Keep in > mind > that the Nature article is key, not the NBC or Forbes > write-ups. As > you and I know, science writing in the media is pretty rotten. I always drill through to the peer-reviewed journal. I receive a few of the less pricey ones. The data in Nature indicates that aspartame and sucralose were only used in early testing on mice. The leap of faith that similar results on rodents would mean similar results in humans has been taken before and was not valid. For example, saccharine was reported to cause tumors in lab rats. Well, it did, but lab rats metabolize saccharine differently from people, so limits imposed because of those studies were lifted in 2000. Many studies fail to produce good results because of faulty assumptions. For example early studies on diet assumed that high total cholesterol and high LDL cholesterol levels were good heart-health markers. Only it turns out that they aren't. A whole nutritional approach has been built on those false assumptions. (HDL, Triglyceride, and small,dense LDL levels are the markers to use). > The microbiome research is really in its infancy and it is this > general finding that I find the most interesting. There is no > question that the gut mix plays a huge role in absorption, > protection and any > other number of things that are just being looked into. I don't have an issue with the idea that the composition of gut flora affects digestion. I find it hard to accept that gut flora determine glucose tolerance and insulin response. That's the mechanism I would like to see explained. Oh, and I really would like to know who funded the study. The disclosure on the article indicates that the paper's authors had no conflicts of interest. Okay, so they weren't employed by the funding source. But, who paid for it? -- Mike |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 9/18/2014 1:01 AM, Mike Muth wrote:
> On 17-Sep-2014, Janet Bostwick > wrote: > >> Perhaps you would prefer to read the article in Forbes >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam...ndly-bacteria/ >> or go to the original article in Nature > > The article in Forbes is just an article. I did drill through to > "Nature". $32 for the article. I think not. > > Still, it appears that it has been submitted to a peer-review > journal, although not the one I would expect for something > medical. Now to wait for responses as people review the data, if > they can get it.. > > I do like the skeptical tone in the last part of the Forbes > article. > >> I merely provided an article for thought > > I understand and have no problem with that or you. > >> But I appreciate the time you took to lay out your criteria for >> research approbation. > > I'm sorry if I cam across as critical of you. I did not intend > to. I was a bit disturbed by the way so many on-line > publications and new sources jumped on this without seeing or > citing the study. One publication seems to have published a > somewhat informed article and the herd of "journalists" jumped on > the band wagon. This is the kind of silly material that grabs the public's imagination these days. The reality is that diet soda does not cause obesity, diabetes, or heart disease. Mostly, I see it as the sanctioned abuse of mouses, mice, and meeces. > > It's ineresting that Atkins (40 years ago) recommended > supplementation (particularly acidophilus) to maintain gut > bacterial health and balance. Nearly all Asians and black folks cannot maintain a viable colony of gut bacteria that helps them digest milk products. Most white folks don't have this problem which probably accounts for this being a non-issue since the 70s. These days, probiotics are all the rage. Unfortunately, it's just another fad and the latest hot marketing term. > > I'm still put off by most of the points I mention, though - > especially the conclusions drawn about artificial sweeteners in > general when the study was essentially focused on saccharine > after the initial rounds of tests on mice. This is pretty > obvious from the data points shown below abstract of the article. > The supplementary data make no mention of artificial sweeteners > other than saccharine. > > My point about the maltodextrin used in the sweeteners still > remains. The study used commercially available sweeteners. > > Also, no word of who funded the study. Weizmann Institute is a > for-profit research organization. Money for this came from > somewhere. > > [on a personal note: Studies like this and the publicity they > receive always remind me of the 7 nations study (the flawed study > which used cherry-picked data and led to the present low-fat > dietary guidelines) and the "study" which linked Autism to > vaccines.] > |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:44:28 GMT, "Mike Muth"
> wrote: > >On 18-Sep-2014, graham > wrote: > >> > Still, it appears that it has been submitted to a peer-review >> > journal, although not the one I would expect for something >> > medical. >> >> FFS, "Nature" is the most widely respected scientific journal >> out there! > >I wasn't knocking Nature. I just think that something like this >is more often published in pubs like Lancet, The New England >Journal of Medicine, or The Journal of American Medicine. I,m >not sure why something like this didn't wind up there or in >something devoted to nutrition. They publish all sorts of things. This particular article is not unusual at all. There is not one thing unusual about the topic being published in Nature.. http://www.nature.com/nature/researc...y_subject.html |
How Can Diet Sodas Make You Fat? Study May Explain It
On 9/18/2014 12:46 AM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:32:20 -0700, The Other Guy > > wrote: > >>> 2. The Institute is now offering to tailor a diet for >>> you...presumably for a price, although you can sign up for the >>> program free. >> >> But you have to live near their location in Israel. > > I guess pork soda is out of the question then. > LOL! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter