"...aspartame – was associated with a 17% increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were linked to increased risk of coronary heart disease."
Here we go again! Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives ever with respect to safety and the general consensus from ~40 years of research and dozens of research teams is that it's safe–that is, up until now.
If this chemical is dangerous then why hasn't any of the copious research demonstrated any causal effects up until now? Moreover, aspartame is a relatively simple molecule and its breakdown metabolites are also simple and that the elimination of them from the body is well understood.
Like millions, I've a vested interest in these sweeteners. I'm not diabetic but I try to avoid sugar as much as I can so I'm a consumer of them.
Stories like this aren't very helpful if science repeatedly hits dead ends in its attempts to show why these sweeteners are dangerous and always concludes they're not.
If the sweeteners themselves aren't dangerous per se then perhaps there's some other factor involved such as the way we actually consume sweetened food.
It demonstrates over and over that nutrition and human physiology is difficult to analyze because of the widely varied operation of individuals as well as all the comorbidities that are impossible to account for.
Yeah, reckon you're right. Trouble is with the obesity epidemic and the huge increase in diabetes in recent years which one has the worse outcome? Do we switch back to sugar or continue to promote and use artificial sweeteners?
In the grand scheme of things perhaps artificial sweeteners are the lesser evil but it seems to me we've still no reasonable
- let alone definitive - handle on the facts. Determining that ought to be a top priority.
Another worrying aspect of this study is that media hype and scaremongering could likely be the result thus frighten off many who'd actually derive a net benefit from continuing to use artificial sweeteners. Given the past and ongoing controversy they generate, this would not come as unexpected.
It is why it's imperative that this study be either replicated or debunked by others ASAP. The current controversy has gone on long enough without it being made worse by this study.
Incidentally, I say that as a somewhat independent observer with few personal issues to grind. For example neither the consumption of sugar nor artificial sweeteners has been a large issue for me personally (and I hope it remains that way).
The reason is that I find the typical amount of sweetener (of any type but especially so artificial varieties) that is added to many commercial food products (especially drinks, colas, etc.) makes them far too sweet for my liking which means it's easy for me to consume much less of them. This puts me well below what food technologists call the sweetness bliss point which is the optimal or preferred sweetness level of a majority of consumers.
Whilst that fact is of no help to others, it seems to me that decreasing the bliss point ought to be an integral if not essential part of the effort to reduce the incidents of these health problems.
Over many years food manufacturers have deliberately increased the sweetness of their products to increase sales, ipso facto, this has increased the average bliss point. This is serious as lowering this satisfaction threshold will be very difficult to achieve in practice.
That the bliss point has increased over recent decades is in no doubt. For example, chocolate from a well-known manufacturer that's been around for well over a hundred years and that I once found enjoyable is now too sweet for me to eat.
Moreover, this is an actual increase in the
level of sweetness of the product and not just my perception of it having changed, as others have noticed the fact whether they like the increased sweetness or not.
I admit I’m happy to see this but I really wish we could come up with some research methodology that shows causation. This “linked to” thing is pretty hard to use as evidence to use in discussions with real humans.
For context, my family is entirely sucrose and fructose free and do not have any artificial sweeteners and my extended family finds this very very ridiculous and even harmful for toddlers.
Do you mean added sugars or fake sugars, or are you really trying to make due with polysaccharides and a little bit of glucose? Didn’t think ketosis is a good long term source of energy…. The engine is build to run on sugar (Krebs cycle).
I mean both fake, added and natural. My family does not have any sweet fruits, for example. I myself am pure carnivore but my children do have broccoli and cauliflower.
You’re correct that Krebs cycle is involved but it’s a cycle so the inputs do not have to be solely carbohydrates.
well, keep an eye on what this diet does to liver and kidneys and if it's high-fat watch out for gallstones. But hey, if it works for you and you can do what you need to do, go for it.
Thank you! That’s quite an open attitude and I really appreciate it. I have many doctor family members that do not share it.
I’m almost 6 years deep to this diet and my yearly lipid/glucose/blood work up has been all good. Both my actual doctor and my family members have been very concerned about my BUN and creatinine levels.
I would think so, as those numbers being high cause a “reduce protein” discussion. Perhaps check your uric acid from time to time so as to avoid gout as this is usually omitted when testing.
Hah, I’m not sure if one point of anecdata can be meaningfully drawn on but at the very least I’m hopeful that the idea of children categorically not-consuming sweet foods becomes less demonized over time. Im sure my children when older will make their own decisions but not giving ice cream to a 2 year old isn’t harmful.
Here we go again! Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives ever with respect to safety and the general consensus from ~40 years of research and dozens of research teams is that it's safe–that is, up until now.
If this chemical is dangerous then why hasn't any of the copious research demonstrated any causal effects up until now? Moreover, aspartame is a relatively simple molecule and its breakdown metabolites are also simple and that the elimination of them from the body is well understood.
Like millions, I've a vested interest in these sweeteners. I'm not diabetic but I try to avoid sugar as much as I can so I'm a consumer of them.
Stories like this aren't very helpful if science repeatedly hits dead ends in its attempts to show why these sweeteners are dangerous and always concludes they're not.
If the sweeteners themselves aren't dangerous per se then perhaps there's some other factor involved such as the way we actually consume sweetened food.