Artificial Sweeteners Are Toxic To Digestive Gut Bacteria, Study Finds (cnbc.com) 192
According to a study published in the journal Molecules, researchers found that six common artificial sweeteners approved by the FDA and 10 sport supplements that contained them were found to be toxic to the digestive gut microbes of mice. CNBC reports: Researchers from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel and Nanyang Technological University in Singapore tested the toxicity of aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame, and acesulfame potassium-k. They observed that when exposed to only 1 milligram per milliliter of the artificial sweeteners, the bacteria found in the digestive system became toxic. According to the study, the gut microbial system "plays a key role in human metabolism," and artificial sweeteners can "affect host health, such as inducing glucose intolerance." Additionally, some of the effects of the new FDA-approved sweeteners, such as neotame, are still unknown.
However, the study found that mice treated with the artificial sweetener neotame had different metabolic patterns than those not treated, and several important genes found in the human gut had decreased. Additionally, concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol were higher in mice treated with neotame than in those not. Because of the widespread use of artificial sweeteners in drinks and foods, many people consume them without knowing it.
However, the study found that mice treated with the artificial sweetener neotame had different metabolic patterns than those not treated, and several important genes found in the human gut had decreased. Additionally, concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol were higher in mice treated with neotame than in those not. Because of the widespread use of artificial sweeteners in drinks and foods, many people consume them without knowing it.
That's just gut-wrenching (Score:1, Funny)
Makes me sick
Re:Saccharin is made from coal (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the materials something is created from, you could also say that organic food is made from dirt, mud and manure.
Re: (Score:2)
And, we eat rocks.
Actually only one rock: salt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't encounter coal in our natural environment?!? I guess you are a life-long city dweller?
There are plenty of examples of plants that have been historically eaten by people known to contain toxins and other dangers (some plants accumulate heavy metals for instance). In fact some traditional plants are directly lethal if not handled correctly e.g. cassava. Natural doesn't mean anything and being traditionally used should mean little until proven reasonable safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough traditional foods that contain toxins are usually prepared in a traditional way to remove or deactivate those toxins, so I fail to see the relevance at all.
As for coal, it's a bastard to mine compared to chopping down trees and surface deposits are rare. Plus it smells a lot worse than wood. For this reason it wasn't used much before the industrial revolution. This is a mere blink on evolutionary timescales.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was partly pollution, but also partly the realization that if she hadn't, 99% of the trees within 50 miles of London would have been gone within a century. Wood just doesn't have the energy-density necessary to provide winter heat to big cities with hundreds of thousands of residents... not only does it require lots of time and land to grow, but the logistics of delivering it (in sufficient quantities, with sufficient frequency) become insurmountable as well.
I'm pretty sure that's at least part o
Re:Saccharin is made from coal (Score:5, Interesting)
a) very few savanna living prehistoric people, as we evolved to be, encountered actual coal;
b) even your coal eating county dweller tends to encounter either raw coal or the combustion products of coal - specially made chemicals from coal a bit less so
Widespread encounters with coal really didn't happen until the start of the industrial era - and yes that does mean we are starting to evolve, but the way that happens is by some people dying which isn't always great.
If only humans could change and adapt to living conditions/diets outside of the savanna.
eg. Pale skin, lactose tolerance ... to name a couple of the most glaringly obvious examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see ACs when I mod. But if you explicitly whine about ACs being ignored, when they can't even post on other sites with registration, you're not earning any sympathy with me.
Obviously I didn't mod you either way, because I'm replying.
Re: (Score:2)
The artificial sweeterner, Saccharin, is made from coal.
You're made up of mostly carbon. The shit that is killing the world! Don't even get me started on your radioactivity.
Re: (Score:2)
And coal is made from plants. So what!
Coal tar is also a treatment for dandruff. [webmd.com]
Saccharin is one of the few artificial sweeteners that I don't have a reaction to, with Aspartame triggering the most severe reaction. But saccharin does taste rather bitter so I tend to avoid it just on flavor alone.
Re:That's just gut-wrenching (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't become dead. The specially engineered e-coli strains become luminescent. Whatever that means for your gut health is anyone's guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Shitty ones.
Re:That's just gut-wrenching (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, just to make this clear because it's useful knowledge. Bacteria may produce toxic waste, and these toxins can be the reason why you may get inflammations, may bleed internally, may have to vomit and/or get diarrhoea when your stomach gets infested by the wrong bacteria. Some of them produce so strong toxins that they perforate your intestines, leading to life threatening conditions (e.g. typhus does that). Dying and dead bacteria also produce toxins for a while. Part of the problem is the reaction of the immune system, part are the toxins emitted by bacteria. Chronic diseases of the stomach and intestinal system can also be caused by an improper balance of bacteria. Anything that changes the balance of bacteria in the stomach - which strains are present in which quantity - can be potentially dangerous or beneficial, depending on which strains are boosted or hampered.
Just wanted to make this clear because your comment was upvoted (only God knows why) and is pretty pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just pretty pointless, but pointless, condescending, and outright wrong.
Re:That's just gut-wrenching (Score:5, Informative)
Except, Jane, you're "dead" wrong. "became dead" appears nowhere in the article, neither does "dead" appear nor is there any claim that "toxic" means death. Furthermore, the article states "bacteria growth rates were also affected" which is a bit hard to understand if the bacteria were "dead". "Toxic" refers to a positive response with one or more toxicity indicators, that is all. Try to get it straight next time.
There were egregious errors, though. First, it wasn't "bacteria found in the digestive system" that "became toxic", it was genetically modified bacteria that showed a toxic response. Second, only one sweetener caused this response at 1 mg/ml. None of the others did.
Furthermore, "only" 1 mg/ml is a lot. These sweeteners are much stronger than sugar and these concentrations would not exist in actual applications. Lower concentrations did not demonstrate a toxic response in the study.
Isn't it curious that so many artificial sweeteners all cause this "calamity" as shown in a single study? I wonder what special interest group would have interest in an outcome like this, particularly considering the gross misrepresentation of the results.
You know what known to be toxic? Sugar. Not toxic merely to gut bacteria, toxic to you.
Re: (Score:2)
At the input, maybe, but remember that your intestines are designed to pull water out, which means unless your body is also pulling those artificial sweeteners out and doing something with them, the concentration is likely to increase the farther it gets through your digestive system. So I wouldn't necessarily assume that 1 mg/mL is unlikely by the time it gets
Re: (Score:2)
You know what known to be toxic? Sugar. Not toxic merely to gut bacteria, toxic to you.
Just for fun I looked up the LD50 for sugar. A 180 lbs person would need to consume 5.2 lbs of sugar to get to a 50% chance of dying from it. Toxic yes, but at impossibly high amounts. I get what your saying, sugar isn't good for you, but its toxicity level is pretty damn low.
Re: That's just gut-wrenching (Score:2)
Everything about how this was written looks like someone wanted to create fear about all artificial sweetners, and after trying and trying they found one specific "in the lab" reaction that is utterly and completely unrepresentative of how things happen "in the field," and then deliberately used confusing and vague language to explode the results and make it sound like a completely unrelated and unwarranted conclusion is the proven result of this study.
That's typical. There's been an ongoing effort to demonize sweeteners for decades now. Every couple years one of these "studies" comes out, people freak out, and nothing changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm,. no. A 1:1 ratio would be 1 gram per millilitre.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right... Why did I thought that it was?
Damn... must be more tired than I thought.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
"only one milligram per milliliter of sweetener" (Score:1)
One milligram of sweetener per milliliter of sweetener? What?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AC, this is not difficult.
The substances being tested are crystalline solids at room temperature. They are dissolved in a solvent.
In this case, at a concentration of 1mg : 1mL, as an aqueous solution.
Granted, that is pretty damn concentrated. But still.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Particularly for sucralose, which is 600x as sweet as sugar. 1mg/ml would be sickly sweet. I generally use 0.1mg/ml in making my own sugar-free cordials (I'm diabetic).
Re:"only one milligram per milliliter of sweetener (Score:5, Interesting)
Neotame is 7000-13000 times as sweet as sugar.
Re: (Score:2)
They should call it NeoNotTameAtAll, then.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like saying beer contains 8% beer by volume.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That would be true if beer was a crystalline solid at room temperature.
Which it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be true in any case, because the solute is one thing and when you mix it with a solvent it becomes another thing. There's a word for that - a solution.
It's like using the same word in the same sentence to mean both salt and brine.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Siberia.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, at a concentration of 1mg : 1mL, as an aqueous solution.
Granted, that is pretty damn concentrated. But still.
That scales to 1g/L, doesn't it? To me, that doesn't seem anywhere near as concentrated as the absurdly high dosages used in cancer tests.
Re: (Score:3)
Absurdity is not defined by whether something is more or less absurd than something else that is absurd.
1 mg/ml is vastly higher than would actually be used. Furthermore, it was the minimum threshold for a positive response for only one of the tested sweeteners. All other required higher concentrations still, including neotame which is at least 10x stronger than Sucralose (the one with a response at 1mg/ml). With neotame, the concentrations required would be 100 - 1000 times stronger than what would be t
Re: (Score:2)
Citations please? Making sh*t up I see.
Also, Diet Coke uses aspartame which required a minimum of 4mg/ml in the test.
These results are not correctly referenced (Score:5, Informative)
Please correct the text, the referenced study is about neotame only and does not investigate the other mentioned molecules or products. The CNBC article is probably to blame as it is misleading on which results were obtained in which study.
Re:These results are not correctly referenced (Score:5, Interesting)
I skimmed through that study. It found that neotame disrupted the balance of the microbiome, metabolism of certain vitamins and other nutrients, and the metabolic pathways. However, body weight of the experimental and control groups were the same after 4 weeks, which was buried in the end although it'd been predicted that body weight should've dropped. I'm unsure if the disruption is enough to potentially lead to malnutrition, although metabolic syndrome and various gut disorders are specifically mentioned in the paper as possible effects.
Also, apparently it's considered humane to euthanize mice with CO2? I'd think that'd cause painful asphyxiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, apparently it's considered humane to euthanize mice with CO2? I'd think that'd cause painful asphyxiation.
It's painless: you just pass out.
Re:These results are not correctly referenced (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe CO, which is OK because it's one less.
Re:These results are not correctly referenced (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, yes, death by carbon monoxide poisoning would be preferrable to carbon dioxide.
In the former case, you get drowsy, fall asleep, and eventually asphyxiate. CO binds to hemoglobin, preventing your blood from taking up oxygen. You die of hypoxia, which is generally thought of being pretty painless. (If hypoxia were painful, then high-altitude mountaineering would be impossible, rather than just merely hard.) A similar death would occur in a depressurized airline cabin if you don't put your mask on. CO poisoning happens to a 100s of people each year in the U.S. due to faulty heating systems. One reason deaths result is because people aren't aware that it's even happening - they just fall asleep, then die. This is why your home should have at least one CO detector per floor.
Carbon dioxide poisoning, on the other hand, is definitely a rough way to go. Hold your breath for a while and you'll see what I mean. That panic you're feeling, the tightening of the chest, the burning, that's caused by your brainstem realizing your blood has built up too much CO2. At low levels, high CO2 concentration in the air will make your irritable, give you a headache, and generally make it hard to function at your best. (Astronaut Scott Kelly complained about this a lot during his year on the ISS.) Taken higher, and your entire body becomes acidotic, and that feeling of drowning becomes all-encompassing. Eventually, your metabolism will break down at a cellular level as your blood becomes saturated with CO2. You'll have passed out long before that, but your last conscious moments will probably be in agony.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon dioxide poisoning, on the other hand, is definitely a rough way to go. Hold your breath for a while and you'll see what I mean.
Slightly raised levels of CO2 are definitely uncomfortable, but that doesn't meant that close to 100% CO2 is similar.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mice aren't humans and people actually tries to minimize suffering of the animals so this have been studied.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the concentration. Above 95% concentration of CO2 unconsciousness occurs in seconds. It's used as a low-stress way stun pigs before slaughter and results in better meat quality than electrocution or a bolt gun.
The process is informative. A group of pigs (they prefer to be in groups) goes down a cute into an elevator. The hatch closes and the elevator drops into the pit. If they make any noise at all (other than falling over) after the elevator gets in the pit then something is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's painless: you just pass out. ... not knowing what to do and how to escape: before you pass out.
Depends how you define "painless". You get a panic attack
Re:These results are not correctly referenced (Score:5, Interesting)
The study was published in a MDPI journal. MDPI has some serious reputational problems [wikipedia.org] (more here [universityaffairs.ca]).
The concentrations given were around a thousand of times a normal neotame dose (equivalent to dozens of milligrams for an adult human, where normal daily neotame intake is in the dozens of micrograms [europa.eu]) (or over a hundred times a normal dose if you accept their 12,5x human:mouse exchange factor, although that seems misguided since they're testing effects on bacteria, not direct effects on the animal). One thing that's notably absent IMHO is the glaring omission of discussion of the mice's food consumption. It's not even clear whether the pelleted diet is ad libitum or whether just the water is ("standard pelleted rodent diet and tap water ad libitum"). If the pelleted diet is ad libitum then it seems utter incompetence to not discuss changes in dietary consumption when doing a gut flora study.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Also, apparently it's considered humane to euthanize mice with CO2? I'd think that'd cause painful asphyxiation.
That's a common misconception. It actually depends on the concentration. In a pure CO2 atmosphere, the oxygen levels in the blood will drop so fast that the body will lose consciousness before the brain becomes aware of suffocation. It only gets painful if CO2 levels rise slowly enough, for example when breathing in an enclosed space.
Re:These results are not correctly referenced (Score:5, Informative)
Also, apparently it's considered humane to euthanize mice with CO2? I'd think that'd cause painful asphyxiation.
It depends on the air mixture. Inhaling a dense cloud of CO2 results in immediate unconsciousness followed by death.
This phenomenon has been documented as it happened to a village by a lake where tons of CO2 spewed out from a lakebed and killed many people by the lake. [history.com] The people who suffered were the ones who survived but were still exposed as it caused them to cough until they bled.
Re: (Score:2)
Four weeks is not very long.
Most people gain weight very slowly, over the course of years. For example I gained 100 pounds over 20 years (most of which I've subsequently lost, but that's another story); that works out to about 6 grams per day; over the course of 4 weeks that works out to about six ounces, a difference that would be extremely challenging to detect against the background noise of hydration variation.
Re:These results are not correctly referenced (Score:5, Informative)
The CNBC article confuses two studies: Neotame in mice [mdpi.com] and Artificial sweeteners on a bacterial panel [mdpi.com].
The second of these does indeed test the toxicity of all the named sweeteners, albeit only on a model of gut bacteria (bioluminescent E.coli) in a laboratory setting.
Sucralose and neotame were found to inhibit E.coli bioluminescence. Saccharin, aspartame and ace-k induced it.
What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait. So how much Diet Coke do I need to quaff before my shit glows in the dark?
Re: (Score:2)
The CNBC article confuses two studies: Neotame in mice [mdpi.com] and Artificial sweeteners on a bacterial panel [mdpi.com].
The second of these does indeed test the toxicity of all the named sweeteners, albeit only on a model of gut bacteria (bioluminescent E.coli) in a laboratory setting.
Sucralose and neotame were found to inhibit E.coli bioluminescence. Saccharin, aspartame and ace-k induced it.
What does that mean? Your gas is as glowy as mine.
Ftfy
Not the first time (Score:2)
A few years back, there was a short and small study about common sweeteners of the time, including sugar, on actual humans, that found a notable loss of gut bacteria - One of many metrics being tested. The result was a surprise at that stage.
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said "... that found a notable loss of gut bacteria" from only the artificial sweeteners.
The two that didn't produce this effect was sugar and stevia.
Re:These results are not correctly referenced (Score:5, Informative)
Directly from the paper in the summary:
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
Department of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA
None of these are Ben-Gurion University or Nanyang Technological University.
The correct paper is:
Measuring Artificial Sweeteners Toxicity Using a Bioluminescent Bacterial Panel [mdpi.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The reporters did not even read the article (Score:1)
They just looked at the abstract and did not even quote that correctly. The article is only about neotame and the bacteria did not become toxic, they died.
There was no increased concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol in the mice, but in their feces. This is just an attempt to create panic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The second article is indeed better, but it is an in-vitro study. While the in-vitro results are interesting and definitely an indicator as to how these substances might act in-vivo, it is not the whole story.
The slashdot headline and summary is a little misleading and alarmist, but the takeaway, that artificial sweeteners might not be good for our gut biome, is probably worth further investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
were tested using genetically modified bioluminescent bacteria from E. coli."
They're toxic to E.coli? I just might be OK with that.
Editors! Huh! What are they good for? (Score:4, Informative)
To be clear here, because TFS is a mess, there are two separate papers by two separate research teams. The paper described in the first line of the summary is this one [mdpi.com], looking at a mix of supplements and how they affected bioluminescent reporting in bacteria. The paper which is linked in the first sentence ( this one [mdpi.com]) is the one which looked at Neotame exposed mice, referred to in the last paragraph of TFS.
Re:Editors! Huh! What are they good for? (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for the links! Both the summary and the cnbc article link the wrong one.
As for the CNBC article, they say "They observed that when exposed to only 1 milligram per milliliter of the artificial sweeteners, the bacteria found in the digestive system became toxic" but is that really what the study shows?
The bioluminescent bacteria, which luminesce when they detect toxicants, act as a sensing model representative of the complex microbial system. Both induced luminescent signals and bacterial growth were measured. Toxic effects were found when the bacteria were exposed to certain concentrations of the artificial sweeteners. In the bioluminescence activity assay, two toxicity response patterns were observed, namely, the induction and inhibition of the bioluminescent signal. An inhibition response pattern may be observed in the response of sucralose in all the tested strains: TV1061 (MLIC = 1 mg/mL), DPD2544 (MLIC = 50 mg/mL) and DPD2794 (MLIC = 100 mg/mL). It is also observed in neotame in the DPD2544 (MLIC = 2 mg/mL) strain. On the other hand, the induction response pattern may be observed in its response in saccharin in TV1061 (MLIndC = 5 mg/mL) and DPD2794 (MLIndC = 5 mg/mL) strains, aspartame in DPD2794 (MLIndC = 4 mg/mL) strain, and ace-k in DPD2794 (MLIndC = 10 mg/mL) strain
I am not a chemist/biologist and can not decipher that but
a) Bacteria in the gut did not become toxic. It was a genetically engineered bioluminescent strain of e-coli that signals when it detects toxicants.
b) There are many reported numbers ranging from 1 mg/mL to 100 mg/mL as well as different responses to different sweeteners.
So if I just assume the limit for toxicity is 1 mg/mL like they say, a can of diet coke contains 125 mg of Aspartame and is 8 oz = 240 mL which is about 0.5 mg/mL and thus not-toxic. Also, if the other fluids in the body dilute the coke it should be even more safe since it is the concentration that matters. Is that a reasonable conclusion?
Re: (Score:3)
Is it concentration? Or net dosage? Many diet soda drinkers can consume a 2-liter bottle in the course of a day quite esily.
Re: (Score:2)
The point everyone seems to miss amidst the moral panic is that the risk from consuming an artificially-sweetened 2L bottle of soda might not be ZERO, but it's still a huge net improvement over the known, documented harm likely to arise from the daily consumption of a 2L bottle of soda sweetened with sugar or HFCS.
Daily consumption of 2L of diet soda: theoretical changes in gut bacteria.
Daily consumption of 2L of regular soda: significantly elevated risk of diabetes and obesity.
The worst thing that could po
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's because there's so many fat bastards around.
Next!
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who's down almost 15kg from his peak I can tell you that inside every fat bastard there's a thin bastard trying to get out.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the 'regular forms' (sugar) of soda that were doing the most damage. And the energy drinks (sugar) and snacks (sugar). And over eating (carbs/sugars) in general.
Re: (Score:2)
This might have something to do with it [gatech.edu]. I also think that there are other factors [stateofobesity.org].
Re:Editors! Huh! What are they good for? (Score:5, Insightful)
The gut has many different bacteria. This study only tested e-coli.
Many different foods and spices could influence gut bacteria. This study didn't do any controls.
Many sweeteners are already broken down/absorbed in the small intestine, whereas e-coli only lives in the colon. This study didn't compensate for that.
Conclusion: lazy and deceptive study. What is alarming is that fairly obscure/crap (not published in major journal) studies like this show up all over the place. I've seen it pop up several times in tweets, reddit, and now on slashdot. Makes you wonder why so many news outlets feel compelled to pick up such a poorly done study.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are looking at aspartame, why use a toxicity threshold for Sucralose? Aspartame's minimum concentration was 4 ml/ml, making your argument even stronger.
Metabolic effects. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Since diabetics, obese people, and those with related coronary disease often try to reduce weight, the association would seem to be cause and effect of those disorders causing the use of non-nutritive sweeteners. High insulin levels at the onset of Type 2 diabetes are also associated with causing increased hunger and weight gain, _before_ the weight increase of many victims of Type 2 diabetes.
I'm not discounting all effects described in the study you mention, merely trying to point out that "association" do
I'd be curious to know, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't eat the stuff (Score:2)
It basically starts killing my gut bacteria.
And as anyone who has taken extensive antibiotic regimens can tell you.
Killing off your gut flora transforms you into ASS CANNON MAN!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. That's the water. Too much sulfur in it.
But, essentially, same effect. You become The Mighty Colon Blow.
Original article (Score:3)
Link to the original paper. [mdpi.com] Not paywalled, sweet. (see what I did there?)
The summaries, mindlessly cut and pasted several levels deep including in the /. summary, really suck. According to the summaries, the bacteria "became toxic". No they didn't, please get a clue.
Read the paper (Score:3, Informative)
... if you read the paper... they are administering 2.5 times the FDA recommended dose of Sweat and Low... the mice showed no signs of ill health or altered behavior... and the "toxic" is a little bit of a stretch... there were changes in gut bacteria populations but that happens whenever you change a diet to anything else.
Did someone else get a different read on this thing? I went through the "method" section which is where I always start whenever I read a paper. Straight to the method... aka what did you actually do?
Re: (Score:2)
He suggested I hadn't read it at all thus calling me a liar in the first sentence.
I have no problem with being corrected. Calling me a liar however was unprovoked and rude.
I actually liked that he went through the information and it was too bad that he started off so badly because we could have otherwise possibly had a discussion about it.
For example, his correction is "In other words they identified several metabolites that had altered expression in response to the administration of artificial sweetener (v
Re: (Score:2)
I addressed his post and indifferent to that he was needlessly and without provocation rude about his comment.
We've already done this... are you going to pretend that your hostility is in regards to this post or will you concede that you're just a butthurt troll following me around this site under an AC cloak?
Just wondering if you're going to admit the obvious here.
Re: (Score:2)
I addressed his point. You haven't addressed mine.
Re: (Score:2)
No, someone said something to me and I responded in kind.
When you chuckleheads come at me with your mindless reeing hostility, I tend to insult you back and laugh.
Some guy comes at me and says something I respond back at him the same way.
Why don't you try it? You'll find that unlike you, I don't hold grudges because I don't care about you.
Your beef with me, means nothing to me. I don't care. And because I don't care, I can forget it if you stop reminding me how triggered you are every ten seconds. Just come
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use socks. Never have. Sorry.
Glad we both agree that people shouldn't be posting under AC though.
Oh shit, you're posting under AC.... might want to change that, brah.
Re: (Score:2)
Unquestionably?
It is a good thing you're not a judge. Lot of innocent people would go to prison.
You have bad judgement and are pretty biased. Kindly take that into consideration for the future.
I am innocent, I don't use socks. You're wrong. I know you have bad judgement so you don't understand where you made the error.
You did. I don't use socks.
All part of the plan... (Score:3)
Step 2) Make a fortune of diabetes treatments - Check and Profit
Step 3) Develop and market tons of different artificial "no/low calorie" sweeteners and market to people now suffering from obesity - Check and Profit
Step 4) ???
Step 5) Profit Profit Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only? (Score:2)
1 milligram per milliliter is 1 gram per liter = 0.1% by weight. If I haven't misplaced a decimal, that looks to be roughly the equivalent to 7 or 8 packets of aspartame based artificial sweetener (35mg each) in a glass of water (about 250ml). Pretty sweet. I'm not sure that "only" is the right adverb.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_drink#Amount_of_artificial_sweeteners_in_diet_soft_drinks
For what it is worth.12 oz can is about 350ml. It looks like 150mg is the top end for artificial sweeteners in a can of a diet drink. So, about 0.5mg/ml or about half what was used in the study.
I'm not overly concerned - because 80s TAB moms... (Score:2)
Those early 80s women of fitness drank so much damn Tab and Diet Coke when it first came out. And there has been no great Tab plague even nearly 40 years later. The propaganda on 'fat free' bull shit caused far more harm to western culture health (high calorie, low fat confusion).
Obviously water is better than heavy sugar drinks or simulated sugar drinks - but freakouts about artificial sweeteners are always more fear than substance. And the real world proves it every day.
Obesity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd seek psychiatric help for your imaginary headaches.
Sorry but aspartame sensitivity is proven to be 100% imaginary. It doesn't exist.
I'm not too sure (Score:2)
From a variety of sources:
"Sucralose; "a chlorinated derivative of sucrose""
"Acesulfame K "is not broken down when digested, nor is it stored in the body. After being consumed, it's quickly absorbed by the body and then rapidly excreted, unchanged"
"After digestion, aspartame is broken down into two amino acids, and methanol."
"Neotame is recommended to be used in organic food, but it could be causing neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage. These are the same concerns that have been found in aspartame."
"Laboratory
Sugar is bad. Sugar subs are bad. No fun allowed. (Score:2)
Sugar is bad for you, so avoid it.
Sugar substitutes are also bad for you. Stop liking what isn't good for you!
Fuck that. Accept that life is a terminal disease. Look at the various risks and make your own decisions. I choose sugar in moderation.
just stupid (Score:2)
So I guess i should avoid food with 5 times the legal limit of saccharin?
useless (Score:2)
Junk science and junkier reporting. But its good to know that if i get an E.coli infection i can just add an entire bottle of sweetener to a diet coke to treat it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why aren't they using elephants for their 'vital research'
It's kinda hard to pick them up on their tail.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a good example of not understanding logic.
Re: (Score:2)