Sucralose, this may interest you or may not

[dsteelo455]

for original post thanks for sharing. i find it helpful for any type of study about the chemicals and/or food we consume, especially those that are implied as safe and that we pay to use.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

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.

Ethics would prevent scientists from performing such a study due to possible adverse health effects. So it's unlikely that it will happen. We are the guinea pig generation for these nonnutritive sweeteners and I don't know if there's an increase in GERD, ulcers, stomach cancers, Chron's, diverticulosis, colon cancers, et al. I do know these NNS are found in breast milk, feces, and urine.

But it's a $2.5 billion dollar industry so I don't expect them to disappear any time soon.

 

[b-boy]

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.

I dont trust a lot of people sadly even some I call friends, but I do trust Layne Norton, I've known the guy since he was a nobody and no one knew who the fuck he was, he has broken down about every study on NNS and has read every meta analysis done on the matter and has said repeatedly that they are relatively safe. I hope to find his recent video and post about the gut microbiome effect (1. We don't fully understand the gut microbiome and 2. Some of the changes are actually beneficial changes).

 

[b-boy]

Here's one on NNS and cancer

 

[b-boy]

The gut

 

[OuchThatHurts]

The gut

Watched both. Seems like a good enough chap. But two things: 1) I do NOT know this guy as any authority whatsoever on this topic based on his YouTube videos or claims and 2) he even says that he has a financial interest in these NNS not being harmful since his products contain these chemicals. But I'll post some studies when I get home that are pretty definitive and hold up to scrutiny. Not "sky is falling" bad but enough for consideration.

 

[totalrecomp]

Watched both. Seems like a good enough chap. But two things: 1) I do NOT know this guy as any authority whatsoever on this topic based on his YouTube videos or claims and 2) he even says that he has a financial interest in these NNS not being harmful since his products contain these chemicals. But I'll post some studies when I get home that are pretty definitive and hold up to scrutiny. Not "sky is falling" bad but enough for consideration.

He has legit education in the field:
Layne completed a BS in Biochemistry and a PhD in Nutritional Sciences, honing his intellectual skills under Dr. Donald Layman, one of the foremost researchers on protein metabolism and fat loss in the world.

He is not just a YTer.

Ethics would prevent scientists from performing such a study due to possible adverse health effects. So it's unlikely that it will happen. We are the guinea pig generation for these nonnutritive sweeteners and I don't know if there's an increase in GERD, ulcers, stomach cancers, Chron's, diverticulosis, colon cancers, et al. I do know these NNS are found in breast milk, feces, and urine.

But it's a $2.5 billion dollar industry so I don't expect them to disappear any time soon.

Ethics won't allow a study on humans ingesting sucralose? Are you being serious? But ethics would allow us to injest it with zero human studies? Am I misunderstanding you?

I don't care if people do/don't ingest it and the below does not prove one thing or another per say but it has been studied directly in humans.

Critical review of the current literature on the safety of sucralose - PubMed

Sucralose is a non-caloric high intensity sweetener that is approved globally for use in foods and beverages. This review provides an updated summary of the literature addressing the safety of use of sucralose. Studies reviewed include chemical characterization and stability, toxicokinetics in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Critical review of the current literature on the safety of sucralose
Bernadene A Magnuson 1, Ashley Roberts 2, Earle R Nestmann 3
Affiliations expand
PMID: 28558975 DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.05.047
Free article
Abstract
Sucralose is a non-caloric high intensity sweetener that is approved globally for use in foods and beverages. This review provides an updated summary of the literature addressing the safety of use of sucralose. Studies reviewed include chemical characterization and stability, toxicokinetics in animals and humans, assessment of genotoxicity, and animal and human feeding studies. Endpoints evaluated include effects on growth, development, reproduction, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity and overall health status. Human clinical studies investigated potential effects of repeated consumption in individuals with diabetes. Recent studies on the safety of sucralose focused on carcinogenic potential and the effect of sucralose on the gut microflora are reviewed. Following the discovery of sweet taste receptors in the gut and studies investigating the activation of these receptors by sucralose lead to numerous human clinical studies assessing the effect of sucralose on overall glycemic control. Estimated daily intakes of sucralose in different population subgroups, including recent studies on children with special dietary needs, consistently find that the intakes of sucralose in all members of the population remain well below the acceptable daily intake. Collectively, critical review of the extensive database of research demonstrates that sucralose is safe for its intended use as a non-caloric sugar alternative.


For the record I like a combo of stevia, sodium saccharine and aspartame in my coffee, change my mind! YOLO!

 

[OuchThatHurts]

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.

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


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.

Maybe you should just say, "I think these NSS's are safe and I use them."

??

 

[MR. BMJ]

This was maybe a good write-up on the study at question:

Splenda (Sucralose) Isn’t Giving You Cancer

Why recent headlines about sweeteners are extremely misleading

gidmk.medium.com

So how much sucralose actually gets into your blood when you drink the stuff? A 2016 study found that, after drinking 250mg of sucralose, people had a blood concentration of the chemical of about 365ng/ml, with a maximum of 1,557ng/ml in one adult. The notation is very important here — this means that after drinking the equivalent of 4 cans of diet soda, people had an average blood concentration of 365 NANOgrams per milliliter of sucralose.

This now becomes a question of simple math. If 250mg of sucralose causes peak concentrations in the body of about 400ng/ml, how much does it take to get to 500µg/ml?

Well, one microgram is equivalent to 1,000 nanograms. So 400ng/ml is 0.4µg/ml. Therefore, you’d need 1,250x more sucralose than used in the above study to plausibly see these levels of the substance in your blood. If you remember, 250mg is equivalent to four cans of soda — they specifically used Diet Rite Cola — which means you’d need to drink a staggering 5,000 cans of cola over the course of 120 minutes to see this high a concentration of sucralose in your blood.

But that’s not even the true number — remember, the authors were testing sucralose-6-acetate, not sucralose itself. They estimated that sucralose is metabolized into sucralose-6-acetate at up to 10% of weight, which means that you’d actually need at least 50,000 cans of soda to get to the levels of sucralose-6-acetate where there was just barely detectable damage to human cells.

 

[bg65]

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.

Man, this statement jiggled loose a little memory for me. When i was learning how to properly read and interpret studies i learned of something called the "file drawer phenomenon" (or something like that, probably one of y'all knows and can correct me) but basically it is known that companies all around the world have file drawers stuffed with studies that didn't turn out how they had hoped so instead of publishing them they just get stuffed in a file drawer so they can design a different study to show their desired outcome.

Also the comment abt us being the first generation to consume large amounts of this stuff... we are seeing colon cancer occuring at much younger ages than was the historical norm but I've always chalked that up to people's generally shitty diets.

If you're NNS free, what do you do for protein powder? Or do you just eat whole foods?

 

[Ace0]

Man, this statement jiggled loose a little memory for me. When i was learning how to properly read and interpret studies i learned of something called the "file drawer phenomenon" (or something like that, probably one of y'all knows and can correct me) but basically it is known that companies all around the world have file drawers stuffed with studies that didn't turn out how they had hoped so instead of publishing them they just get stuffed in a file drawer so they can design a different study to show their desired outcome.

I took that class relatively recently, file drawer effect is a bit more nuanced. It’s actually highly unethical to not publish when you get opposite of expected outcomes, and sometimes even the opposite result is more desired than the common scenario which is a null effect. The file drawer effect is more about having results that aren’t statistically significant so they cut the research short instead of wasting more time completing the write-up. This results in a publication bias, essentially we only see studies that were significant one way or the other meanwhile the vast majority of studies show nothing or no differences between groups.

Also you can get unsweetened protein powder fella, I used to make shakes with fruit and honey or maple syrup.

 

[TheRoid]

Also you can get unsweetened protein powder fella, I used to make shakes with fruit and honey or maple syrup.

Sure, you certainly CAN replace a zero calories sweetener with fructose/glucose/sucrose anywhere. But then you're defeating the whole point of using an artificial sweetner!

 

[OuchThatHurts]

Man, this statement jiggled loose a little memory for me. When i was learning how to properly read and interpret studies i learned of something called the "file drawer phenomenon" (or something like that, probably one of y'all knows and can correct me) but basically it is known that companies all around the world have file drawers stuffed with studies that didn't turn out how they had hoped so instead of publishing them they just get stuffed in a file drawer so they can design a different study to show their desired outcome.

Also the comment abt us being the first generation to consume large amounts of this stuff... we are seeing colon cancer occuring at much younger ages than was the historical norm but I've always chalked that up to people's generally shitty diets.

If you're NNS free, what do you do for protein powder? Or do you just eat whole foods?

I used to consume a ton of diet drinks. I was drinking 2 liters of Diet Pepsi a day. Plus what I got in supps like you mentioned. Although, while I did cut back my intake of NNS's, there is no escaping them entirely. They're in everything.

Protein shakes and EAA/BCAAs as you mentioned it's hard to escape. And I use those around workouts but I drink very few meals. Sometimes in order to get in my total grams of protein, I'll add a scoop or two to a meal to boost my protein numbers. But top products like Synthepure and similar powders have no added NNS at all. Though I do keep a 7lb bucket of Isopure on hand which does contain sucralose. Like I said, it's hard to escape.

Like so many things we do, as @LATS likes to say, "the devil is in the dosage". A small amount is surely harmless. But a huge daily dose, at least from what I'm reading, is deleterious to your gut health. And since dropping my Diet Pepsi and other sugar free products, my digestion, while still not perfect, definitely has improved.

 

[RandomMachine]

According to Lyle McDonald on sucralose:

Challenge accepted

"Well, one microgram is equivalent to 1,000 nanograms. So 400ng/ml is 0.4µg/ml. Therefore, you’d need 1,250x more sucralose than used in the above study to plausibly see these levels of the substance in your blood. If you remember, 250mg is equivalent to four cans of soda — they specifically used Diet Rite Cola — which means you’d need to drink a staggering 5,000 cans of cola over the course of 120 minutes to see this high a concentration of sucralose in your blood."

 

[headtrainer]

It does seem everything causes cancer these days. Same goes for heart disease. I think moderation is the key with artificial sweeteners. It’s best to use the least amount you can get by with. They can give me heartburn which is a sign they aren’t good for gut health. That said, I believe sugar is even worse for our bodies.

 

[MR. BMJ]

According to Lyle McDonald on sucralose:

Challenge accepted

"Well, one microgram is equivalent to 1,000 nanograms. So 400ng/ml is 0.4µg/ml. Therefore, you’d need 1,250x more sucralose than used in the above study to plausibly see these levels of the substance in your blood. If you remember, 250mg is equivalent to four cans of soda — they specifically used Diet Rite Cola — which means you’d need to drink a staggering 5,000 cans of cola over the course of 120 minutes to see this high a concentration of sucralose in your blood."

He quoted the article I posted above. But yea, I seen it posted over on his forum as well, which lead to my last post

 

[buck]

When looking at a diet or 1 ingredient of a persons diet and extrapolating out how it effects their health is pretty much a non starter in general as the whole lifestyle is what leads to health or lack of.

 

[bg65]

I took that class relatively recently, file drawer effect is a bit more nuanced. It’s actually highly unethical to not publish when you get opposite of expected outcomes, and sometimes even the opposite result is more desired than the common scenario which is a null effect. The file drawer effect is more about having results that aren’t statistically significant so they cut the research short instead of wasting more time completing the write-up. This results in a publication bias, essentially we only see studies that were significant one way or the other meanwhile the vast majority of studies show nothing or no differences between groups.

Also you can get unsweetened protein powder fella, I used to make shakes with fruit and honey or maple syrup.

Cool, thanks for clarification. I did not take that class recently, was prob close to 15 yrs ago now
With regard to shelfing studies being unethical, i agree w you, but i highly doubt that stops it from happening. Ethics get dumped in the trash when millions of dollars are on the line. I'd bet my next paycheck that Philip Morris has file drawers full of studies they didn't want people to see regarding the effects of cigarette smoking. And i trust big pharma abt as much as i trust a career politician

 

[Ace0]

Cool, thanks for clarification. I did not take that class recently, was prob close to 15 yrs ago now
With regard to shelfing studies being unethical, i agree w you, but i highly doubt that stops it from happening. Ethics get dumped in the trash when millions of dollars are on the line. I'd bet my next paycheck that Philip Morris has file drawers full of studies they didn't want people to see regarding the effects of cigarette smoking. And i trust big pharma abt as much as i trust a career politician

Reminds me of my soc class where I found out how fucked science really is, learned about ghost writing. For those unfamiliar, ghost writing in science is when a company drafts up a study (may or may not be conducted properly) and then pays a hotshot scientist to slap their name on it to increase credibility. Science in the bio/nutrition world is a crapshoot and thats why I often agree with the principles of those forum of practice over theory.

 

[b-boy]

LOL MY DUDE LAYNE

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram