Sucralose, this may interest you or may not

[OuchThatHurts]

It seems everything causes cancer these days snd this may be just the latest thing but with workout drinks, supps, etc, I think our demgraphic gets a healthy dose of this stuff (Splenda).

As recently as last month, a metabolite found both in sucrolose and created during digestion of sucrolose is genotoxic, actually breaking apart DNA inside cells. It's very possible this could lead to gut problems in the stomach and intestines as well as the metabolite sucrolose-6-acetate being carcinogenic. It's used very widely in supps so just a heads up.

Chemical found in widely used sweetener breaks up DNA

A new study finds a chemical formed when we digest a widely used sweetener is "genotoxic," meaning it breaks up DNA.

www.news-medical.net

 

[Ace0]

the change in gut biome is the only thing that worries me about sucralose, however the research isn’t quite there yet for us to understand the gut in my opinion. If you really want to play it safe stevia is the best bet for zero calories sweeteners if I recall correctly.

 

[b-boy]

It seems everything causes cancer these days snd this may be just the latest thing but with workout drinks, supps, etc, I think our demgraphic gets a healthy dose of this stuff (Splenda).

As recently as last month, a metabolite found both in sucrolose and created during digestion of sucrolose is genotoxic, actually breaking apart DNA inside cells. It's very possible this could lead to gut problems in the stomach and intestines as well as the metabolite sucrolose-6-acetate being carcinogenic. It's used very widely in supps so just a heads up.

Chemical found in widely used sweetener breaks up DNA

A new study finds a chemical formed when we digest a widely used sweetener is "genotoxic," meaning it breaks up DNA.

www.news-medical.net

LOL, there will be many more studies on the dangers of sucralose in the near future, diabetes is a $$$$ making business

 

[stackdizzy]

Man I used to used to use splenda on top of my oatmeal until it started giving me explosive mud butt. This is good info to know!

 

[buck]

20 some years ago when i was doing searches on it. I ran into hundreds of small studies showing it to be unhealthy. That is one of the reasons it took so long to be allowed into food. The part found entertaining as i remember it is the director of the FDA after many years of not allowing it's use finally OK'd it. The quit the FDA and went to work for the parent company of sucralose the next year at something like 3X the salary.

 

[nothuman]

It seems everything causes cancer these days snd this may be just the latest thing but with workout drinks, supps, etc, I think our demgraphic gets a healthy dose of this stuff (Splenda).

As recently as last month, a metabolite found both in sucrolose and created during digestion of sucrolose is genotoxic, actually breaking apart DNA inside cells. It's very possible this could lead to gut problems in the stomach and intestines as well as the metabolite sucrolose-6-acetate being carcinogenic. It's used very widely in supps so just a heads up.

Chemical found in widely used sweetener breaks up DNA

A new study finds a chemical formed when we digest a widely used sweetener is "genotoxic," meaning it breaks up DNA.

www.news-medical.net

This is an in vitro study so it still doesn't conclude anything. We need more research on this to really know more.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

LOL, there will be many more studies on the dangers of sucralose in the near future, diabetes is a $$$$ making business

Yeah, good thinking b-boy. This was probably just a false report put out by the HFCS and sugar cane lobbies to keep people from being < 10% BF bodybuilders.

BTW, do a search "sucralose genotoxicity". Or just click here---> Search Genotoxicity

Unbelievable the way people come at you for posting something to consider regarding their health. But by all means, eat all you can. Brush your teeth with the shit. IDGAF. Have at it.

 

[Ace0]

Alters biome negatively, healthy human trial

Ten-Week Sucralose Consumption Induces Gut Dysbiosis and Altered Glucose and Insulin Levels in Healthy Young Adults

Sucralose consumption alters microbiome and carbohydrate metabolism in mouse models. However, there are no conclusive studies in humans. Our goals were to examine the effect of sucralose consumption on the intestinal abundance of bacterial species belonging to Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and...

www.mdpi.com

Changes in biome in two weeks, human trial

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(22)00919-9.pdf

Sucralose causing (mild) glucose intolerance due to changes in the biome is a scary thought. Originally it was thought that it had no effect on insulin but now it seems there is an insulin response.

 

[b-boy]

Yeah, good thinking b-boy. This was probably just a false report put out by the HFCS and sugar cane lobbies to keep people from being < 10% BF bodybuilders.

BTW, do a search "sucralose genotoxicity". Or just click here---> Search Genotoxicity

Unbelievable the way people come at you for posting something to consider regarding their health. But by all means, eat all you can. Brush your teeth with the shit. IDGAF. Have at it.

I didn't come at you any type of way, I'm not going to worry until I see a little more research on it that's all. Do I look at the hundreds of articles about artificial sweeteners and such, sure I do I would be an idiot if I didn't but your also talking to a guy that has injected URL gear and products made by who fuck knows containing who fuck knows what. I do as many healthy things I can to give the amazing human body all the chance it can to combat and fight against who fuck knows what. There are thousands of things we consume that contain hazardous shit that is banned in just about every country BUT ours. So I live healthy and leave the rest up to God or fate or whatever you believe in

 

[MR. BMJ]

I'm sorry I even created the thread. I'm on zero fucks with this topic at this point. There's enough info and articles from every nook and cranny of culture in the link I posted above.

I don't think you were interjecting your opinion on the matter brother. I think you just posted it for everybody to read, digest, and converse on it.

 

[MR. BMJ]

Alters biome negatively, healthy human trial

Ten-Week Sucralose Consumption Induces Gut Dysbiosis and Altered Glucose and Insulin Levels in Healthy Young Adults

Sucralose consumption alters microbiome and carbohydrate metabolism in mouse models. However, there are no conclusive studies in humans. Our goals were to examine the effect of sucralose consumption on the intestinal abundance of bacterial species belonging to Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and...

www.mdpi.com

Changes in biome in two weeks, human trial

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(22)00919-9.pdf

Sucralose causing (mild) glucose intolerance due to changes in the biome is a scary thought. Originally it was thought that it had no effect on insulin but now it seems there is an insulin response.

One of my concerns for studies like this one, and one that I believe Lyle McD pointed out a while back (maybe this exact one, i'd have to look), is that almost nobody consumes sucralose by itself in isolation, and thus, it would be interesting to see how interjecting other foods or dietary patterns, both with and without sucralose, effect the gut biome using this same testing. I have not looked into this, personally. This is out of my area, i'd have to look into it more, but i'm not even sure how accurate or reliable this testing measure even is. On the other hand, they did point this out, or at least to see how other testing methods would reflect results....

"Moreover, we should assess the effects of sucralose ingestion on gut microbiota composition by using other methodologies, such as Mi-Seq sequencing or 16S sequencing, that would allow us to properly characterize the changes in all of the bacterial species in the human gut."

 

[cmryan]

I'm sorry I even created the thread. I'm on zero fucks with this topic at this point. There's enough info and articles from every nook and cranny of culture in the link I posted above.

The Absence of Genotoxicity of Sucralose

Overall lack of genotoxic activity among five common low- and no-calorie sweeteners: A contemporary review of the collective evidence

 

[OuchThatHurts]

I don't know why you're getting so upset from some responses. If you state/post something that is in contrast to massive amounts of existing evidence, it's pretty naive to think it won't be scrutinized. Doesn't mean you need to acquiesce but don't be surprised and get upset when people raise questions about it.

I can appreciate you wanting to start a discussion if that was the goal. If it was to point to something slight (in vitro) and expecting nodding heads, then I'm sorry but you're very unlikely to get that from this data.

Also, these were results on the first page of the genotoxicity link you posted.

The Absence of Genotoxicity of Sucralose

Overall lack of genotoxic activity among five common low- and no-calorie sweeteners: A contemporary review of the collective evidence

------

Funding​

This work was funded by the Calorie Control Council and the American Beverage Association.

Declaration of Competing Interest​

The authors are employed by ToxStrategies, which is a consulting firm providing services to private and public organizations on toxicology and risk assessment issues. The manuscript was drafted in the normal course of employment; no authors received personal fees. The funding sponsors were not involved in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the development of conclusions from the evaluation. The sponsors reviewed the manuscript prior to submission; the nature of recommendations and comments from the sponsors were related to clarity, brevity, and editorial considerations in the reporting of the manuscript. The conduct of the research, as well as the researchers' scientific conclusions and professional judgments remained under the control of the authors.

--------

That's interesting. American Beverage Association. As for overwhelming body of evidence, that's debatable. I'm not angry or upset. Just shocked. All the talk we see of stomach problems on this site is concerning to me. This information is fairly new so I thought the users might find it interesting or as the thread title says, THIS MAY INTEREST YOU OR MAY NOT. The information is provided as is, as I received it. Obviously you didn't do a search as requested but found an article of conclusions based on funding from a beverage association that CLAIMS nobody influenced anyone. Mega cherry-picked.

I'm not saying these recent studies are absolutely definitive. But at the very least, warrant some consideration. Here's what I see whe I click on that link:







Now all the above are just screenshots. Not links. But as the title of the thread says, you might find this information interesting or may not. For those that do, I'm happy to list these links. I got off artificial sweetners (I made a thread on it) some time ago and anecdotally, my overall experience was very positive.

If none of this interests you, then just move on.

 

[cmryan]

------

Funding​

This work was funded by the Calorie Control Council and the American Beverage Association.

Declaration of Competing Interest​

The authors are employed by ToxStrategies, which is a consulting firm providing services to private and public organizations on toxicology and risk assessment issues. The manuscript was drafted in the normal course of employment; no authors received personal fees. The funding sponsors were not involved in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the development of conclusions from the evaluation. The sponsors reviewed the manuscript prior to submission; the nature of recommendations and comments from the sponsors were related to clarity, brevity, and editorial considerations in the reporting of the manuscript. The conduct of the research, as well as the researchers' scientific conclusions and professional judgments remained under the control of the authors.

--------

That's interesting. American Beverage Association.

And what are you implying? That source of funding would potentially benefit from people switching from one of their products to another one of their products lol? Truly, no soft implication, what do you think you're actually accomplishing by stating the source of funding, which is already plain to see for anyone reading it? I'd like to see it put to words.

And trying to refute an opposing point by calling into question the source of funding is just another form ad hominem. You're not actually addressing the content of the opposing point. Basic cognitive bias.

As for overwhelming body of evidence, that's debatable.

Not really. Well, I'm wrong about that. I suppose everything is debatable depending on the topic and people. But you've posted multiple links to news coverage of the same in vitro study about genotoxicity (which is not the same as carcinogenic by the way). But so be it. I'm gathering you're not willing to actually look at the content of studies, and more prone to say it's all corporate money or something as it's easier to try to imply maliciousness than actually consider a different point of view.

I'm not angry or upset.

Seriously?

"I'm sorry I even created the thread. I'm on zero fucks with this topic at this point."

If someone says that, does it not scream angry and upset to you?

Just shocked. All the talk we see of stomach problems on this site is concerning to me. This information is fairly new so I thought the users might find it interesting or as the thread title says, THIS MAY INTEREST YOU OR MAY NOT. The information is provided as is, as I received it.

Now this is a reasonable point of view but your other posts did not convey this sentiment very well.

Obviously you didn't do a search as requested

Oh joy lol. Sure thing dude. You're checking out my search results? Was the pr0n I searched 2 years ago to your enjoyment?

but found an article of conclusions based on funding from a beverage association that CLAIMS nobody influenced anyone. Mega cherry-picked.

I'm not saying these recent studies are absolutely definitive. But at the very least, warrant some consideration. Here's what I see whe I click on that link:

Single study. All of those links are just news coverage of the same single in vitro study.

Now all the above are just screenshots. Not links. But as the title of the thread says, you might find this information interesting or may not. For those that do, I'm happy to list these links. I got off artificial sweetners (I made a thread on it) some time ago and anecdotally, my overall experience was very positive.

Great. I'm glad you found and were able to remove something that was apparently problematic for you.

If none of this interests you, then just move on.

Thank you for bringing to everyone's attention. And as a general bit of advice, it's probably not best to expect to develop a small echo chamber on a topic in a public forum. But ymmv. Cheers.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

And what are you implying? That source of funding would potentially benefit from people switching from one of their products to another one of their products lol? Truly, no soft implication, what do you think you're actually accomplishing by stating the source of funding, which is already plain to see for anyone reading it? I'd like to see it put to words.

And trying to refute an opposing point by calling into question the source of funding is just another form ad hominem. You're not actually addressing the content of the opposing point. Basic cognitive bias.


Not really. Well, I'm wrong about that. I suppose everything is debatable depending on the topic and people. But you've posted multiple links to news coverage of the same in vitro study about genotoxicity (which is not the same as carcinogenic by the way). But so be it. I'm gathering you're not willing to actually look at the content of studies, and more prone to say it's all corporate money or something as it's easier to try to imply maliciousness than actually consider a different point of view.


Seriously?

"I'm sorry I even created the thread. I'm on zero fucks with this topic at this point."

If someone says that, does it not scream angry and upset to you?


Now this is a reasonable point of view but your other posts did not convey this sentiment very well.


Oh joy lol. Sure thing dude. You're checking out my search results? Was the pr0n I searched 2 years ago to your enjoyment?


Single study. All of those links are just news coverage of the same single in vitro study.


Great. I'm glad you found and were able to remove something that was apparently problematic for you.


Thank you for bringing to everyone's attention. And as a general bit of advice, it's probably not best to expect to develop a small echo chamber on a topic in a public forum. But ymmv. Cheers.

But studies have been done on healthy subjects. A study to this effect was posted by a member right in this thread.

The study was authoritative enough for media outlets worldwide to warrant consideration and for editorial depts to approve all of these articles (hundreds) which are mostly only hours and days old.

And you want to talk about naive? How naive is it to believe the source of funding is NOT germane to the outcome (results) of a study? We saw this in a big way in the last few years.

As for bias, just how ridiculously biased must one be to assume and suggest someone is trying to create a fucking artificial sweetener 'echo chamber' on a public forum? You clearly have an axe to grind as the information was provided "take it or leave it". This is very amusing to me.

And regarding my initial reaction, of course it was objectionable. That tends to happen when people define others' reactions which aren't going to be "nodding heads" or ANY type of predictive action on the part of the readers/members of a simple news article. You've passive aggressively been hostile to the study, the OP, the motives (echo chamber ), and the reactions of other members.

Dude, you are this triggered by artificial sweeteners? Wow. That's awful. Now I have to go and clean up this thread and give you a warning to stay out of my "cognitively biased" threads going forward. I've always enjoyed your contributions here but this is so far over the top ridiculous over a study on Splenda that it's cartoonish. Just scroll on by if you're this triggered by artificial sweeteners. And if it's a problem with me, than send me a DM.

Ad hominem? JFC...

 

[Ace0]

One of my concerns for studies like this one, and one that I believe Lyle McD pointed out a while back (maybe this exact one, i'd have to look), is that almost nobody consumes sucralose by itself in isolation, and thus, it would be interesting to see how interjecting other foods or dietary patterns, both with and without sucralose, effect the gut biome using this same testing. I have not looked into this, personally. This is out of my area, i'd have to look into it more, but i'm not even sure how accurate or reliable this testing measure even is. On the other hand, they did point this out, or at least to see how other testing methods would reflect results....

I remember that argument however there are lots of people who consume sucralose while fasting and people often drink stand-alone diet sodas. I would also be interested in the mixed diet application though because my most frequent usage is through protein shakes by far.

 

[Ace0]

One thing I may add as food for thought is the usage of zero calorie sweeteners in Japan and Korea, @hawkmoon could probably tell you more but when I visited Japan it was insane the amount low and zero calorie dessert and drink options they have everywhere. I am currently in Korea and that’s what reminded me of this. The reason I’m bringing this up is people are generally more health conscious in these countries than Western countries additionally there doctors and scientists have a more holistic approach to things so if anyone was to see detrimental effects of non-nutritive sweeteners it would probably be picked up in Asia first.

However I would be remiss to neglect the whole western influence thing on both dietary practices and scientific practice, so take this for what you will, just an observation.

 

[totalrecomp]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37246822/

Toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate and its parent sucralose: in vitro screening assays
Susan S Schiffman 1, Elizabeth H Scholl 2, Terrence S Furey 3, H Troy Nagle 1 4
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 37246822
• DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate, a structural analog of the artificial sweetener sucralose. Sucralose-6-acetate is an intermediate and impurity in the manufacture of sucralose, and recent commercial sucralose samples were found to contain up to 0.67% sucralose-6-acetate. Studies in a rodent model found that sucralose-6-acetate is also present in fecal samples with levels up to 10% relative to sucralose which suggest that sucralose is also acetylated in the intestines. A MultiFlow® assay, a high-throughput genotoxicity screening tool, and a micronucleus (MN) test that detects cytogenetic damage both indicated that sucralose-6-acetate is genotoxic. The mechanism of action was classified as clastogenic (produces DNA strand breaks) using the MultiFlow® assay. The amount of sucralose-6-acetate in a single daily sucralose-sweetened drink might far exceed the threshold of toxicological concern for genotoxicity (TTCgenotox) of 0.15 µg/person/day. The RepliGut® System was employed to expose human intestinal epithelium to sucralose-6-acetate and sucralose, and an RNA-seq analysis was performed to determine gene expression induced by these exposures. Sucralose-6-acetate significantly increased the expression of genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer with greatest expression for the metallothionein 1 G gene (MT1G). Measurements of transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) and permeability in human transverse colon epithelium indicated that sucralose-6-acetate and sucralose both impaired intestinal barrier integrity. Sucralose-6-acetate also inhibited two members of the cytochrome P450 family (CYP1A2 and CYP2C19). Overall, the toxicological and pharmacokinetic findings for sucralose-6-acetate raise significant health concerns regarding the safety and regulatory status of sucralose itself.

https://www.altisbiosystems.com/platform

So NOT tested in an actual COMPLETE HUMAN GI tract. The test model used:

"The RepliGut® model is a unique, human stem cell-derived platform that recreates the intestinal epithelium in a continuous layer of stem and differentiated cells. RepliGut® system can be purchased as a kit, or our team of experts can provide the services you require."

So tested in an environment that is significantly different than the human gi tract. Off the top of my head: no bacterial cultures, no yeasts, no digestive juices/enzymes, no water and I'm sure other things I am missing.

Now this could make a HUGE difference, or it could not make any, OR it could be even worse in a human gut. We really should do more studies on this exact scenario. I would also like to see if the manufacturing process could be "purified" a little more to remove the compound in the starting product as the study ONLY showed it being converted in rats and not humans as of yet.

 

[SouthernMuscle]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37246822/

Toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate and its parent sucralose: in vitro screening assays
Susan S Schiffman 1, Elizabeth H Scholl 2, Terrence S Furey 3, H Troy Nagle 1 4
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 37246822
• DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate, a structural analog of the artificial sweetener sucralose. Sucralose-6-acetate is an intermediate and impurity in the manufacture of sucralose, and recent commercial sucralose samples were found to contain up to 0.67% sucralose-6-acetate. Studies in a rodent model found that sucralose-6-acetate is also present in fecal samples with levels up to 10% relative to sucralose which suggest that sucralose is also acetylated in the intestines. A MultiFlow® assay, a high-throughput genotoxicity screening tool, and a micronucleus (MN) test that detects cytogenetic damage both indicated that sucralose-6-acetate is genotoxic. The mechanism of action was classified as clastogenic (produces DNA strand breaks) using the MultiFlow® assay. The amount of sucralose-6-acetate in a single daily sucralose-sweetened drink might far exceed the threshold of toxicological concern for genotoxicity (TTCgenotox) of 0.15 µg/person/day. The RepliGut® System was employed to expose human intestinal epithelium to sucralose-6-acetate and sucralose, and an RNA-seq analysis was performed to determine gene expression induced by these exposures. Sucralose-6-acetate significantly increased the expression of genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer with greatest expression for the metallothionein 1 G gene (MT1G). Measurements of transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) and permeability in human transverse colon epithelium indicated that sucralose-6-acetate and sucralose both impaired intestinal barrier integrity. Sucralose-6-acetate also inhibited two members of the cytochrome P450 family (CYP1A2 and CYP2C19). Overall, the toxicological and pharmacokinetic findings for sucralose-6-acetate raise significant health concerns regarding the safety and regulatory status of sucralose itself.

https://www.altisbiosystems.com/platform

So NOT tested in an actual COMPLETE HUMAN GI tract. The test model used:

"The RepliGut® model is a unique, human stem cell-derived platform that recreates the intestinal epithelium in a continuous layer of stem and differentiated cells. RepliGut® system can be purchased as a kit, or our team of experts can provide the services you require."

So tested in an environment that is significantly different than the human gi tract. Off the top of my head: no bacterial cultures, no yeasts, no digestive juices/enzymes, no water and I'm sure other things I am missing.

Now this could make a HUGE difference, or it could not make any, OR it could be even worse in a human gut. We really should do more studies on this exact scenario. I would also like to see if the manufacturing process could be "purified" a little more to remove the compound in the starting product as the study ONLY showed it being converted in rats and not humans as of yet.

I remember similar findings on coffee constituents. Genotoxic and mutagenic in in-vitro tests. Devoid of either activity in vivo

 

[OuchThatHurts]

I didn't come at you any type of way, I'm not going to worry until I see a little more research on it that's all. Do I look at the hundreds of articles about artificial sweeteners and such, sure I do I would be an idiot if I didn't but your also talking to a guy that has injected URL gear and products made by who fuck knows containing who fuck knows what. I do as many healthy things I can to give the amazing human body all the chance it can to combat and fight against who fuck knows what. There are thousands of things we consume that contain hazardous shit that is banned in just about every country BUT ours. So I live healthy and leave the rest up to God or fate or whatever you believe in

I don't understand this board sometimes. Not you specifically, Brad, I wasn't singling you out, I know you've looked into these things.

For general purposes, we got guys on here worrying about their SHBG levels going too low and metformin affecting their anabolism while taking boatloads of anabolics, people bagging on every tablet from berberine to anadrol due to indigestion, lathering up their balls with progesterone, and I come along and post up something that could be contributing to indigestion and look at what happens.

What the hell... SMH

We now know that sugar substitutes consumed along with other simple sugars contribute to decreased insulin sensitivity and increased insulin production and T2DM. We know this. And we have at least some evidence that these sweeteners are deleterious to the gut, even if the jury is still out, the evidence is pretty compelling.

We are the first generation to have spent a large portion of our lives consuming these nonnutritive sweeters (NNS). They're in almost everything now.

Just understand, I'm not on some mad anti-NNS crusade, here. Members here (myself included) get freaked out and obsess over the health minutia of every single thing but NNS are off limits?

And you are free to take the stance that you've put every other poison in your body so why worry about NNS's right? That's cool. But I'm not in that camp.