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

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

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

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

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

"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.

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.

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

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:56:18 AM UTC-5, JonesCrow wrote:
> 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.
>
Diet soda is not "packed with salt."
>
>
> --
>
> JonesCrow

--Bryan

On 9/19/2014 6:03 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:56:18 AM UTC-5, JonesCrow wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Diet soda is not "packed with salt."

You are right:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/27...n-soft-drinks/

Drinking a 12-ounce can of cola gives you around 12 milligrams of
sodium. Low-calorie caffeinated diet colas can have up to 24 milligrams
of sodium in 12 ounces. But usually noncaffeinated diet colas have about
the same 12 milligrams of sodium as regular colas. Regular caffeinated
pepper-type soft drinks have 36 milligrams of sodium in 12 ounces. If
you prefer caffeinated low-calorie pepper-flavored soft drinks, you’ll
get up to 60 milligrams of sodium, while noncaffeinated diet varieties
have around 12 milligrams per 12-ounce serving.

You can have up to 2,300 milligrams of sodium daily, as long as you’re
healthy. So that 12-ounce can of cola represents less than 3 percent of
your entire sodium allowance for the day. According to the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans 2010, if you have kidney problems, diabetes or
hypertension, or you are living with another chronic ailment, you should
limit your daily sodium intake to 1,500 milligrams. If you are in this
category, depending on which soft drink you choose, one can has up to 5
percent of your daily sodium allowance.

On Friday, September 19, 2014 7:10:52 PM UTC-5, Mayo wrote:
> On 9/19/2014 6:03 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:56:18 AM UTC-5, JonesCrow wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> >>
>
> > Diet soda is not "packed with salt."
>
>
>
> You are right:
>
>
>
> http://www.livestrong.com/article/27...n-soft-drinks/
>
>
>
> Drinking a 12-ounce can of cola gives you around 12 milligrams of
>
> sodium. Low-calorie caffeinated diet colas can have up to 24 milligrams
>
> of sodium in 12 ounces. But usually noncaffeinated diet colas have about
>
> the same 12 milligrams of sodium as regular colas. Regular caffeinated
>
> pepper-type soft drinks have 36 milligrams of sodium in 12 ounces. If
>
> you prefer caffeinated low-calorie pepper-flavored soft drinks, you�ll
>
> get up to 60 milligrams of sodium, while noncaffeinated diet varieties
>
> have around 12 milligrams per 12-ounce serving.
>
>
>
> You can have up to 2,300 milligrams of sodium daily, as long as you�re
>
> healthy. So that 12-ounce can of cola represents less than 3 percent of
>
> your entire sodium allowance for the day. According to the Dietary
>
> Guidelines for Americans 2010, if you have kidney problems, diabetes or
>
> hypertension, or you are living with another chronic ailment, you should
>
> limit your daily sodium intake to 1,500 milligrams. If you are in this
>
> category, depending on which soft drink you choose, one can has up to 5
>
> percent of your daily sodium allowance.

On work days I have more than 1500mg before 6 AM.
1 McD's sausage biscuit 1080mg
2 slices cheese 442mg
--------
1522mg

Lunch is probably 2000-3000, and dinner, another 1000-2000 or so.

So, I overshoot the sweet spot sometimes, but seldom undershoot.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/CHF/29857

--Bryan

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

Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
>Study Suggests Link Between Diet Soda and Heart Disease

Probably diet soda with too much scotch. LOL

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?"

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.

"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.

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?

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.

On 9/17/2014 4:44 PM, dsi1 wrote:

>>
>> 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.


>
> 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.

I'd give it a "maybe". If the chemicals in artificial sweeteners do
disrupt or change the digestive system I can see it is "possible" to
cause weight gain.

Note, I did say "possible" not "it does"

On 9/18/2014 8:39 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/17/2014 4:44 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I'd give it a "maybe". If the chemicals in artificial sweeteners do
> disrupt or change the digestive system I can see it is "possible" to
> cause weight gain.
>
> Note, I did say "possible" not "it does"

I think it could be possible too but as a practical matter, any effect
of giving up diet soda would be unlikely to result in weight loss.
That's just my awesome opinion.

My guess is that we could reduce the usage of these drinks by removing
caffeine and adding a percentage of sugars to the mix. OTOH, what soft
drink manufacturer would want to discourage people from promiscuously
drinking the stuff?

My take on this is that, this report aside, diet soda will continue to
take over market share. Diet soda the freaking wave of the future!

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/18/2014 8:39 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 9/17/2014 4:44 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I'd give it a "maybe". If the chemicals in artificial sweeteners do
>> disrupt or change the digestive system I can see it is "possible" to
>> cause weight gain.
>>
>> Note, I did say "possible" not "it does"
>
> I think it could be possible too but as a practical matter, any effect of
> giving up diet soda would be unlikely to result in weight loss. That's
> just my awesome opinion.
>
> My guess is that we could reduce the usage of these drinks by removing
> caffeine and adding a percentage of sugars to the mix. OTOH, what soft
> drink manufacturer would want to discourage people from promiscuously
> drinking the stuff?
>
> My take on this is that, this report aside, diet soda will continue to
> take over market share. Diet soda the freaking wave of the future!

I had a male coworker who switched from regular soda to diet. Made no other
changes to diet or exercise. Lost 10 pounds very quickly.

"Julie Bove" wrote:
>
>I had a male coworker who switched from regular soda to diet. Made no other
>changes to diet or exercise. Lost 10 pounds very quickly.

But you lost no weight, in fact you gained ten pounds... because your
coworker ate salads, fresh fruit, and exercised with his two cans of
diet soda... you on the other had sucked down 12-16 cans of diet soda
and used it to wash down greasy fries and fat tube steaks. Why does
it matter that it was a male coworker... coulda been just a
coworker... are you insinuating that it was a male coworker because
you sucked his dick?

On 9/18/2014 11:16 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>
> I had a male coworker who switched from regular soda to diet. Made no
> other changes to diet or exercise. Lost 10 pounds very quickly.

Results not typical, your results may vary. :-)

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).

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

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

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

"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.

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

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

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

"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...

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:17:16 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:


>
>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


There is a decent write-up of the Nature article in Science News. It
gives more detailed info.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...bolic-problems

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.]
>

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

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

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

On 9/17/2014 7:49 PM, 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.

It was published in Nature (ISSN: 0028-0836) just a few days ago.
Nature is one of the top scientific research journals.

"Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut
microbiota"
by Jotham Suez, Tal Korem, David Zeevi, Gili Zilberman-Schapira,
Christoph A. Thaiss, Ori Maza, David Israeli, Niv Zmora, Shlomit
Gilad, Adina Weinberger, Yael Kuperman, Alon Harmelin, Ilana
Kolodkin-Gal, Hagit Shapiro, Zamir Halpern, Eran Segal & Eran Elinav

Contributions
J.S. conceived the project, designed and performed experiments,
interpreted the results, and wrote the manuscript. T.K., D.Z. and
G.Z.-S. performed the computational and metagenomic microbiota
analysis and the analysis of the retrospective and prospective human
study, and are listed alphabetically. C.A.T., O.M., A.W. and H.S.
helped with experiments. Y.K. helped with the metabolic cage
experiments. S.G. designed the metagenomic library protocols and
generated the libraries. I.K.-G. performed the SCFA quantification
experiments. D.I., N.Z., and Z.H. performed and supervised human
experimentation. A.H. supervised the germ-free mouse experiments. E.S.
and E.E. conceived and directed the project, designed experiments,
interpreted the results, and wrote the manuscript.

>
> 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

Doesn't look like there's a fee. It looks like you are agreeing to
participate in the research study by joining it. You get a
personalized diet, they get data.

>
> 3. Who funded the study? It's normal to disclose funding
> sources for such research and a peer-review journal would require
> that disclosure.

"We thank the Weizmann Institute management and the Nancy and Stephen
Grand Israel National Center for Personalized Medicine (INCPM) for
providing financial and infrastructure support."

"Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests."

>
> 4. No human testing (and only a minimal amount of animal
> testing) was done with any artificial sweetener other than
> saccharine.

They limited the human testing to saccharin because they discovered
that saccharin had the most pronounced effect on gut biota.

>
> 5. Where's the mechanism? What mechanism causes the reported
> changes in gut bacteria.

"Since diet modulates the gut microbiota15, and microbiota alterations
exert profound effects on host physiology and metabolism, we tested
whether the microbiota may regulate the observed NAS (Non-caloric
artificial sweeteners) effects...These results suggest that
NAS-induced glucose intolerance is mediated through alterations to the
commensal microbiota, with contributions from diverse bacterial
taxa...We next examined the faecal microbiota composition of our
various mouse groups by sequencing their 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Mice
drinking saccharin had a distinct microbiota composition that
clustered separately from both their starting microbiome
configurations and from all control groups at week 11 (Fig. 1g).
Likewise, microbiota in germ-free recipients of stools from
saccharin-consuming donor mice clustered separately from that of
germ-free recipients of glucose-drinking donor stools (Fig. 1h).
Compared to all control groups, the microbiota of saccharin-consuming
mice displayed considerable dysbiosis, with more than 40 operational
taxonomic units (OTUs) significantly altered in abundance"

>
> 6. All of these sweeteners use maltodextrin as a bulking agent.
> Where's the process data showing how maltodextrin was excluded?

"Since all three commercial NAS comprise ~5% sweetener and ~95%
glucose, we used as controls mice drinking only water or water
supplemented with either glucose or sucrose."

>
> 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?

I give up. Go to the library and read the article. You'll find the
information there.

>
> 8. Studies of how sucralose and aspartame are processed in the
> gut have already been done and no such effects were noted.

According to the article, some studies showed an association, and
others did not.

>
> 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?
>

Read the article in Nature.

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?

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.