artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Jdsk
Posts: 1242
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Jdsk » 10 Jun 2020, 12:01pm

GLJoe wrote:But that is the issue in mainstream medicine isn't it? its all about treating the symptoms, rather than getting to the root cause of what caused it in the first place.

That's not true. Many effective treatments work at much lower level than the symptoms... cancer, infectious diseases, modern approaches to autoimmune disease, revascularisation, diabetes mellitus, hormone replacement.

Jonathan

GLJoe
Posts: 9
Joined: 26 May 2020, 11:05am

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby GLJoe » 10 Jun 2020, 12:05pm

Peter F wrote:
GLJoe wrote:
.. Some are derived directly from natural sources and are relatively harmless (toxicity wise). Some are highly processed and frankly are close to being poisonous chemicals!


This is mostly rubbish. The "natural sources and are relatively harmless" followed by "highly process and frankly close to being poisonous chemicals" betrays a lack of understanding of what causes toxicity as well as chemistry in general It's frankly claptrap. Most of the most toxic substances known to man are natural.


Someone's talking rubbish, but I'm afraid its you.
Firstly, you misquoted me by omission as I've highlighted above. Secondly, its everything to do with the processing and/or concentration. Everything at some point is going to be derived from a source that originated 'in nature', but with most foodstuffs, the problems arise when they become highly processed and/or concentrated. This has been shown over and over again.


I thought this was a cycling forum not a hotbed of pseudo science rubbish :lol:


Sounds to me as if you're the one totally out of date with current research and evidence.

Jdsk
Posts: 1242
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Jdsk » 10 Jun 2020, 12:05pm

windmiller wrote:Dentists' pay moral lip service in the search for a cure for tooth decay - in reality there is not one single economic reason why they should want one.

There's an enormous problem of incentives in any healthcare system that works on the basis of payments for items of service.

But the UK and many other countries have seen that other approaches are possible, especially in general practice.

I suspect that this is still a problem in dentistry in the UK... how is the income of dentists composed, and how much of it is population based or prevention based rather than item of service?

Jonathan

Peter F
Posts: 139
Joined: 25 May 2020, 8:16am

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Peter F » 10 Jun 2020, 12:14pm

GLJoe wrote:
Peter F wrote:
Tangled Metal wrote:Isn't Xylitol in toothpastes anyway??

That NHS link, as far as I could be bothered to read I'll admit, kept mentioning it doesn't cause cancer. That's not the same as not causing harm.
....


Maybe you should read it before commenting on it.


I read it. Its a pretty bad article to be honest, as unfortunately are many pieces of advice/information on the NHS website.
Over the last couple of years, I've often been researching some aspects of health and nutrition, and up will pop a link to the NHS, and unfortunately, more often than not, the information there is either woefully out of date, or its so politically correct/non committal, as to be virtually useless, especially if you're trying to find out what CAUSES a problem, rather than simply identifying what it is (in which case, the info there is a lot better).

But that is the issue in mainstream medicine isn't it? its all about treating the symptoms, rather than getting to the root cause of what caused it in the first place. And its not just the medical industry itself that's to blame. Most patients are looking for a magic pill to sort out their ailments, rather than change their lifestyle and eating habits (which 9 times out of 10 are the real culprits that cause the issues in the first place!)

Back to the artificial sweetener issue, there is a current saying about food in general that probably applies here:
' If man made it .... don't eat it! '


Again, mostly clap trap.

That current saying is the naturalistic fallacy.

The whole "It's about treating the symptoms, rather than getting to the root of the cause..." is just plain incorrect. Health services put a huge amount of effort in encouraging people to change their lifestyle. Have you ever even talked to a doctor? I work with chemicals known to cause cancer and the legislation around the control of exposure to them is extensive. What about constant advice over drinking less alcohol, changing your diet, not smoking, taking regular exercise etc.
It is literally everywhere.
The idea that "big pharma" doesn't want to cure anyone, it just wants to treat the symptoms is just crap.

Peter F
Posts: 139
Joined: 25 May 2020, 8:16am

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Peter F » 10 Jun 2020, 12:19pm

GLJoe wrote:
Peter F wrote:
GLJoe wrote:
.. Some are derived directly from natural sources and are relatively harmless (toxicity wise). Some are highly processed and frankly are close to being poisonous chemicals!


This is mostly rubbish. The "natural sources and are relatively harmless" followed by "highly process and frankly close to being poisonous chemicals" betrays a lack of understanding of what causes toxicity as well as chemistry in general It's frankly claptrap. Most of the most toxic substances known to man are natural.


Someone's talking rubbish, but I'm afraid its you.
Firstly, you misquoted me by omission as I've highlighted above. Secondly, its everything to do with the processing and/or concentration. Everything at some point is going to be derived from a source that originated 'in nature', but with most foodstuffs, the problems arise when they become highly processed and/or concentrated. This has been shown over and over again.


I thought this was a cycling forum not a hotbed of pseudo science rubbish :lol:


Sounds to me as if you're the one totally out of date with current research and evidence.


No, you're talking crap. Whether a chemical is taken almost unchanged from nature or fully synthesized in a laboratory has no bearing whatsoever on its toxicity.
The misquoted stuff is just bluster, it doesn't change what you said at all.

GLJoe
Posts: 9
Joined: 26 May 2020, 11:05am

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby GLJoe » 10 Jun 2020, 12:19pm

Jdsk wrote:
GLJoe wrote:But that is the issue in mainstream medicine isn't it? its all about treating the symptoms, rather than getting to the root cause of what caused it in the first place.

That's not true. Many effective treatments work at much lower level than the symptoms... cancer, infectious diseases, modern approaches to autoimmune disease, revascularisation, diabetes mellitus, hormone replacement.

Jonathan


Ok, its not 'ALL' about. Its 'often' about. I used a turn of phrase to try and make a point.
However I would point out your wording of "modern approaches to autoimmune disease, revascularisation, diabetes mellitus" might be true for SOME doctors, but surely not the majority? it would be great if it was. But if you have T2D for example, how many doctors will look into the root cause and tell you to perform a radical diet change as a first course of action? or if you have high blood pressure/cholesterol etc, won't the majority just automatically reach for the pen to give you something like a statin prescription?

Jdsk
Posts: 1242
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Jdsk » 10 Jun 2020, 12:23pm

windmiller wrote:
Jdsk wrote:What's the evidence for anything above moderate doses of aspartame being destructive, please?

Thanks

Jonathan


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24436139/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25313461/
http://europepmc.org/article/PMC/387446


Thanks

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24436139/
That's a request in 2014 to the EFSA to re-evaluate carcinogenicity of aspartame.
And here's the EFSA's latest call for evidence in 2018 for the re-evaluation:
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/data/call/170621

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25313461/
That's a study on the gut flora of rats. It shows an effect but doesn't (and can't) indicate whether that effect is beneficial or harmful. Or occurs in humans. (I happen to think that effects on gut flora are clinically very important, and might be involved in the strange story of artificial sweeteners and weight gain and loss.)

http://europepmc.org/article/PMC/387446
That's a letter in response to two case studies that don't mention aspartame. The author is using it to publicise his own theory that there's a connection between aspartame and "profound adverse neurologic, cardiopulmonary, endocrine, and allergic effects of aspartame products." The author claims to have a database of 1,300 affected patients. But doesn't give a citation for any relevant scientific publications from his own our any other scientific publications.

Neither independently or combined do these come anywhere near demonstrating toxicity or destruction in humans.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 10 Jun 2020, 12:40pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jdsk
Posts: 1242
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Jdsk » 10 Jun 2020, 12:28pm

GLJoe wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
GLJoe wrote:But that is the issue in mainstream medicine isn't it? its all about treating the symptoms, rather than getting to the root cause of what caused it in the first place.

That's not true. Many effective treatments work at much lower level than the symptoms... cancer, infectious diseases, modern approaches to autoimmune disease, revascularisation, diabetes mellitus, hormone replacement.

Jonathan


Ok, its not 'ALL' about. Its 'often' about. I used a turn of phrase to try and make a point.
However I would point out your wording of "modern approaches to autoimmune disease, revascularisation, diabetes mellitus" might be true for SOME doctors, but surely not the majority? it would be great if it was. But if you have T2D for example, how many doctors will look into the root cause and tell you to perform a radical diet change as a first course of action? or if you have high blood pressure/cholesterol etc, won't the majority just automatically reach for the pen to give you something like a statin prescription?

I teach this stuff to medical students and examine them. Any of them who didn't put lifestyle first and repeatedly for both causes and interventions in both type 2 diabetes mellitus and Western-pattern cardiovascular disease would be... corrected.

That's education. It's hard to tell what doctors do in practice. But let's look at what they're guided to do: can anyone find a piece of guidance from any of the NHSs or NICE that doesn't emphasise lifestyle changes in precisely the same way?

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 10 Jun 2020, 12:41pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jdsk
Posts: 1242
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Jdsk » 10 Jun 2020, 12:36pm

GLJoe wrote:However I would point out your wording of "modern approaches to autoimmune disease, revascularisation, diabetes mellitus" might be true for SOME doctors, but surely not the majority? it would be great if it was.

OK, you've removed treatments for cancer, hormone replacement and infectious diseases from the list. (BTW It's helpful and polite to show where you've edited someone else's quote.)

How do you think that the majority of doctors treat rheumatoid disease and systemic lupus erythematosus?

How do you think that the majority of doctors treat occlusion of single major arteries?

Shirley

xerxes
Posts: 47
Joined: 10 May 2013, 7:22pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby xerxes » 10 Jun 2020, 12:45pm

Peter F wrote:Artificial sweeteners have been extensively tested and at the levels found in food do no harm. Obesity caused by excess calorie intake however is an issue.

Excess calorie intake is only an issue for those who don't burn it off. I find it very annoying that it now seems to be impossible to buy, say, a bottle of orange squash without artificial sweeteners. It's the nanny state.

Jdsk
Posts: 1242
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Jdsk » 10 Jun 2020, 12:56pm

xerxes wrote:I find it very annoying that it now seems to be impossible to buy, say, a bottle of orange squash without artificial sweeteners. It's the nanny state.

It's a tough problem.

Along with many other people I'm very concerned about the dominance of the food industry, the prevalence of obesity, and the importance of preventative healthcare as well as the management of illness.

And when we finally manage to make a coordinated change based on the evidence of what works... "it's the nanny state".

Jonathan

User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 4759
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Audax67 » 10 Jun 2020, 1:04pm

Jdsk wrote:
Audax67 wrote:If all you had on getting home was a sugar-free drink, I'd think that you gave yourself a hefty dose of hypoglycaemia. The sweetness would trigger a release of insulin that would drive down your blood sugar.

The release of insulin is driven by glucose concentration outside the relevant pancreatic cells.

Any evidence that artificial sweeteners cause the release of insulin? Or hypoglycaemia? It's an easy enough assertion to test, and it has been. (I know of one study with saccharin showing an insulin response but it was never confirmed.)

Jonathan


https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/ar ... n#section2

small amounts of insulin are also released before any sugar enters the bloodstream. This response is known as cephalic phase insulin release. It is triggered by the sight, smell, and taste of food, as well as chewing and swallowing
Have we got time for another cuppa?

Jdsk
Posts: 1242
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Jdsk » 10 Jun 2020, 1:12pm

Yes, that effect exists.

That article cites one study showing an effect with sucralose (their "10")... but it's on the response to swigging glucose, which is very different from "If all you had on getting home was a sugar-free drink".

The other cited studies for both sucralose and aspartame do not show insulin release. Or hypoglycaemia.

Jonathan

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6838
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Tangled Metal » 10 Jun 2020, 1:48pm

Peter F wrote:
Tangled Metal wrote:Isn't Xylitol in toothpastes anyway??

That NHS link, as far as I could be bothered to read I'll admit, kept mentioning it doesn't cause cancer. That's not the same as not causing harm.

AFAIK there's never been independent research of various commonly n used artificial sweeteners on people who suffer migraines. I know anecdotal tales of it triggering migraines isn't a high standard of evidence but unless you can show independent, higher quality research proving it doesn't contribute towards triggering migraines I'll continue with that assertion. Reason why I'm convinced that's true is because I can deliberately trigger a migraine by consuming things with aspartame and a couple of other artificial sweeteners.

I am serious in this because I've tried various food and drink with it. For example, when in Belgium I drank a drink that was sold as a lemon health tonic drink made with very few components and no sugar only aspartame. I got a migraine in 15 minutes of my first sip. I felt the attack coming on so drank only half of the 330ml drink after reading the contents. I was able to detect when rybena lowered it's sugar content and replaced it with artificial sweeteners when I drank it for the first time in years and got a migraine. I have a friend who's my age, a migraine sufferer and can trigger migraines at will by drinking or eating anything with the common artificial sweeteners.

I bet we're not alone. I often wonder if it's safe then why don't they carry out double blind studies with migraine sufferers who claim aspartame and others cause migraines. I would wager you'll find it pretty conclusive that it is a trigger for people with migraines that believe it's a trigger. Bet the migraineurs who weren't given aspartame or other similar sweetener don't get migrants but those with it do. If you test people claiming is a trigger anecdotally.

Now I challenge anyone who has said it's safe find the gold standard research proving what I have experienced isn't down to aspartame. I've yet to find it. I am not the sort for conspiracy theories but I believe artificial sweeteners will be found out to cause harm to some consumers. I believe it be will one day be controlled or prominently highlighted as an ingredient so people can avoid it or one of the other sweeteners.

I do not follow the idea that it causes less deaths than sugar, the vaping health benefits idea for smokers. If it causes harm then it's not a good substitute when simply removing or reducing all sweeteners whether sugar or artificial sweeteners is perhaps the better option. Perhaps humans need weaning off the sweet taste full stop.


Maybe you should read it before commenting on it.

There is no evidence that it causes harm in the quantities you will find in food. Aspartame has been linked to migraines in people that are sensitive to it, but many things are thought to trigger migraines. It doesn't mean that it is dangerous or toxic at all. If something is toxic it affects everyone.

There is simply no comparison with smoking/vaping.

Does it have to be toxic to everyone to be worthy of action? Everyone isn't allergic to peanuts but they highlight of on packets. Right now there's so much on packets that isn't highlighted as causing harm to people. IMHO artificial sweeteners are one class of chemicals found in food that should be highlighted as potentially harmful.

BTW it does sound like you are dismissing migraines as a lesser condition that isn't worth action. It affects about 6 million people in the UK with 25 million lost days in school and work. Third most common disease in the world and conservatively costing £3.6 billion per year in the UK due to medical costs and lost productivity. I've seen a figure saying globally 2,9% of all years of life lost to disability are from migraines. Seventh most disabling disease globally.

People with severe allergic response to potential allergens, even those yet to find out they are, get to read the label to see there's stuff in there able to cause harm. Yet migraineurs don't get any warning unless they know what they're looking for. Ok people die with allergens but indirectly migraine does account for loss of life. Suicide is something that happens among severe sufferers. If you've ever visited migraine forums you'll read about the toll on people's mental health. It's also affecting families too.

I'm sorry but neatly measly words about not being toxic doesn't cut it harm is the measure and pure toxicology doesn't measure that. Peanuts have been linked to people sensitive to it. Let's ignore the harm it can do to those and take out the legal labelling requirements. I'm simply saying that more research into them should happen. I'm of the opinion that more research into did safety is a good thing and indeed wonder whether there's some merit in the more synthetic or chemical food additives needing almost pharmaceutical controls. There's so many chemicals used in food and food production over the years that's banned or subject to control. It's all retrospective.

To mirror your comments, read up on harm migraine causes before commenting on it. It's another serious condition that gets less attention than the effects should warrant.

Jdsk
Posts: 1242
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: artificial sweeteners; are they poison?

Postby Jdsk » 10 Jun 2020, 3:06pm

Tangled Metal wrote:It (migraine) affects about 6 million people in the UK with 25 million lost days in school and work. Third most common disease in the world and conservatively costing £3.6 billion per year in the UK due to medical costs and lost productivity. I've seen a figure saying globally 2,9% of all years of life lost to disability are from migraines. Seventh most disabling disease globally.

Global Burden of Disease Study 2016
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5605509/

Jonathan