Are Artificial Sweeteners Responsible for the Diabetes and Obesity Epidemics?


No Sweeteners

I am an avid consumer of artificial sweeteners; my favorite is Splenda. An intriguing new study published in Nature yesterday found that the sweeteners boost blood glucose levels in mice. They suggest that the sweeteners may be contributing to the increase in human obesity and type II diabetes. How? The Israeli researchers think that the sweeteners don't themselves spike blood glucose; instead they somehow affect the microflora growing in the human digestive tract in ways that do that. The researchers found that consuming saccharin boosted glucose levels in four out seven human test subjects. From the abstract:

Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) are among the most widely used food additives worldwide, regularly consumed by lean and obese individuals alike. NAS consumption is considered safe and beneficial owing to their low caloric content, yet supporting scientific data remain sparse and controversial. Here we demonstrate that consumption of commonly used NAS formulations drives the development of glucose intolerance through induction of compositional and functional alterations to the intestinal microbiota. These NAS-mediated deleterious metabolic effects are abrogated by antibiotic treatment, and are fully transferrable to germ-free mice upon faecal transplantation of microbiota configurations from NAS-consuming mice, or of microbiota anaerobically incubated in the presence of NAS. We identify NAS-altered microbial metabolic pathways that are linked to host susceptibility to metabolic disease, and demonstrate similar NAS-induced dysbiosis and glucose intolerance in healthy human subjects. Collectively, our results link NAS consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive NAS usage.

With regard to the human experiment, Medscape (registration required) reports:

Artificial sweeteners caused changes in glucose tolerance in humans, as well, but only for some participants the investigators consider to be "responders." A group of 7 healthy volunteers who do not normally consume artificial sweeteners were given saccharin for 6 days at a dose that met the US Food and Drug Administration's maximum acceptable daily intake of saccharin for humans. No participants saw improvements in glucose tolerance, but 4 showed impairment.

Even before the experiment began, the microbial ecosystems from the 4 responders were different from those of the 3 nonresponders, suggesting their microbiome was somehow more susceptible. These results, said Dr. Elinav, "point to the personalized nature of our food responses and the need to understand this personalized effect in order to fight the metabolic syndrome, which as we all know, is one of the most common and serious epidemics in all history."

Bacteria from responders, sampled at the end of the trial, were able to induce glucose intolerance when introduced into germ-free mice (P < .02), whereas baseline samples from the responders (taken before they had consumed the artificial sweeteners) did not have this effect, nor did bacteria from the nonresponders.

The Washington Post reports that the researchers are not recommending that people shift toward eating sugar. The Post notes:

Researchers [Eran] Segal and [Eran] Elinav insisted that their findings are preliminary and shouldn't be taken as a recommendation on whether people should reconsider using artificial sweeteners.

"We do not view that as our role," Segal said. "Rather, as scientists, we simply point to the immense body of experiments that we carried out in both humans and in mice. .?.?. This study and these results should prompt additional debates and study into what is currently a massive use of artificial sweeteners."

Elinav added: "This issue is far from being resolved."

Yes, indeed. Keep in mind that this not an "I-told-you-so" moment for most food scolds who were chiefly claiming that the sweeteners increased the risk of cancer.

For what it's worth, my BMI is now 24.3 (although it's been as high as 30) and my blood glucose levels couldn't be more normal, so I will continue to dose my coffee and iced tea with Splenda. Of course, I may change my tune as further results are reported.

Hat tip to Felix, the first commenter to send me links to the study. Thanks to everyone else. Keep them coming.

NEXT: Finally: Robot Bartenders Who Pour Stiff Drinks!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I love the sugar-sweetened Coca Cola, but the only ones I can find are made in Mexico. Why is this? Are there no in-country Coca Cola factories making sugar-based soft drinks any more?

    1. Thank the Fed Gov for that. Corn subsidies. sugar tariffs.

      1. That’s kind of what I was thinking it might be.

        Well, they should change the name then to Crony Cola.

          1. Oh god that’s great!

  2. I yield my time to SugarFree, King of the Non-Sugar.

    1. Artificial sweeteners make my miserable existence slightly more bearable.

      And I fail to see how three different chemicals could all have the same effect on microflora.

      1. One thing they do all have in common is that they replace real sugar.

        Pure speculation that IF this study had any validity it might be because a gut bacteria that is needed in the whole sugar processing cycle is not getting enough food, so there are too few of them and that is throwing the balance off???

  3. Sugar-free is cool, then, so long as you’re not adding the fake stuff… Ain’t THAT sweet?!?!

  4. Are Artificial Sweeteners Responsible for the Diabetes and Obesity Epidemics?

    No. Next question.

    1. Ditto.

      Eating to much of everything and sitting on your ass causes obesity (says the fat engineer).

    2. Yep. Our lives have gotten a lot more sedentary over the last couple generations. My grandpa worked in a factory. He was on his feet all day, lifting heavy things and working with tools. His modern day counterpart punches instructions into a computer.


        *My grandpa worked in a factory. He was on his feet all day, lifting heavy things and working with tools*

        And smoking three packs a day, drinking whiskey for breakfast and chopping down trees with his nose.

        1. Seriously though, my grandfather did the same thing. Worked in a factory on his feet all day swinging tools.

          Guess what? He has diabetes and pulmonary disease. Never touched a drop of saccharine in his life.

  5. Hat tip to Felix, the first commenter to send me links to the study. Thanks to everyone else. Keep them coming.

    Felix? Never heard of him. Stop it with the imaginary H/Ts Bailey.

    1. That’s a great way to infuriate the comentariat.

    2. Felix may be a FB commmentator or hang out in the 24/7. There are whole worlds of reason commentariat beyond ours.

      1. LIES! HERESEY! There is naught but the H&R reason commentariat!

        1. Just think of them as the minor leagues. You have to drink the koolaid survive the SugarFree slashfic to play up here in the majors.

    3. And what’s your real name?

      1. It’s in my email you illiterate cunt. First name Sean. Any more questions?

        1. It’s illiterate to not find ‘Sean’ in your email address?

          1. I’ve never made a secret of it. What was your point again?

            1. The only point I was making was that I’m hardly illiterate for not finding ‘Sean’ in your handle or email address.

              Chill out, dood^WSean.

              1. Ok, I take back the illiterate part. What was your original point?

                1. That you were complaining about not knowing a name when your own name was not knowable.

  6. One thing to bear in mind, some researchers looked into replicability of these sorts of food studies.

    They found that of the studies where attempts to replicate them were well documented, that greater than 90% of the studies couldn’t be replicated.

    That suggests that almost every study described in the popular press regarding diet or nutrition is junk science that should be ignored.

    1. And it’s not just food studies? other fields, notably psychology, have a severe problem with studies being not-replicable.

  7. Of course, I may change my tune as further results are reported.

    I wouldn’t advise that Ron. As tarran points out above, most of these studies are junk science. If someone ever did definitively prove what makes people fat, beyond the crude relationship between calorie intake and outtake, they would be billionaires many times over. Since no one has yet done that, it is a pretty good guess that there is no easy or simple answer.

    1. Calorie intake versus expenditure isn’t simple enough? It’s just math unless someone has a preexisting medical condition–PCOS, for example.

      1. Yes and no. The complexity comes in that some people seem to naturally burn more calories than others. In addition, other people feel more hungry than others. It is comforting to think people are fat because they have no self control. And some most certainly are. But it is not that simple. Some people’s bodies either burn fewer calories or can’t stop feeling hungry even after their need for food has been satiated. Those are very complex physiological problems that no one seems to be able to figure out.

        1. The same principle applies, even if some people burn more or less calories on average. That’s still part of “calorie expenditure” for them.
          I didn’t mean to imply that a one-size-fits-all solution is the way to go. Different people have different TDEEs (total daily energy expenditures), and they should consume appropriately for them. Billy might be able to lose weight on 2800 calories a day, but I would gain weight eating like that, for example.
          The psychology behind calories in vs. calories out is complicated, but the principles are not. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight; eat more and you will gain. Period.
          Things like satiety, feeling full, etc. have more to do with macronutrient content of food (carbs/fat/protein) than any other factor. Also, anyone who pays attention to nutrition/calories will tell you that “feeling hungry” is not a particularly reliable indicator of when/how much you should eat since it so frequently leads to overeating/undereating.

          1. It is easy for you to say ‘just eat less” when you don’t have to live your life feeling hungry all of the time. It is just not that easy for some people.

            You are correct, the answer to being thin for anyone is just “live like a fucking monk and stop whining”. But that answer isn’t going to work because most people wont’ do that. They would rationally rather be fat than be thin and feel hungry and be miserable all of the time.

            These sorts of problems didn’t used to matter back when most of humanity was living on the edge of starvation. Now that we are wealthy, they do matter and we would be a lot better off if we could come up with a better answer to the problem.

            1. It’s easy for me to say it because I lived it. I’ve lost about 20 pounds following a simple plan to eat 10% less than what I expend. I did it over the course of several months so I didn’t have to feel deprived by cutting out all of the high-calorie food I love.

              And I didn’t live like a fucking monk to do it. I did it eating ice cream, pizza, and Chinese food several times a week. Let’s not even talk about chocolate, which was an every day occurrence for me and still is.

              At no point did I say that someone needs to eat so little that they are hangry (angry because they’re hungry). In fact, if you look further below, I said that eating ~1000 calories/day was a terrible idea, and not just for satiety’s sake. I’m a big advocate for eating as much as you can while keeping your goal in sight.

              As a 5’3″ female, I can eat 2400 calories every day and maintain that weight. I know I can eat 2000 calories/day and slowly lose weight. It takes some dedication and time, but it’s worth it, in my opinion.

              1. Good for you. You are however, the exception not the rule. There is more to this problem then just telling everyone to stop being slovenly.

                1. Oh! I didn’t mean to imply that, if I did.

                  Honestly, I think it’s more about taking some personal responsibility with your food choices.

                  Example: last night I could have had anything for dessert. I opted to have three servings of ice cream (3/4 of a pint) because it added up to about 420 calories, and that’s just about the amount I had left for the day.

                  Also, I really like ice cream. So every day is an exercise in fitting as much ice cream in as I can, given other conditions.

                  1. Honestly, I think it’s more about taking some personal responsibility with your food choices.

                    I didn’t even take issue with the implications of slovenliness; the laws of thermodynamics that I learned didn’t make any distinctions between ice cream and chicken breast. The issue, both on a personal level and a population level are too complex to just say “Eat fewer calories.” It would be like someone complaining that their car used too much gas and you just said “drive slower”. The laws of thermodynamics suggest that you’re right, but if they spend 90% of their commute idling, slower isn’t going to do them much good. The problem isn’t defined/constrained by thermodynamics.

                    Several studies have recently been published that say we, as a nation, have consistently eaten fewer calories for nearly a decade and have consistently gotten heavier and more obese during that decade. The notion that you can eat an excess of calories at one age and not gain any weight while eating only a few calories at a different age and dramatically gain weight is certainly not new or entirely anecdotal.

                    The problem isn’t that anecdotes aren’t apt, it’s that the system is so complex that more data = more anecdotes. “Eat right” doesn’t work for most people, “exercise” doesn’t work for most people, “eat right and exercise” sometimes works for a majority of people depending on what you mean by “eat right” and “exercise” and who you choose.

      2. What set-point should I assume? At one time in my life I ate 4000 calories a day and weighed 135-140 lbs. Currently, I can eat anywhere between 1500 and 3500 calories a day and will be 172 +/- 2 lbs. I went on vacation for a week and ate like a hog — didn’t move the scale. Bodies tend to be homeostatic, except when they aren’t and the list of exceptions is huge.

        1. Weight fluctuates naturally based on a wide variety of factors, including (but not limited to): salt intake, water retention, bowel movements, body fat percentage, etc.
          It’s true that it can be complicated to nail down an approximation of how many calories you’re burning every day, and it’s possible that number can vary wildly from day to day.

          Still doesn’t change the simple fact that calories in vs. calories out work–excepting preexisting medical conditions, as I mentioned before.

          If you’re really looking for an idea of how many calories you “should” be consuming, this is an excellent website to give you a starting point

      3. Calorie intake versus expenditure isn’t simple enough?

        No, it’s not, only in principle at best. Calories in v. calories out is tied to weight loss/gain about as well as global warming is tied to the greenhouse effect.

        Think about the engines in a car, you could easily take two identical engines and the same fuel blend, build two different vehicles around each engine, drive them two separate ways, and get two completely different MPG, miles traveled, tons moved, etc.

        I guarantee you I burn more calories sitting around high on caffeine than I do sitting around caffeine deprived and that ignores all the adverse/indirect metabolic effects caffeine carries with it.

        1. Wut. I can’t even…

          Your engine example isn’t even close to the same thing as a human body. Never mind that OF COURSE you’re going to get different outputs if you have different variables around the engine, but the science behind calories in/out is fairly grounded and stable. There are other factors that impact it, for sure, but the principle is sound. See various laws on thermodynamics for scientific basis.

          I love how your anecdotal and unfounded claim about burning more calories after consuming caffeine is supposed to (apparently) stand in for a scientific basis. Srsly.

          1. You keep assuming that you can force your body to burn more calories than you consume on a regular enough basis to lose or maintain weight. That’s not how humans work. Stop saying “but thermodynamics”. Go read the studies of WWII conscientious objectors put on 1200 calorie diets. They stopped losing weight LONG before they starved to death. They just stopped doing anything they weren’t ordered to do. Base metabolic rates change in response to calorie input. A person can burn 500 fewer calories by doing nothing intentionally different when they lower their calorie intake by 400 calories. Similarly, burning 600 extra calories often leads to consuming 800.

            1. I’m not trying to say you should force your body to burn more calories. Your body burns calories by functioning, even at total rest.
              I’m aware that BMR can also fluctuate over time based on your long-term eating habits.
              I would argue that how much you consume is dependent entirely on the choices you make–regardless of how you feel. The body is a complex system; I’m not arguing against that.

              However, just because it’s complicated to figure out what your daily energy expenditure is, doesn’t disprove the fact that if you eat less than you burn, you’ll lose weight. … Weird WWII studies of extreme dieting aside. (You can’t really be saying that study is representative of society as a whole, I mean.)

              1. What Brett said. You body adjusts to the diet it is given. We evolved to survive in food insecure environments. That makes staying thin in a constant environment of plenty difficult. When you cut your body off from food, it adjusts and learns to get by on fewer calories. It is just how we are wired.

                1. I can agree that we’ve evolved to subsist on a wide variety of foods, including little-to-no foods. And yes, the body does adjust to some degree based on inputs.

                  Just like how the body adjusts for fewer calories, it also adjusts for more calories. Staying thin in an environment of surplus is not difficult if you can commit to some personal responsibility regarding your food choices.

          2. Wut. I can’t even…

            This is how I feel when I here; [sic]it’s simply thermodynamics calories in, calories out… but personal responsibility and choosing foods is important.

            My laws of thermodynamics, pretty decidedly, dictate that a calorie is a calorie no matter what the source. My knowledge of biochemistry tells me that one calorie of ricin toxin is going to have a significantly different physiological effect before it’s been denatured than after.

            I don’t disagree that getting morbidly obese is a choice. I do disagree that gaining weight is strictly consciously decided. Like optimizing mpg/commute, it’s much more complicated than just “Get a more better car.”

    2. I think that Ron is talking about large-scale studies. These tend to be very reproducible as the huge amount of data gives very good statistical confidence. The 90% junk science figure comes from results that are reported based on a single event or use very small populations, where it’s hard to say anything with statistical confidence. It amazes me that the people publishing these articles get (or already have) PhDs. In the hard sciences, undergrads have error analysis burned into their brains. Apparently that’s not the case in the biomedical world.

      1. Sure. But I can think of few potential drugs or treatments that would be more profitable than a drug or diet that would make it easier for people to lose weight. I am sure they are working hard to find such.

      2. In the hard sciences, undergrads have error analysis burned into their brains. Apparently that’s not the case in the biomedical world.

        Biology and medicine are hard sciences and error analysis is not the issue. It’s human weakness.

        IDK, that giving someone a PhD for performing irreproducible biomedical research is any more or less a sham than giving someone a PhD for doing irreproducible physics or wholly reproducible but largely useless mathematics. I might feel more inclined to debate about the whole error analysis/hard science bullshit when the reports of cold fusion *fall* to 90% junk.

      3. There are several incentives towards performing bad research and to publishing them.

        Producing a novel study increases a scientist’s reputation among his or her peers, increases the likelihood of a better job, and increases the likelihood of grants so if good research produces unwanted results, there is a strong temptation to fudge the data to get a novel or desired conclusion.

        Journals have an incentive to publish bad research because they want to be first to publish ground breaking research and reviewers don’t want to reject a paper because they fear that they might be viewed as not smart enough to understand the research!

        There has been some research on how well journals are finding bad research. From “Trouble at the lab”:

        But in a classic 1998 study Fiona Godlee, editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, sent an article containing eight deliberate mistakes in study design, analysis and interpretation to more than 200 of the BMJ‘s regular reviewers. Not one picked out all the mistakes. On average, they reported fewer than two; some did not spot any.

        1. A few years ago, 3 MIT students wrote a program that churned out nonsense papers to show how academic conferences will accept anything. They then released the program on the web. This year, it was discovered that 100 papers that the IEEE has published since then were created by the program (see “How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia”).

          1. A few years ago (okay maybe more like a decade dammit) a meta-study was conducted on the use of the word “novel” in the scientific literature. The growth in it’s use was exponential. Leading the researchers to conclude, by 2012-2016 all research everywhere would be unique.

            They suggested that this would bring up all sorts of questions about reproducibility and peer review.

  8. “These NAS-mediated deleterious metabolic effects are abrogated by antibiotic treatment, and are fully transferrable to germ-free mice upon faecal transplantation of microbiota configurations from NAS-consuming mice, or of microbiota anaerobically incubated in the presence of NAS.”

    The first point seems to be a pretty good indicator that the microflora are responsible. However, I’m not understanding how the second point proves their thesis. To the biologists out there: why would anaerobic fermentation be a good test?

    1. Also, 4 out of 7 human subjects? Really? The counting error on a population of 7 is a little less than 3. So 4(+/-)3 people showed effects? Anywhere between only 1 and all 7? This is simply WAY too small of a sample size to say anything.

      How does this crap get published, and by a journal with the esteem of Nature? The rest of the study may be great (don’t know – haven’t read the actual article). But this info is, IMHO, basically crap that is not worthy of publication, at least not with a huge number of qualifications and caveats. Either the reviewers really fucked up on this one or I’m not getting an accurate representation of what the authors actually claim.

      1. Ugh. I really don’t understand why anyone bothers to do these studies with such tiny sample sizes. I get that you might not be able to do a large-scale study by yourself and want to inspire other researchers to do these things. But your preliminary data shows absolutely nothing. Had they found that the same fraction of people showed effects in a sample just twice the size, you’d have a positive rate of 8(+/-)4 out of 14. Quadruple the size to 28 people and it becomes 16(+/-)5 out of 28. I would consider 28 to be a more than manageable sample size (you’re just giving them blood tests, after all) and the statistics become believable at this point. Hell, even 14 would have been better. But 7? WTF?

  9. I hate artificial sweeteners. Not because of the calamitous cancers and life-threatening ailments. In the view of my taste buds artificial sweeteners all make food/liquid stuffs taste dry-like. I get a dry martini, however I do NOT get a dry yogurt or a dry coffee.

  10. “regularly consumed by lean and obese individuals alike”

    You can be lean and technically obese. Those terms gauge two different metrics: body fat percentage and BMI rating, respectively. You can be lean and technically obese; it’s a common problem for serious bodybuilders, actually.


  11. I understand that replacing water with diet soda could be harmful, but I can’t for the life of me understand how replacing real sugar with artificial can lead to higher blood glucose levels.

    1. I assume it’s because artificial sweeteners are close enough to real sugar so that they trigger the sugar response in microflora and that the microflora discover that there’s no sugar to process, it increases the intolerance to glucose.

      If that’s the cause, it’s quite possible that NAS is worse than sugar for you.

    2. Or if the artificial sweeteners trigger an insulin response, which I’ve heard recently as well. Doesn’t matter to me anyway, I think the stuff is gross. Molasses and cane sugar for me.

  12. “The Israeli researchers think that the sweeteners don’t themselves spike blood glucose; instead they somehow effect the microflora growing in the human digestive tract in ways that do that.”

    I think the word you’re groping for here is “affect.”

    1. What’s the word in Hebrew?

      1. It won’t let me do hebrew script, but roughly hishpiya

        1. I didn’t expect anyone to have a serious answer to that question. Kudos.

    2. I also appreciate the very descriptive “in ways that do that.”

      1. Good catch. “We pay by the word.”

  13. Obesity is caused by your body burning fewer calories than you consume. Period. You can eat artificial sweeteners all day long, but consume maybe 1,000 calories in a diet, and your weight will plummet.

    1. … And a great deal of the weight you lose will be muscle mass/lean body mass. Sure, some will be fat, too. Also you’ll have the benefit of your hair getting dry, brittle, and possibly falling out. Ditto for your nails. Your skin quality will suffer, as well.

      Keep with it long enough, and you may even have the joy of experiencing organ and tissue failure. But hey, obesity is the problem, right?

      FML: 1000 calories a day is no way to live.

    2. Says *you*! Got a study published in Nature?

    3. Unless your body decides to get skinny-fat and leave you with no energy to do anything.

    4. Obesity, may fat ASS!!! It’s called FATNESS by honest pepples? And honest pepples will also tell you the following truth: Fatness is actually a physical manifestation of metaphysical, undetectable-by-modern-science, ethereal spirit-like “fatness” entities that flit from here to there. Since they are spirits, attuned to human spirits, they affiliate along the lines of human social circles (being lazy, in other words, these fatness spirits take the “path of least resistance”, just like electrons, and so they live and travel within the same constrictive parameters and paths as the social human world / sprits does / do). ? Cutting now to the chase: FATASSEDNESS spirits can NOT be created, nor destroyed! Just like matter / energy? So when it is destroyed HERE, it pops up THERE!!! Your FATTASSEDNESS is to be blamed on yer friends and relatives who have shed THEIR excess pounds!!! Am ams a TELLIN’ ya!!!! Read and heed!!!

      1. Oh, hey? I forgot to add? The fatness spirits are ESPECIALLY attracted to people who listen, with great envy, to tales from their friends, about how THEY have lost their excess baggage? So do NOT let them go on and on, to you, all day, about it!!!

        1. Is this HERC?

          1. Nope, not HERC, sorry?
            I did think of something else, though? ***IF*** I am wrong about the “fat spirits”, and these here Israeli researchers are right? Then their findings, if too widely known, could be DANGEROUS! Un-intended consequences, thing, you know? More people know about these findings? Less people eat or imbibe artificial sweeteners? Less people get fat? Less carbon is stored in that fat, in these “human carbon sinks”? MORE carbon to float about in the breezes, causing global climate change, instead of being safely stored, or “sequestered” in our collective blubber!!! A HAZARD here to the Earth Mother Goddess, Gaia, I am tellin’ ya! This new knowledge has to be STOPPED!

            1. And yes? Since this dangerous new knowledge, that needs to be suppressed, is about our fleshy bodies? And since it was generated by un-American ferriners, Israelis in this case? Enforcement (suppression of the foreign knowledge) should NOT be subjected to any “turf-fighting”, this enforcement priority CLEARLY falls to the Government Almighty agency known as “Almighty Servants Suppressing Foreign Unlawful Carnal Knowledge”, AKA “ASSFUCK”? Good idea, to play it safe, I think; Precautionary Principle Prevails! If just ONE planet is saved! Plus? After the knowledge is banned, well, I can say, if accused of being fat? “Not my fault. I got assfucked by ASSFUCK”!

  14. I notice that they keep talking about non-caloric artificial sweeteners, but then the details of the study quoted here only mention saccharin. Did the experiment even try any of the others?

    Saccharin, aspartame, and Splenda are all very different chemically, and one wouldn’t expect them to affect gastrointestinal bacteria in the same way without strong evidence.

    I haven’t read the article quoted here, or the paper in Nature. But unless they have similar data for the other sweeteners, then the constant references to non-caloric artificial sweeteners as an umbrella term is needlessly alarmist, and may possibly indicate a pre-existing bias, calling these results into question.

    1. Hi Orn,
      See the link here for more details? Sad to say, my link here does not give the details you are looking for. But what I saw in the local paper and / or Wall St. Jrnl, says they used 3 different types of artificial sweeteners (cannot recall them all), and it did not matter what type was used, they all did the same thing. Natural non-caloric plant-derived sweetener “stevia” was NOT mentioned, though?…..131634.htm
      Certain gut bacteria may induce metabolic changes following exposure to artificial sweeteners

      1. Checked it out for y’all… Today’s Wall St Jrnl (18 Sept 2014) indicts saccharin, sucralose, and aspartame, all 3 of them… Local paper says “stevia” will be examined for this in the TBD future…

  15. Wait a minute…above I see reference to studies of saccharine. How does that generalize to “artificial sweeteners”?

    1. Darn, didn’t see the exchange immediately above, sorry.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.