• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

New study uncovers frightening consequences of drinking artificially sweetened beverages

I'm more interested in the role artificial sweeteners play in altering your gut microbiome.
This is the main reason why I try to avoid them. Sugar is bad too so I just rarely eat sweet things.

The one area where I still get artificial sweetener is protein powder. A ton of protein powders use sucralose, which sucks because I really like the one that I've been buying, but I might have to go back to using that nasty unflavored stuff.
 
BTW, here is the study's contents in their entirety. I don't know if follow-up material is expected. I'm not used to seeing so little data shared even with a DOI:
P17-031-25 Association Between Artificial Sweetener
Consumption and Risk of Incident Diabetes: The CARDIA study

Hejingzi Jia 1 , Lyn M Steffen 1 , So-Yun Yi 1 , Xia Zhou 1 ,
Brian Steffen 1 , James G Terry 2 , Elizabeth R Lusczek 1 ,
James M Shikany 3 , Linda Van Horn 4 , David R Jacobs 1
1 University of Minnesota, United States
2 Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States
3 The University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States
4 Northwestern University, United States

Objectives: The prevalence of diabetes has risen sharply over
the past decades. Artificial sweeteners (ArtSw) are widely used
as sugar substitutes which have been linked to adverse health
outcomes. This study examined the association between ArtSw
intake and incident diabetes risk. We hypothesize that higher
ArtSw intake increases incident diabetes risk.

Methods: This analysis included 4,654 adults (54.4% female,
50.1% white) enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development
in Young Adults (CARDIA) study who were mean age 24.9 years
at baseline in 1985-86. Dietary intake was assessed by the
CARDIA diet history at year 0 (Y0), Y7, and Y20 cumulative
average intakes of ArtSw, diet beverage, aspartame, and sucra-
lose were calculated. Diabetes was defined as fasting glucose
greater than or equal to 126 mg/dl, OGTT 2-hour glucose greater
than or equal to 200 mg/dl, hemoglobin A1C greater than or
equal to 6.5%, or use of diabetes medications at follow-up visits.
Time-dependent multivariable cox proportional hazard regres-
sion models were used to assess associations of incident diabetes
across quintiles of ArtSw, diet beverages, aspartame, or sucralose
intakes through year 30. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race,
field center, education, energy intake, physical activity, smoking
status, alcohol drinking, diet quality, and family history of

diabetes.

Results:
Over a median follow-up of 30 years (691 incident
diabetes events), participants in quintile 5 of diet beverage
intake had significantly higher risk of developing diabetes
compared to those in quintile 1 (hazard ratio: 2.29; 95% CI:
1.66–3.18; p trend< 0.001). Positive associations were also
observed for intakes of saccharin (HR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.37–3.21;
ptrend¼0.013). Adjusting for waist circumference attenuated the
associations slightly. Associations were not significant for total
ArtSw, sucralose, or aspartame intake with incidence of diabetes.


Conclusions: Higher intakes of diet beverage and saccharin
were associated with an increased risk of incident diabetes.
These findings highlight the need to evaluate the long-term
metabolic effect of ArtSw on glucose metabolism.

Funding Sources: CARDIA is supported by the National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
james-franco-wait-what.gif


Yeah, so they say they controlled for things like energy intake, exercise habits, and family history of disease, but peculiarly, I don't see them controlling for BMI or obesity. They don't share their data, so you only see a rough description of the regression model. But the key is that final red-highlighted part.

In other words, no, there was no association between an increased incidence of diabetes for "ArtSw" aka Artificial Sweeteners, Sucralose, or Aspartame. Per the first, it's not clear what "artificial sweeteners" these are because it isn't specified; we only know that these aren't Saccharin (Sweet N Low), Sucralose (Splenda), or Aspartame (Equal, Nutrasweet) because they were listed separately.

To summarize, they found an increased incidence for Diet Sodas and a very slightly elevated incidence for Aspartame (Equal, Nutrasweet). Yet these were "attenuated" when they adjusted for waist circumference meaning that, indeed, once they actually controlled for fat people, those incidence elevations mostly went away. However, more importantly, they found no difference with Aspartame, Sucralose, or "ArtSw" (all the other unnamed artificial sweeteners they tested). And here's the kicker. Aspartame is by far the most popular artificial sweetener used in diet soda including the most popularly consumed ones in the USA and the rest of North America such as Diet Coke and Diet Dr. Pepper, LOL.

This study means fuck all.
 
Saccharin packets used to carry "brain tumors in baby monkeys" warnings (and it tastes like chemicals), so I avoid that one.

Aspartame breaks down at 81F in liquid form into bad tings and is metabolized into methanol and carcinogenic formaldehyde, so that's no good. Only use it in dry powder form, for cold applications like cold cereal, lemonade, etc.

Sucralose tastes the best imo, but it causes gut inflammation.

Pure stevia extract (not the common stuff adulterated with erythritol) tastes great in the right applications and suppresses my sugar cravings. Its super potent too, so it's probably the most economical option. Highly recommended.

The stevia + erythritol stuff tastes more fake imo and supposedly has a laxative effect.

I had some monk fruit product that may have been mixed with something else, and I didn't like it.

Fructose has a low glycemia index (while also being sweeter than white sugar) and imo it gets an underserved bad rap, likely due to its association with corn syrup which is typically derived from GMO corn.

Allulose is a natural sugar that's nearly indigestible. Haven't tasted it solo, but it's like $10/lb and is only 60 or 70% as sweet as "white sugar".

People raise a 12oz can of coke to their lips 10,000 times and can't be bothered to read the bold print "140 calories". That's the biggest problem.
 
people who regularly consumed diet beverages or drinks sweetened with saccharin were more than two times as likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who rarely consumed them.
Wait...

Are we saying it's 2x more likely to cause diabetes than not consuming with any sweeteners? Because that's just common sense.

Or are we saying it's 2x more likely to develop diabetes than regular sugar? Because that'd be concerning.
 
The real problem is that people think they can eat the worst possible unhealthy stuff and then have a diet Coke and everything's cool. I used to work with a guy that weighed like 350 lbs. We'd go to lunch and he'd get a double cheese burger with extra mayo, super-sized fries with an extra- large diet Coke. Not hard to find the problem there.
 
Not all people are the same and the way your body breaks down and the speed at which it does it varies from person to person, it's mostly to do with the microbial life and the types and amounts you've got in your gut, some people have huge problems with certain carbohydrates they create massive insulin spikes in the blood, whilst others don't have a problem.

It's actually a good test for someone that's having issues with inflammation and insulin resistance to do resting tests for blood sugar levels with the foods they commonly eat, you might find your body doesn't do well with large amounts of rice, but white potatoes don't cause so much issues.... You should also do this for sweetened beverages, you might find an artificial sweetener that doesn't cause you many issues in this regard, I'd still steer away from artificial sweeteners in general and only for occasional usage....
 
They should get some fit skinny people and some fit athletic people and get them to drink diet soda for 30 yrs and see what happens.
 
The real problem is that people think they can eat the worst possible unhealthy stuff and then have a diet Coke and everything's cool. I used to work with a guy that weighed like 350 lbs. We'd go to lunch and he'd get a double cheese burger with extra mayo, super-sized fries with an extra- large diet Coke. Not hard to find the problem there.
I have seen fat people at Sam's Club food court ordering hot dogs + soda + pizza as if hot dog not enough and also fried pork rinds big tub in the shopping cart.
 
Been drinking a lot of sugar free gatorade recently.
I looked at the ingredients ... 'sweetener 950 and 955'.
I looked them up. One is 'Ace-K... has caused cancer in rats.
The other was Splendor - no long term studies, can affect blood sugar and insulin levels.

Good old fine print. And these are considered safe ones
 
My father used to developed disabling headaches. He and his doctors didn't know why. It wasn't till one of his friends suggested that he stop drinking artificial sweetened drinks that he figured out it was one of the artificial sugars that was giving him the headaches.
 
Been drinking a lot of sugar free gatorade recently.
I looked at the ingredients ... 'sweetener 950 and 955'.
I looked them up. One is 'Ace-K... has caused cancer in rats.
The other was Splendor - no long term studies, can affect blood sugar and insulin levels.

Good old fine print. And these are considered safe ones
Rats are biologically similar to humans and they have relatively short life spans, so they're useful as test subjects, but obviously they are not quite 1:1 with humans. They also generally use far higher dosages than would be applicable for people, just to be on the safe side.

The ADI for a 80 kg adult for Ace-K would be like 14 litres of Gatorade a day, and you'd still be within safe limits, you're probably more likely to get water poisoning from drinking that much of it than getting teh cancer from Ace-K.
 
What were the control factors? Did each group have the same weight / lifestyle? Because it's more likely that a fat person is trying to cut down on sugar than a thin person.
 
Rats are biologically similar to humans and they have relatively short life spans, so they're useful as test subjects, but obviously they are not quite 1:1 with humans. They also generally use far higher dosages than would be applicable for people, just to be on the safe side.

The ADI for a 80 kg adult for Ace-K would be like 14 litres of Gatorade a day, and you'd still be within safe limits, you're probably more likely to get water poisoning from drinking that much of it than getting teh cancer from Ace-K.
Thats good to know Sherbro. Thanks.
 
This.

People who drink diet sodas may or may not be doing so in addition to consuming other crap food, and along with bad lifestyle habits in general.

It tells you, at least a little bit about someone if they usually drink that stuff or if they rarely drink it.

I'm more interested in the role artificial sweeteners play in altering your gut microbiome.
Bro you became a mod? Ave Corinthian!
 
My brain hurts when I consume artificial sweeteners. Feels like poison.
Same thing for me, dont know anyone else who really feels the same but since ive started avoiding processed and artificial crap everytime I even smell something along those lines my monkey brain kicks in and I know no human should be consuming that crap.
 
can't be good for you, i drink too much diet coke and just assume it isn't good for me but I wouldn't know if I trust these studies. There was one that said phenalynine puts holes in people's brains. I haven't had any problems that I'm aware of from diet coke, I don't think it keeps people slim, it seems to only make me hungry so I eat more than I would otherwise. The lack of sugar is probably a good thing in comparison to normal sodas. Normal soda with sugar in the quantities that some people drink it in rots teeth and ruins health.
 
Back
Top