A Popular Sweetener Was Linked to Increased Anxiety in Generations of Mice
A Popular Sweetener Was Linked to Increased Anxiety in Generations of Mice
Could the sweetened drinks we're consuming be making us feel a little more anxious? A 2022 study looking at the effects of the artificial sweetener aspartame on mice suggests that it's a possibility that's worth investigating further.
You're viewing a single thread.
1, it's aspartame
2, Mice aren't humans, and routinely, things that happen in mice do not happen in humans. It is not at all indicative of anything and can really only be used as a hint better than nothing for looking into similar effects in humans.
You don't need to change your diet, and you certainly don't need to replace it with sugar.
*But drinking a glass of water from time to time won't kill you either.
Comment paid for Big Aspartame.
Deep Sugar take
I see the Nutrasweet Lobbyists Association is here too!
Big aspertame made that account 6 months ago, posted 1300 unrelated comments, just for this one moment...
The long con!
How much is Big Sugar paying you?
Not enough :(
Considering the patent was held by Monsanto, and all the decades of concerns have been raised by independent researchers but shut down by lobbying...
Well, I mean, who can you trust to not hide that they're making poison if not Monsanto?
Removing all forms of added sugar would probably make everyone feel better. Even minimizing natural sugar intake.
Sugar is terrible, there’s no doubt about it. Artificial or otherwise.
There's no research that indicates the currently used artificial sweeteners are bad for you.
Theres mixed analysis over the decades, actually, and different groups have different conclusions.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/sweet-n-low-dangers-still-exist/
Overall, id say limiting added sugars (natural or artificial) is rpobably better for your health long term
Artificial sugars and sweeteners are, by and large, very different things. Aspartame isn't a sugar of any sort.
The implication here is that aspartame is often used in products that have these sugars present. Chances that aspartame is in a product without sugars is exorbitantly lower.
I want to be super clear if anyone finds this and thinks maybe...
No, there is no evidence of artificial sweeteners causing harm. There is no conspiracy, and after many many studies over decades, nothing has been found. If there had been, then the artificial sweeteners would have been banned like the ones you've never heard of because we all banned them for causing problems.
If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar. From everything we have learned over decades, it's absolutely safe.
A few people are replying with links (of various relevance) but you are just saying "no" and claiming you're being "super clear". Some of the replies are directly contraindications of the claim:
If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar.
Your counterpoint is saying they are "absolutely safe". I don't know whether you are right or wrong. It's not anywhere near my field, but I can say I don't find your rhetoric convincing.
Edit: I fucked up and pasted the wrong quote. I changed the quote to the one I meant.
You do not need to find my rhetoric "convincing." One person posted one link, the link was to a meta study that concludes that artificial sweeteners have no evidence that they cause harm.
I am being clear, I am not using confusing language, and I'm stating one thing, over and over. I'm doing this because other people are muddying the water with poor claims, and I do not want anyone reading this thread to come away with the idea that maybe the artificial sweeteners are bad. There is no evidence. Again, I'm being super clear. There is absolutely no evidence, and they are absolutely safe. There is no evidence that suggests they are not absolutely safe.
This place is full of nerds like you and me, and they like to be pandantic. I'm being clear, and using phrases like "absolutely safe" is the correct terminology when we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Again, artificial sweeteners are as far as we know, and we have studied them a lot, absolutely safe and you should consider replacing your sugar intake with them or reducing your sugar intake entirely if you can. Sugar is a large cause of health problems.
the link was to a meta study that concludes that artificial sweeteners have no evidence that they cause harm.
This is how the meta study concludes:
Results from prospective cohort studies suggest the possibility of long-term harm in the form of increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality. Further research is needed to determine whether the observed associations are genuine or a result of reverse causation and/or residual confounding. Further research is also needed in children and pregnant women, the latter for which prospective cohort studies currently suggest possible unfavourable effects of NSS consumption on birthweight and adiposity in offspring later in life.
The scientists who produced the study seem a lot less convinced than you.
are as far as we know
Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
My point is that you are just some voice on the internet. When I say I don't find your rhetoric convincing, I mean that the only evidence you offer is rhetoric. And that is not convincing regardless of how clear you are speaking.
Where are the hydrohomies?
You're using overly broad language. Multiple family members and myself get brutal headaches from aspartame. While that's certainly not life threatening damage, it is fair to call that a harmful effect. I am not better off with many products switching to aspartame as a sweetener.
Yes, it is just an anecdote, but it's enough to show that absolute statements don't usually hold universally. Please stay open to the possibility of nuance.
Ten-Week Sucralose Consumption Induces Gut Dysbiosis and Altered Glucose and Insulin Levels in Healthy Young Adults
"Absolutely safe" sounds false. Pure water isnt "absolutely" safe after all
Please be overly pandantic somewhere else, it's not useful here.
Seemed fair to me, youre using strong words like "absolutely safe", even though there are known reactions to various sweeteners and they arent "absolutely" safe, as per the link I cited above.
Yes this is the overly pandantic part
Eh, IIRC there's research that if you eat incredible amounts it'll likely be bad for you. But it's a lot and the equivalent amount of sugar would be way way worse.
Drinking too much water can kill you, too
i actually almost died from hyponatremia this year
I can't tell what this is supposed to convey. They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote
there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.
Are you agreeing with the post you are replying to?
They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote
Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it? And why does it matter whether I'm agreeing with the post?
From all the years of reading about artificial sugar studies, it's clear to me that there could be a risk but it is complex and varies from person to person, I find it misplaced to shout that there is absolutely no risk involved. To quote the study:
Result of this review largely agree with those of other recent systematic reviews, in that replacing sugars with NSS in the short term results in reductions in body weight, with little impact on other cardiometabolic risk factors, but is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in the longer term.
Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it?
No, I am not refereeing a paper because some commenter links it in a web forum. Why would you think that's even close to what anyone should do in this environment?
So let me get this straight, someone asks for a study, I provide the study of studies, which you misjudge originally for being only an abstract, and then when I correct you and tell you it's a study, suddenly it's not good enough. What do you actually want?
What do you actually want?
I want conversation. Bare links are not that. Looking at the link led me to believe you providing evidence for the quack who was professing absolute safety.
Scientifically, I agree with you. I was asking the "absolute safety" commentor to provide context to studies to lead one to that conclusion. I would have been happy to read the same from you.
You have a lot to say for someone who is happy to slap a url down and move along. :)
Eh, IIRC there's research that if you eat incredible amounts it'll likely be bad for you. But it's a lot and the equivalent amount of sugar would be way way worse.
there's little research to show sugar dangers to be more than correlation
fat people eat a lot of sugar. fat people also eat a lot. eating a lot is how you get fat, drinking calories just happens to be a fast track to getting fat. diet soda happens to be physiologically like drinking water. fat people drink diet instead of sugar coke thats already 200-1000 calories of their day GONE with very very minimal change.
then those fat people supplement the lost sugars with more food and they gain weight. then you get studies showing GUYS DIET SODA CAUSES WEIGHT GAIN (in fat people)
but no its not the sugar its not the macros its YOU eating too much and you can eat less to lose weight that's just simple science. body types, "nuance", "bad metabolism". none of that shits real it all stems from shitty dietary choices and lack of muscle.
all of this to say unless theres medical issues or medical intervention your weight and body type is 100% in your control should you choose to take control
How about all the research that shows sugar is addictive AF
Of course sugar is addictive as fuck - you would literally die without it.
self control is a thing everything is addictive in some facet refined sugars just happens to trigger a stronger dopamine response than other things.
but in the end of the day self control is necessary nobody can control you except you. so dont blame sugars addicitiveness for being overweight if you are. its solely an overeating issue.
I feel like you underestimate addiction. "Self control" is what's needed to not start smoking; but it takes something stronger to quit smoking, I think -- a more refined willpower than simple "self control".
And sure, it's something a person could cultivate and train on their own with time and focus. But so are most other things. "Why aren't you good at drawing? All you need to do is practice every day! it's simple."
nicotine is chemically addictive sugar is not.
im a stoner and can assure you the way to quit smoking something that isnt chemically addictive is cold turkey will-power babey. ive taken long breaks when needed with months of straight use 24/7 down to zero for months. its all mind over matter.
im also shredded now because slight caloric deficit and healthy eating is also straight will power mind over matter to consistently eat a slight deficit and well for months. and i do a rigourous calisthenics strength routine consistently to supplement thus I'm quite ripped.
shit even for my cut i completely quit eating added sugars cold turkey i didnt eat any aside from the occasional if i was given something for like 4 months. it was also pretty easy and made occasional sweets taste better and fruits/veggies were gas.
people make shit up as excuses like "ohh im skinny fat its too late", "i dont have time in between my laying down and netflix binge". no body types dont exist. never have never will stop using excuses. if you want to be lazy accept the fact YOU ARE LAZY theres no other excuse than you being lazy. which is chill being lazy is fun sometimes (remember im a stoner) but don't pretend its for some other reason its all on YOU.
everyone thinks oh its too hard i cant do it. but no youre just lazy and weak willed and im not joking. you can do anything if you want to thats the beauty of life. things don't come easy if you see someone doing crazy shit that's probably a conglomeration of years of hard work and dedication. they probably started looking and thinking like you til they woke up.
WAKE UP you dont need to be fat, your metabolism doesn't need to suffer with age, your joints dont need to get worse. all of this happens from a lack of training and poor diet NOT age. age provides the time for your body to degrade you have to prevent that degration. I FUCKING HATE when people say your metabolism will slow down and youll get fat eventually. bitch no ill never be like you.
also finally, i am a drug addict i know about addiction trust me. I've quit some shittier things it takes effort but in the end of the day still its on YOU to quit nobody can quit for you.
nicotine is chemically addictive sugar is not.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean a sugar addiction is more like a gambling addiction than a nicotine addiction, I don't think that's the case; you can find studies that claim sugar addiction is "opiate-like". There are also some sensational claims like "sugar is more addictive than cocaine", though that seems like more of a stretch to me.
I'm glad to hear you are in great shape, and it's clear you tie a lot of self worth to physical fitness. But I would caution you not to use that as an excuse to look down on others.
Absolutely nothing wrong with a diet high in fruit and veg, both of which contain significant amounts of sugar.
You are correct, the caveat "added sugar" or added sweetener in this case is the important bit.
Fructose doesn't have the same health effects of sucrose for some reason and the sugar you eat in fruit and veg come with fiber which helps keep our blood sugar from spiking.
I was shocked to learn that dates, which are basically candy, have a pretty reasonable glycemic index.
Except that guy wrote:
Even minimizing natural sugar intake.
Which precludes fruit and a good deal of veg.
Fair point. Have a happy new year!
Fructose doesn’t have the same health effects of sucrose for some reason
That's because fructolysis has a slightly different pathway and fate as compared to glycolysis, which results in far lower efficiency of conversion. Meaning glucose gets converted into more calories than fructose does.
Fascinating! It is astounding to me how we know some of this stuff and how there is so much we have left to discover
Fruits make me just as sick as any other source of sugar. Fruit is just candy in a natural wrapper.
There’s nothing inherently bad about sugar. It’s just energy. If you intake more energy than you burn it’s getting stored for future use (you get fat). The same goes for almost anything “unhealthy”. Manage your energy intake and almost nothing is unhealthy.
The biggest question in this thread, who would downvote this?
Probably people who are a bit sketch about the "even natural sugars" bit, since that removes a TON of otherwise healthy food options. Minimize added sugar, sure.
Not to mention that the gene pool of these lab mice is super small. Source: my brother is a PhD biochemist and lectured me often on this shit when I said, "hey, look at this study!"
The small gene pool is done on purpose. The mice are supposed to be as close to clones as possible so that you can have control populations and be confident that the results weren't affected by certain genes and mutations in the test population.
The size of the gene pool isn't really an issue though because they can be bred however it's required for tests. They have quite a lot of control over the genetics of those lab mice.
Testing for a cure for diabetes? They can produce mice that are almost guaranteed to develop diabetes that you can then try to cure.
Such a small groups are fine for initial investigation, they have enough of a size to be acceptable statistically for most of the performed studies. I don't think they'd get approval from ethical committee overseeing animal experiments without initial study like this to conduct something on very high groups.
I am a relatively recent transplant from the red place, I can tell I ain't in Kansas anymore, actual good information being up voted so cool.
Aspartame is, because of all the claims against it, the single most studied food substance known, and it seems to somehow keep coming okay. There are a lot of studies with really bad methods that were a smear job attempt but science doing what it does they were labeled for what they are and disregarded. Is it possible to be allergic and a reaction to be anxiety sure, but that is not on the food.
Guarantee the study also states that you have to consume an ungodly amount of it too...
News reports grab on to stuff like this all the time. Like what they did with safrole.
The article actually states how much. 15% of the daily recommended amount.
There's a daily recommended amount for mice? Or was that 15% of the recommended amount for humans, which would be massive for mice?
15% of humans recommended amount. It's in the article.
Actually no, the keyword is equivalent, so adjusted for body weight.
Ah I think you're right.
So 15% for a 60 kilogram human, on the lower end, would be the daily recommended amount for a 9 kilogram creature. A mouse weighs around 0.025 kilograms. So, that amount for the mice is for something 360 times larger.
Obviously it's more complicated than that with differing metabolisms and the like, but as a rough estimate, wow. That's a lot.
I'm baffled by your willingness to elaborate at length about this, but not read the article where this is explained. Misinforming everyone in the process.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
It's the equivalent of the human daily dose. So adjusted for body weight. Loosely translated, it would be 15% of the daily recommended dose for mice.
I stand corrected! That's a ridiculously small amount!
Just in case you missed it, we discussed below that that's the 15% daily recommended amount for a human. That they gave to the mice. A creature several hundred times smaller.
So you were right in the first place.
No, it's the equivalent dose.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
Can you cite your sources? This excerpt from the published article suggests you're wrong:
The FDA recommended maximum DIV for aspartame for humans is 50 mg/kg (33). Based on allometric conversion utilizing pharmacokinetic and body surface area parameters (43), the mouse equivalent of the human DIV is 615 mg/kg/d. Therefore, the male mice received a daily aspartame dose equivalent to 14.0%, 7.0%, and 3.5% of the FDA recommended human DIV, and the females received a dose equivalent to 15.5%, 7.7%, and 3.9% of the human DIV.
