Sweeteners and Their Role in Raising Blood Sugar Levels ?

[HoneyPot2]

Michael Mosley in his prog "Trust Me, I'm a Doctor" on the basis of an admittedly very limited test claimed that there was evidence that the use of artificial sweeteners (specifically saccharin) contained in low sugar processed foods contributed to the rise in diabetes in recent years by interfering with the way that the body managed sugar. In effect that inert sweeteners which make great play of having no calories and are therefore widely taken as a sugar substitute, in my case in coffee for more than 20 years, retards the process by which the body regulates sugar. Since I have only in the last three months been diagnosed as having T2D, I am now concerned that I may have inadvertently contributed to this outcome by taking on average 6-8 Hermesetas (which is saccharin based) tablets per day spread across an average of 3 to 4 mugs of coffee per day.

In two groups of six, one taking saccharin (at the maximum recommended daily dose for one week) and one taking Stevia, the blood sugar levels of the first group rose overall and in the case of four of those six so markedly that their blood sugar levels would have qualified them as being pre-diabetic! In the case of those taking Stevia there was no significant change their blood sugar levels across the group as a whole. One explanatory theory is that the sweeteners may change (reduced) the gut bacteria population which appeared to be the case with those individuals most affected by the saccharin.Having said that the last comment made in the programme was that the use of saccharin could not be said to have negative consequences for all the population but may well have this effect on very significant sections of those taking artificial sweeteners

In the light of this I am likely to move to Stevia (which I have used in cooking quite a lot previously) before the end of this week. But does the background research, not specifically cited in the programme, actually confirm the conclusions deduced from the results from the programme's small test group and is there any prospect of reversing the body's habits by ceasing to use saccharine (and for that matter aspartame which was also critically referred to in the programme). I don't imagine anyone can answer this question. But it may be wise that all those using sweeteners should query their continued use

Perhaps we should all be thinking about the prospect of eventually suing the manufacturers for the consequences of their products.

What is the diabetes society's view on this issue please?

 

[tim2000s]

Mark's Daily Apple has a review of the available studies that have looked at this: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/artificial-sweeteners-insulin/#axzz3xJt7EuRb The overwhelming feedback is that it is mostly a myth, and even saccharine is a bit hit or miss.

The TV programme last night was poor science. A sample of six cannot be taken to prove anything.

 

[Pollylocks]

There are a huge number of related links in your link tim2000s that it would take quite a while to read them all, but the article does give a rough idea.

There is so much scientific research going on that its a bit mind boggling for me as they so often contradict each other.

I've never been keen on artificial sweeteners although I do use them now and again, haven't noticed any ill effects ~ spikes. I prefer to use Stevia, which is more natural but who knows what they'll say about it in the future...

 

[4ratbags]

Ive never noticed spikes.in BS from using any artificial sweeteners.

 

[HoneyPot2]

4ratbags, I think the main point of the TV prog. was not that saccharin etc caused spikes, but that there was some evidence that their consumption interfered/retarded in some way the ability of the body to process sugar. This might be because artificial sweeteners inflicted possible damage to the gut bacteria, giving rise to an increased likelihood of developing T2D in large sections of the population.

 

[ickihun]

My grandmother and most grandmothers in the 70s baked.
Not with sweetners but with sugar.
Less diabetes type 2 then, well diagnosed anyway.
There was processed meat. (sausages, corned beef, pec and processed meat for sale on provisions counter.
People over ate then too.

Maybe sweetners are confusing the balance. Not natural or manufactured to be eaten in large doses.
Ive wondered about their effects for years.

 

[nolly53]

Whilst putting a well known sugar substitute in my coffee today I was confronted by a friend with the remark - "They are bad for you - I saw it on Trust me I'm a doctor". I have just watched the programme. For a start, it wasn't saccharin that I was taking - it was Candarel which is Aspartame.
Secondly, how much sweetener was actually given to the participants? At 3:03 into the video, we are told that the participants were given the "daily safe limit".
For Saccharine the Acceptable Daily intake is 5mg/kg of body weight which is 350mg for a 70kg person. I think that amounts to about 28 tablets. I can't help thinking that even 28 tablets would be safer for me than the equivalent 168 g sugar.
For Stevia, the Acceptable Daily intake is 91 tablets.
For Candarel, "the ADI set for Aspartame by the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, is 40 mg/kg of body weight per day. For an adult weighing 70 kg can safety consume 184 Canderel original tablets a day for the whole life." according to their website.
At 4:47 in the video we hear "Saccharin set some people's blood glucose sky-rocketing". The graph shows an increase of about 2mmol/l. Could this be classed as sky-rocketing?
I'm not sure how we are supposed to react to the programme - change to Stevia? Perhaps some viewers will revert to sugar to avoid the pit-falls of artificial sweeteners.
As for me - I really don't think that 2 Candarel in my coffee will do me much damage.
(perhaps someone would like to check my maths but I think that the above figures are correct)