• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Low-calorie sweeteners may increase likelihood of storing body fat

DCUK NewsBot

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,059
People who regularly consume the low-calorie sweetener sucralose may be putting themselves at greater risk of putting on weight, US researchers suggest. The findings from a study by the George Washington University also suggest that weight gain may in turn increase the risk of developing metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. Metabolic syndrome is a collective term for risk factors, including unhealthy cholesterol levels, abdominal fat, high blood pressure and high blood sugar, which increases the risk of heart attacks, stroke and type 2 diabetes. In the first part of the study, the effects of a common low-calorie sweetener called sucralose were examined on human-derived stem cells from fat tissue in a laboratory experiment over 12 days. Lead rsearcher Dr Sabyasachi Sen said: "Our stem cell-based studies indicate that low-calorie sweeteners promote additional fat accumulation within cells compared with cells not exposed to these substances, in a dose-dependent fashion - meaning that as the dose of sucralose is increased more cells showed increased fat droplet accumulation. "This most likely occurs by increasing glucose entry into cells through increased activity of genes called glucose transporters." The researchers believe the effect is more pronounced in overweight people because of increased insulin resistance and more glucose in the blood. In a further test, the researchers looked at abdominal fat samples taken from 18 participants who regularly consumed low-calorie sweeteners consumers, four of whom were at a healthy weight; the rest were overweight. Among frequent consumers of low-calorie sweeteners, the scientists noticed a rise in certain genes linked to increased fat production and inflammation. These findings matched the effects that occurred in the stem cell experiment. The results showed a greater increase in activity leading to increased fat production in the people who were obese. This experiment had also previously been carried out by the team involving eight people and the results were similar. Dr Sen added: "Because we found the same results with the, larger sample size, we have much more confidence that low-calorie sweeteners are causing metabolic dysfunction." The findings of the study were presented at an Endocrine Society meeting, which took place in Chicago on March 18.

Continue reading...
 
Totally agree with this article. Wish I had known about the effect of sweeteners 40 years ago.
 
OMG!!!!!!

all those years of low-fat, sweetner-laden foods.......................no wonder my metabolism is a mess. Although I still maintain that paroxetine is what gave me insulin resistance. I havent gained weight before or since using the stuff.
 
Splenda in my coffee use about 8 to 10 a day
 
This is a very confused article, and possibly incorrect/

It starts ok and the science bit says it led to an increase in fat droplets being stored - ie. lipids. This was further emphasised in that the follow on study looked at the adipose tissue fat , which again is lipid storage, not glucogen,

But most of the article is talking about glucose leading to fat i.e. we are overeating again. But glucose storage is a different type of fat.

So they have turned this study into a stick to beat up all of us greedy piglet T2D's as per usual media hype.


Sorry, this article is poor quality IMHO. We need the formal report for proper evaluation, not some journalist's opinion.

Personally I have used Sucralose as my preferred sweetner for over 10 years, and I have not gained weight, I am still able to get comfortably into my old jeans (30" waist) that I wore 10 years ago.

Another Washington Uni study on same subject.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23633524
The formal study was only on 17 subjects who were very obese, but who still had an insulin response. The study seems to show that sucralose triggers stage 1 insulin response, an effect that was noted by others some years ago. This is not new findings.

Surprised that they found an increase in blood glucose levels after ingestion, since sucralose itself has no carbs or proteins that our bodies metabolises, So I query their test protocol, since there is no other source in an OGTT drink, and the insulin spike should stop any liver dump effects.

Something does not add up here. The rise from 4.2 to 4.8 mmol/l is only significant when considering it as a percentage error, but it is well within the limits of bgl evaluation. They should give details of the meters used, since this apparent rise may not be so significant anyway.

The important thing about this study is that there is no measurement of fat/ cell increase


Here is the words from Washington Uni in a press release
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/6/sucralose-found-in-splenda-zero-calorie-sweetener-/


Finally, I think this is as close to the report I can get
https://plan.core-apps.com/tristar_endo17/abstract/f7e437ee5c2d999047a0315444ceb516

Confirms it was adipose tissue growth being studied in vitro i.e. testube. The other thing I noted was that the test subjects were selected by being known users of low caloric sweetners, but not necessarily sucralose. The test itself only used sucralose for the stimulus.
 
Very interesting points @Oldvatr

I have realised recently that artificial sweeteners trigger my carb cravings. I dont know why, or if there is sound science behind it, but, after my recent binge episode, I traced the source to a diet coke and joined the dots about other binges. I keep a diary, so was able to look at what a common denominator was in the most recent few.
 
Not bothered about the science. As far as I am concerned n=1. It will probably take about 20 years for the rest of the population to agree with me.
 
There is science to explain that response. It has been mentioned elsewhee in the Forum that the use of artificial sweetners triggers the stage 1 insulin response. It also has another effect, and that is to trigger the enzyme amylase that is in saliva, and which has the job of acting on fast acting carbs to start breaking them down before you even swallow anything. The Amylase goes into the digestive tract where it further acts on carbs and triggers other hormone responses in the gut to convert carbs into glucose compatible products so that they can be absorbed into the bloodstream. Now the carbohydrate in sugar is the main target of amylase, and it was found that if you trigger the amylase without giving it anything it can work on (c.f. chewing gum) then it signals a starvation condition is imminent so the body responds by releasing glucogon and hence glycogen from the stored glucose into the blood instead of the non existant food. This is the body version of virtual reality.

So if sugar is thought of as being 'empty calories' then sucralose appears as 'negative calories'.

On re-reading the study report again, it is clear that any weight gain effect from sucralose is small, and is probably v small compared to the sugar it replaces. For example, if the OGTT used in the study only raised the bgl from 4.2 to 4,8,mmol/l then I am sure a teaspoon of sugar would have greater effect.

So if you can ignore the carb craving triggger, then weight loss should still be achievable. Give in to the munchies, and yes, weight gain is almost guaranteed.
 
Oldvatr said:
So if you can ignore the carb craving triggger, then weight loss should still be achievable.
Click to expand...
I did and it wasn't. It takes time for this problem to develop. I was calorie counting and using diet drinks. I did not binge, in fact I didn't eat enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…