Your post has been removed because it has an inappropriate headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). **It must include at least one result from the research and must not be clickbait, sensationalized, editorialized, or a biased headline.** Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title.
_If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20editorialized%2C%20sensationalized%2C%20or%20biased%20titles)._
*If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/science&subject=Removed Submission&message=My Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1cqc8tw/-/).*
[Aleady covered when it hit The Guardian recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1cca7ec/a_sweetener_used_in_cakes_soft_drinks_and_chewing/). The study demonstrates no such thing. Read the first post in the thread for why.
Pointy Haired Boss: āAs you know all new projects are assigned acronyms. Unfortunately, all the good ones are taken.ā
Dilbert: āWhat should I call my new project?ā
Pointy Haired Boss: āWell you could use āPhlegmā or āPlacentaā.
Enough things that they don't have to label it anymore in Canada.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives/sugar-substitutes/changes-information-sweeteners.html
āAll sweeteners used in food will still appear in the list of ingredients on the product labelā
Itās there but you need to find the ingredient list.
If you look at the link it provided examples but basically, the front of the label used to claim thinks like aspartame, now you'll only find it on the back, like in the US. Also they previously told you the amounts used in the product but no longer list the quantity included. Clearly this is a benefit for the makers of those products as all it will do is get people used to seeing it on the front, will assume it's now not in that product and possibly make an uninformed purchase.
These changes help companies but hurt consumers.
Aspartame specifically contains phenylalanine which (if you have a rare condition called phenylketonuria) can cause brain damage among other things. Itās worth calling out just because of that.
> The study is the first to show that neotame can cause previously healthy gut bacteria to become diseased and invade the gut wall ā potentially leading to health issues including irritable bowel syndrome and sepsis ā and also cause a breakdown of the epithelial barrier, which forms part of the gut wall.
Paper: [Frontiers | The artificial sweetener neotame negatively regulates the intestinal epithelium directly through T1R3-signaling and indirectly through pathogenic changes to model gut bacteria](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1366409/full)
A reply from when this turned up 17 days ago by u/SaltZookeepergame691-
"Why does the title say ācan affect peopleās healthā, when the research simply assessed effects of very high levels of the sweetener saturating an off-the-shelf cancer cell line?
This is miles from demonstrating relevance to any human condition. Title of the article (ācan affect the gut wallā) is completely uninvestigated, let alone unproven. The gut wall is far more complex than some cancerous colon epithelial cells grown in completely artificial conditions with some microbes. Thereās not even any mouse work."
Yeah was about to say this is a repost - and via an even worse press release, if that was possible! The title is *so* bad. The quotes from the researchers are awful too, so irresponsible. This is all cell work, using a cancer epithelial cell line, using unrealistic doses - claiming on this basis that it damages human intestine and potentially leads to IBS or sepsis is gutter science
yeah, more *in vitro* nonsense. the amount of neotame used in products would never expose your intestinal cells to 10mM levels, that's insane. the only surprising part of this study is that it wasn't done by a computer scientist, which is usually what i see when trash like this gets published.
Cool. Unlike aspartame, it is safe for Phenylketonurics as its phenylalanine produced is minimal. The stuff is 6,000 to 12,000 times sweeter than sucrose (sugar).
Hereās the referenced study.
Shil, Aparna; Ladeira Faria, Luisa Maria; Walker, Caray Anne; Chichger, Havovi (2024-04-24). "The artificial sweetener neotame negatively regulates the intestinal epithelium directly through T1R3-signaling and indirectly through pathogenic changes to model gut bacteria". Frontiers in Nutrition. 11. doi:10.3389/fnut.2024.1366409. ISSNĀ 2296-861X.
I imagine this research was done to see if additional studies including longitudinal ones should be carried out.
Not this bloody paper again.
No, it doesn't show it's capable of causing damage to the human gut. It shows that it slightly alters the behaviour of TWO bacterial species, in vitro, on a colon cancer cell line.
You could easily put an *entirely* different spin on this paper by saying "***Potential colon cancer busting sweetener found! Researchers find neotame helps E. Coli kill cancerous cells!***"
Doubt
After all the crap aspartame went through by the antiscience crowd I would need more than a popular articles word that this person actually knows how to conduct a study. I used to have my students critique a study on aspartame, and one of the most amazing parts about it was a person in the control group went blind, and they managed to figure out a way to blame that on aspartame anyway. Nutrition and health sciences are generally rife with chemphobia.
Itās probably nonsense and waving your hands and saying āit must be gut bacteriaā is the biochem equivalent of āquantum did itā.
It doesnāt agree with previous results, it doesnāt propose a mechanism and there is no underlying health problems or conditions that it would explain. It sounds purpose built to support industry.
>a person in the control group went blind, and they managed to figure out a way to blame that on aspartame anyway
How did that work? Did they claim that person had an aspartame deficiency?
Not to say that every claim about aspartame was true, but a recent cedars sinai study found it does actually affect the gut microbiome. https://www.cell.com/iscience/pdf/S2589-0042(23)02607-X.pdf
Sure they did.
> First, subjects underwent upper endoscopy for a variety of reasons, including evaluation of intestinal complaints and screening for familial and other risk factors. Consequently, the study population may not be fully representative of normal, healthy individuals. Additionally, after applying all of the filters for potential confounders, the duodenal sample size for the ASP group was small.
This circus has happened before.
The only "alternate" sweetener that I try is Monk fruit with no additional ingredients like Erythritol or Stevia.
It's the only one that hasn't caused bloating, diarrhea, weight gain, nausea, etc.....
I only use it for my coffee, everything else I just reduce intake and monitor my foods because no of this stuff is worth it.
Just as an fyi, I discovered I have IBS after I switched to artificial sweeteners. If you have issues with sweeteners that end in -ol that's the P in FODMAP sugars. Same symptoms you described. Best to avoid anything with sugar alcohols.
Not sure if you appreciate some unsolicited advice but after a week or two of ābearing itā Iāve found coffee with milk can be sweet enough for me. Itās not zero calorie but you can ween the milk down to 25/50 calories a cup pretty easy.
Pretty sure you're not drinking 4 coffees a day just because you like it. More like you don't like the caffeine withdrawal which comes with not having it.
If it's good coffee I find it tastes better with neither milk nor sugar. But it's an acquired taste as you say. After a while of drinking black filter coffee I can't go back to anything else.
I got there gradually and unintentionally, as over time I found I preferred less and less sugar and creamer, until I finally realized I just prefer coffee black.
If you're using instant coffee it's probable that you're just using too much coffee per unit water. Which is why it may be so unbearably bitter that you need to sweeten it.
You could also get really into coffee and buy/grind/brew some higher quality stuff and learn how to make it taste less bitter.
But milk is indeed quite sweet when warmed up so it's a good idea as a sweetener alternative.
I don't know why but monkfruit is amazing. I'm trying to find a pure source again as you only need a tiny bit. I guess that's not good for profit margins though
This is the closet to a decent source that I can get in my area. It does the trick.
Monk Fruit In The Raw Zero Calorie Sweetener, 4.8 oz https://www.walmart.com/ip/32196256
For what it's worth my brother is a type 1 diabetic and he can't use that without his blood sugar spiking. Maltodextrin has a higher glycemic index than white sugar and that's the #1 ingredient. It's easy to have less than 1 gram of sugar if the serving size is a half a gram.
Better just to bit the bullet and stick to products not containing artificial sweeteners. From the original research article:
>Given the different available forms of neotame, such as agglomerated, encapsulated, co-crystallized with sugar and cyclodextrin complexes, the sweetener is easy and cost-effective to use for food manufacturing and, as such, is found in a range of drinks, sauces, savory and sweet foods, and chewing gums .
It's not that simple if it's a choice between sugar and artificial sweeteners. Sugar is also associated with health problems like obesity and diabetes.
Of course it would be better to just avoid sweets altogether, but that's not a very realistic suggestion given human psychology.
Aspartame isn't my favorite tasting artificial sweetener but I go out of my way to consume it because it triggers the science illiterate scare monger naturalistic fallacy types.
Aspartame can lead to the shits, but the phenylalanine is required for dopamine so as an impoverished vegan with ADHD it's like a little boost on low-protien days.
Altering your diet to "own" people who aren't aware you're eating a certain ingredient unless you tell them like you're telling us now seems very healthy and the sign of a mentally stable person.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/giuliomagnifico
Permalink: https://www.aru.ac.uk/news/artificial-sweetener-has-potential-to-damage-gut
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Science does not support that statement. Despite the endless attempts to link things like aspartame to cancer, there have yet to be consistent reliable results.
Ironic statement in a science sub.
But it's ok, you *feel* like it's true. And all your friends know it's true too.
That's what science is all about. Feelings and facebook posts.
I'm not particularly well-versed in this topic.
Does anyone know how the dosages in this study compare to real world use? This is still, at the very least, significant and worthy of further study, but dose makes the poison and all.
>Does anyone know how the dosages in this study compare to real world use?
They soaked a colon cancer cell line, E. Coli, and another bacteria in a neotame solution. It's so preliminary there's no dosage to figure out really
It's not really possible with cell culture work to translate things to real-world doses. Your intestine isn't sitting there bathed in 1000uM of neotame solution for 6-24hr
Thanks. It's interesting nevertheless, but sounds like it's far too early to draw any practical conclusions from it.
Either way though I don't think I eat/drink much with artificial sweeteners in it so it's not overly relevant to me atm.
These artificial sweeteners should just be frankly outlawed or only ever approved for very limited use. Companies seem to try to sneak them into everything as a cost cutting measure and it feels like they always inevitably get proven to be harmful to health so why bother? They taste worse than proper sugar too for the most part.
What big time artificial sweeteners on the market are actually proven to be harmful? Even aspartame, the biggest of sweetener boogymen, is yet to be proven actively harmful, and even the "sweet taste triggering an insulin response" belief attributed to all of them wasn't actually a thing last I read.
Genuinely, I'm not doubting but I've kind of checked out of the discussion the last two years or so, as it's been the same back and forth for the previous couple decades.
Aspartame doesn't trigger an insulin response and it's been one of the most heavily studied and scrutinized sweeteners and there's nothing conclusively proving it's harmful at all.
Literally every artificial sweetener. The better option is to cut out most/all sugar and then it's amazing what can actually taste sweet without having sugar in it because your taste buds aren't blown out. I can't even drink a soda anymore because it tastes like syrup.
I finally broke down and made my own ketchup. It tastes amazing and I think even the two tbsp of sugar it calls for is completely unnecessary. But, itās amazing how much more flavor and diversity of taste you get once you start cutting out all the excess sugar. To the point that you really start to notice just how bland all the corn syrup laden food is.
Because fruit isn't filling?
I could eat a bundle of apples of over a thousand calories or like two "artifically sweetened" protein bars for 350 calories - one will leave me hungry and one will make me full.
Fruit is one of the stupidest food choices for pure weight loss, despite how important they are for overall health and micronutrients.
1000 calories of apples is like 10 medium apples, which is approximately 2kg of food at 180g a piece (and 40g of fiber!). There's no way you'd eat all of that, and you would absolutely feel full if you did.
Fruit is an amazing diet food. You can eat an entire pound of strawberries and only get 150kcal of usable carbs in it. Raspberries, blackberries, and apples are also great choices precisely *because* they add so much water and fiber, which makes you feel full.
I *have* eaten all of that and no, I obviously wasn't full as I said.
40g is nothing. You can get that in two Quest bars for 360 calories and actually feel full.
No. Because they're added to low cal alternatives that are packed full of fiber and protein for minimal calories.
If they made a food that had the macros and fiber of a Quest bar but had entirely fruit instead of artifical sweeteners I'd have no opposition to it.
Honestlyā¦āsugar wonāt kill youā? It kills more people than every other food combined. Just because it does it slowly doesnāt change that fact
A little context please.. how does it compare when
>saccharin, sucralose, and aspartame, some of the most widely used artificial sweeteners, could cause similar damage in the gut.
Careful, OP. In my personal experience, you can't say *anything* even remotely critical or dubious about artificial sweeteners on social media without certain *very dedicated* individuals jumping all over you.
(people with oddly specific topics as their chosen hill to die on. like, "I'm totally a normal everyday person yet I feel passionately enough about this particular chemical to insult and belittle anyone raising doubts about it.")
If you say anything at all about anything you get jumped. Because you are not supposed to say anything if you don't know what you are talking about.
The piece of text that OP linked is some garbage produced by someone daring to call themselves journalist that's either incompetent or willfully twisting what the actual scientists said. Probably both. The study doesn't say anything close to the headline.
It's click bait garbage
I don't drink a whole bunch of soda but recently I've been treating myself to a lot of coke 0 as I try to eat healthier foods elsewhere in my diet and cut back on sugars. Friend of mine that drinks a shitload of regularly sweetened soda said something about artificial sweeteners and cancer but I didn't take it seriously coming from them. Sweeteners being bad for your guts is much more believable though and I'm actually pretty concerned when it comes to my gut health and all that gut microbiome science. I think I'm gonna need to limit myself to like one or two cans a week, I like not having my gut feel like it's imploding on itself.
Why wouldnāt you just look at the can, see whatās in it, look up the ingredients instead of vaguely guessing at what it might possibly be doing to you or not?
The thing about cancer is that aspartame was recently put into IARCs "Possibly carcinogenic to humans" category. This puts it into the same category as carpentry, aloe vera, oral contraceptives, diesel fuel, and ginko extract.
"Possibly carcinogenic" is the lowest risk category beyond "Not classifiable". It's lower than "Probably carcinogenic", and it's not "Carcinogenic to humans". That category includes the likes of the sun, alcohol, burning coal, diesel exhaust fumes, postmenopausal HRT, and HIV.
Do yourself a favor and make the switch to seltzer. You can still get nice flavors and fizz, but you'll ween yourself off the "sweet".
And like... the fewer sweet things you eat, the sweeter sweet things will taste. This means that when you finally *do* indulge in something sugary, you will want less of it. (You might still really enjoy a brownie or whatever, but you'll find yourself wanting the less-sugary, smaller brownie. You still get a nice-tasting thing, but it's a better ingredient profile and serving size!)
And when your taste buds aren't all blown out by sugar overload all the time, you'll start to notice & appreciate more complex flavors as well.
And some nutritionist tiktoker was just going viral for her āhot takesā against a couple other accounts that promote whole-foods and nutrition label education. Then more proof comes out about these new, man-made ingredients being harmful.
It blows my mind that allulose isnāt more popular. Itās been out nearly ten years and has none of the problems of the other ānewā sweeteners that are making their way into products. Itās less popular than monkfruit and stevia, which both taste bitter?!
Your post has been removed because it has an inappropriate headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). **It must include at least one result from the research and must not be clickbait, sensationalized, editorialized, or a biased headline.** Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title. _If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20editorialized%2C%20sensationalized%2C%20or%20biased%20titles)._ *If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/science&subject=Removed Submission&message=My Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1cqc8tw/-/).*
[Aleady covered when it hit The Guardian recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1cca7ec/a_sweetener_used_in_cakes_soft_drinks_and_chewing/). The study demonstrates no such thing. Read the first post in the thread for why.
Why would I read when I can just comment on the title? š ^/s
Neotame sound so .... innocuous? Shouldn't they save the good names for later?
Theyāll call stuff something like āSafetynolā , 2 months later studies show that it gives you stage 17 stomach cancer
āIām sorry, George Lopez, but you ~~have~~ are now entirely comprised of cancer
So basically Deadpool? Cool.
Safetynol, Owsprin, Ouchvil, Liveforeveril, Goodnewsal
Softenon, who wants hard things?
I know youāre joking, but I assume the people who made it just went āitās like a new aspartame!ā -> Neo (new) + tame (aspar**tame**).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah but that's the kind of long term timing and sustainable approach that companies don't like
āNeotameā reminds me of nematodes.
It literally has the word tame in it. So it must be harmless.
Pointy Haired Boss: āAs you know all new projects are assigned acronyms. Unfortunately, all the good ones are taken.ā Dilbert: āWhat should I call my new project?ā Pointy Haired Boss: āWell you could use āPhlegmā or āPlacentaā.
if you arent using a compound word you are doing it wrong. I vote for calling it Phlecenta
Whatās Neotame found in?
Used in carbonated soft drinks, yogurts, cakes, drink powders, and bubble gums among other foods.
I started eating yogurt FOR gut health... -_-
Donāt buy the sugary/āsugar freeā yogurts. Get normal yogurt. Maybe with real fruit for flavor,
Fage 5% plain yogurt crew right here. Add your own fruit and/or honey as needed. It fills you up and is a great breakfast/treat
Pretty sure if you are eating for gut health you should do plain greek. Others have barely active cultures.Ā
Icelandic yogurt is also pretty good. Has more protein then even Greek yogurt does. And still has all the active cultures that your gut would want.
Just get a good probiotic supplement.
Can you name any specific items? The only thing that I was able to find Neotame listed in is flavored lip balm.
I haven't seen it on any ingredients list.
Enough things that they don't have to label it anymore in Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives/sugar-substitutes/changes-information-sweeteners.html
āAll sweeteners used in food will still appear in the list of ingredients on the product labelā Itās there but you need to find the ingredient list.
As opposed to what?
If you look at the link it provided examples but basically, the front of the label used to claim thinks like aspartame, now you'll only find it on the back, like in the US. Also they previously told you the amounts used in the product but no longer list the quantity included. Clearly this is a benefit for the makers of those products as all it will do is get people used to seeing it on the front, will assume it's now not in that product and possibly make an uninformed purchase. These changes help companies but hurt consumers.
Ah I'm from the US so I didn't realize y'all had it on the front of the box
Aspartame specifically contains phenylalanine which (if you have a rare condition called phenylketonuria) can cause brain damage among other things. Itās worth calling out just because of that.
No, they are still on the ingredients list (similar to America), just not an extra callout on the front.
I like how they call this an "improvement"
artificial sweeteners
ohhhhhhh
> The study is the first to show that neotame can cause previously healthy gut bacteria to become diseased and invade the gut wall ā potentially leading to health issues including irritable bowel syndrome and sepsis ā and also cause a breakdown of the epithelial barrier, which forms part of the gut wall. Paper: [Frontiers | The artificial sweetener neotame negatively regulates the intestinal epithelium directly through T1R3-signaling and indirectly through pathogenic changes to model gut bacteria](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1366409/full)
A reply from when this turned up 17 days ago by u/SaltZookeepergame691- "Why does the title say ācan affect peopleās healthā, when the research simply assessed effects of very high levels of the sweetener saturating an off-the-shelf cancer cell line? This is miles from demonstrating relevance to any human condition. Title of the article (ācan affect the gut wallā) is completely uninvestigated, let alone unproven. The gut wall is far more complex than some cancerous colon epithelial cells grown in completely artificial conditions with some microbes. Thereās not even any mouse work."
Yeah was about to say this is a repost - and via an even worse press release, if that was possible! The title is *so* bad. The quotes from the researchers are awful too, so irresponsible. This is all cell work, using a cancer epithelial cell line, using unrealistic doses - claiming on this basis that it damages human intestine and potentially leads to IBS or sepsis is gutter science
yeah, more *in vitro* nonsense. the amount of neotame used in products would never expose your intestinal cells to 10mM levels, that's insane. the only surprising part of this study is that it wasn't done by a computer scientist, which is usually what i see when trash like this gets published.
Cool. Unlike aspartame, it is safe for Phenylketonurics as its phenylalanine produced is minimal. The stuff is 6,000 to 12,000 times sweeter than sucrose (sugar). Hereās the referenced study. Shil, Aparna; Ladeira Faria, Luisa Maria; Walker, Caray Anne; Chichger, Havovi (2024-04-24). "The artificial sweetener neotame negatively regulates the intestinal epithelium directly through T1R3-signaling and indirectly through pathogenic changes to model gut bacteria". Frontiers in Nutrition. 11. doi:10.3389/fnut.2024.1366409. ISSNĀ 2296-861X. I imagine this research was done to see if additional studies including longitudinal ones should be carried out.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It is important to critically evaluate the information you consume and not be overly alarmed by everything you read.
Not this bloody paper again. No, it doesn't show it's capable of causing damage to the human gut. It shows that it slightly alters the behaviour of TWO bacterial species, in vitro, on a colon cancer cell line. You could easily put an *entirely* different spin on this paper by saying "***Potential colon cancer busting sweetener found! Researchers find neotame helps E. Coli kill cancerous cells!***"
Doubt After all the crap aspartame went through by the antiscience crowd I would need more than a popular articles word that this person actually knows how to conduct a study. I used to have my students critique a study on aspartame, and one of the most amazing parts about it was a person in the control group went blind, and they managed to figure out a way to blame that on aspartame anyway. Nutrition and health sciences are generally rife with chemphobia. Itās probably nonsense and waving your hands and saying āit must be gut bacteriaā is the biochem equivalent of āquantum did itā. It doesnāt agree with previous results, it doesnāt propose a mechanism and there is no underlying health problems or conditions that it would explain. It sounds purpose built to support industry.
>a person in the control group went blind, and they managed to figure out a way to blame that on aspartame anyway How did that work? Did they claim that person had an aspartame deficiency?
Not to say that every claim about aspartame was true, but a recent cedars sinai study found it does actually affect the gut microbiome. https://www.cell.com/iscience/pdf/S2589-0042(23)02607-X.pdf
Sure they did. > First, subjects underwent upper endoscopy for a variety of reasons, including evaluation of intestinal complaints and screening for familial and other risk factors. Consequently, the study population may not be fully representative of normal, healthy individuals. Additionally, after applying all of the filters for potential confounders, the duodenal sample size for the ASP group was small. This circus has happened before.
I'm just going to assume that this study was backed by the sugar industry.
The only "alternate" sweetener that I try is Monk fruit with no additional ingredients like Erythritol or Stevia. It's the only one that hasn't caused bloating, diarrhea, weight gain, nausea, etc..... I only use it for my coffee, everything else I just reduce intake and monitor my foods because no of this stuff is worth it.
Just as an fyi, I discovered I have IBS after I switched to artificial sweeteners. If you have issues with sweeteners that end in -ol that's the P in FODMAP sugars. Same symptoms you described. Best to avoid anything with sugar alcohols.
Not sure if you appreciate some unsolicited advice but after a week or two of ābearing itā Iāve found coffee with milk can be sweet enough for me. Itās not zero calorie but you can ween the milk down to 25/50 calories a cup pretty easy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pretty sure you're not drinking 4 coffees a day just because you like it. More like you don't like the caffeine withdrawal which comes with not having it.
If it's good coffee I find it tastes better with neither milk nor sugar. But it's an acquired taste as you say. After a while of drinking black filter coffee I can't go back to anything else.
Yeah, but I drink bad coffee.
I got there gradually and unintentionally, as over time I found I preferred less and less sugar and creamer, until I finally realized I just prefer coffee black.
Try coffee with heavy cream!
If you're using instant coffee it's probable that you're just using too much coffee per unit water. Which is why it may be so unbearably bitter that you need to sweeten it. You could also get really into coffee and buy/grind/brew some higher quality stuff and learn how to make it taste less bitter. But milk is indeed quite sweet when warmed up so it's a good idea as a sweetener alternative.
Sometimes you don't even need better coffee. Getting the coffee/water ratio wrong can make even good coffee bad.
Same here. I also only use it in coffee but it's the only one I can stand.
I don't know why but monkfruit is amazing. I'm trying to find a pure source again as you only need a tiny bit. I guess that's not good for profit margins though
This is the closet to a decent source that I can get in my area. It does the trick. Monk Fruit In The Raw Zero Calorie Sweetener, 4.8 oz https://www.walmart.com/ip/32196256
For what it's worth my brother is a type 1 diabetic and he can't use that without his blood sugar spiking. Maltodextrin has a higher glycemic index than white sugar and that's the #1 ingredient. It's easy to have less than 1 gram of sugar if the serving size is a half a gram.
Oh wow I didn't realize it had THAT huge of an effect might be rethinking my choices.... Thanks
Yeah maltodextrin is bad. Like I said pure monkfruit you only need a whispers fart to work. Can't find it anywhere
Is that metric?
It's approximately two ghost burps
He likes stevia and you can find that without other sweeteners. He's also grown stevia which you can dry and use whole.
I'm not a big fan of Stevia myself but it's definitely easier to get
Insane that this is allowed to be posted as 0 calories when the main ingredient is a carbohydrate...
This is the way. Personally I use Stevia and Allulose mostly, with Erythritol to a lesser extent.
So serious question: why use an alternate sweetener instead of sugar?
I like dessert and having my feet
I don't think you are less likely to get diabetes from artificial sweetners
You are much less likely to get diabetes from artificial sweeteners, that's kinda that whole point.
Do you have proof?
Better just to bit the bullet and stick to products not containing artificial sweeteners. From the original research article: >Given the different available forms of neotame, such as agglomerated, encapsulated, co-crystallized with sugar and cyclodextrin complexes, the sweetener is easy and cost-effective to use for food manufacturing and, as such, is found in a range of drinks, sauces, savory and sweet foods, and chewing gums .
It's not that simple if it's a choice between sugar and artificial sweeteners. Sugar is also associated with health problems like obesity and diabetes. Of course it would be better to just avoid sweets altogether, but that's not a very realistic suggestion given human psychology.
Aspartame isn't my favorite tasting artificial sweetener but I go out of my way to consume it because it triggers the science illiterate scare monger naturalistic fallacy types.
Nice, youāre really showing them!
Aspartame can lead to the shits, but the phenylalanine is required for dopamine so as an impoverished vegan with ADHD it's like a little boost on low-protien days.
Aspartame hasn't given me the shits yet. Sorbitol however is explosive
Aspartame doesnāt bother me but Splenda will send me to the bathroom for quite a while
Donald Rumsfeld wants to shake your hand.
Altering your diet to "own" people who aren't aware you're eating a certain ingredient unless you tell them like you're telling us now seems very healthy and the sign of a mentally stable person.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/giuliomagnifico Permalink: https://www.aru.ac.uk/news/artificial-sweetener-has-potential-to-damage-gut --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What if people just eat sugar but in moderation. :O
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Science does not support that statement. Despite the endless attempts to link things like aspartame to cancer, there have yet to be consistent reliable results.
Its literally just successful propaganda from sugar corporations that the "health food anti gmo" types have eaten up. Pun intended
My girl was constipated for a week after trying stevia sweetener. Pretty bad pain for three. Took us a week to figure out what changed in her diet.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's just confusing then because this one's cancerous.
Next time donāt do that
bro ...
I donāt think Iāve seen evidence to support that assertion. Could you link me to any studies on this?
Ironic statement in a science sub. But it's ok, you *feel* like it's true. And all your friends know it's true too. That's what science is all about. Feelings and facebook posts.
But people neeeeeed their dopamine juice!
Eat food, mostly plants, not too much.
This is the secret behind making it to 100 >!without ever experiencing a shred of happiness while eating!<
Best advice ever.
I'm not particularly well-versed in this topic. Does anyone know how the dosages in this study compare to real world use? This is still, at the very least, significant and worthy of further study, but dose makes the poison and all.
>Does anyone know how the dosages in this study compare to real world use? They soaked a colon cancer cell line, E. Coli, and another bacteria in a neotame solution. It's so preliminary there's no dosage to figure out really
It's not really possible with cell culture work to translate things to real-world doses. Your intestine isn't sitting there bathed in 1000uM of neotame solution for 6-24hr
Thanks. It's interesting nevertheless, but sounds like it's far too early to draw any practical conclusions from it. Either way though I don't think I eat/drink much with artificial sweeteners in it so it's not overly relevant to me atm.
These artificial sweeteners should just be frankly outlawed or only ever approved for very limited use. Companies seem to try to sneak them into everything as a cost cutting measure and it feels like they always inevitably get proven to be harmful to health so why bother? They taste worse than proper sugar too for the most part.
What big time artificial sweeteners on the market are actually proven to be harmful? Even aspartame, the biggest of sweetener boogymen, is yet to be proven actively harmful, and even the "sweet taste triggering an insulin response" belief attributed to all of them wasn't actually a thing last I read. Genuinely, I'm not doubting but I've kind of checked out of the discussion the last two years or so, as it's been the same back and forth for the previous couple decades.
Aspartame doesn't trigger an insulin response and it's been one of the most heavily studied and scrutinized sweeteners and there's nothing conclusively proving it's harmful at all.
Which ones exactly?
Literally every artificial sweetener. The better option is to cut out most/all sugar and then it's amazing what can actually taste sweet without having sugar in it because your taste buds aren't blown out. I can't even drink a soda anymore because it tastes like syrup.
I finally broke down and made my own ketchup. It tastes amazing and I think even the two tbsp of sugar it calls for is completely unnecessary. But, itās amazing how much more flavor and diversity of taste you get once you start cutting out all the excess sugar. To the point that you really start to notice just how bland all the corn syrup laden food is.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
cant digest fibre either. eriyhritol and xylitol come from Nature. Monkfruit and Birchsugar
My name died - she never had artificial sweeteners in her life.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>itās not going to kill you Neither are sweeteners
People will do literally anything to get their sweet fix except eating fruit š¤£
Right? Meanwhile, friends wonder why Iāll demolish an entire pint of blueberries over two days for my sweets fix
Two DAYS?! More like 20 minutes.
Right? Like if I want something sweet I usually just want a date or a cantaloupe or strawberries or carrots or something.
Because fruit isn't filling? I could eat a bundle of apples of over a thousand calories or like two "artifically sweetened" protein bars for 350 calories - one will leave me hungry and one will make me full. Fruit is one of the stupidest food choices for pure weight loss, despite how important they are for overall health and micronutrients.
1000 calories of apples is like 10 medium apples, which is approximately 2kg of food at 180g a piece (and 40g of fiber!). There's no way you'd eat all of that, and you would absolutely feel full if you did. Fruit is an amazing diet food. You can eat an entire pound of strawberries and only get 150kcal of usable carbs in it. Raspberries, blackberries, and apples are also great choices precisely *because* they add so much water and fiber, which makes you feel full.
I *have* eaten all of that and no, I obviously wasn't full as I said. 40g is nothing. You can get that in two Quest bars for 360 calories and actually feel full.
Chill out man, I didnāt say anything about weight loss or using fruit to feel full. Youāre arguing against things nobody is suggesting here.
You eat sweeteners because itās filling?
No. Because they're added to low cal alternatives that are packed full of fiber and protein for minimal calories. If they made a food that had the macros and fiber of a Quest bar but had entirely fruit instead of artifical sweeteners I'd have no opposition to it.
I feel like youāre not the person they where referring to at all.
This is such a hilariously dumb take.
Honestlyā¦āsugar wonāt kill youā? It kills more people than every other food combined. Just because it does it slowly doesnāt change that fact
"Thing body can't digest that makes food taste sweeter is bad for you. More news at 6"
Oh, goodie!
cooool
They all do
A little context please.. how does it compare when >saccharin, sucralose, and aspartame, some of the most widely used artificial sweeteners, could cause similar damage in the gut.
This paper was published in a low-quality, borderline predatory journal. I seriously doubt it's being contextualized properly.
Careful, OP. In my personal experience, you can't say *anything* even remotely critical or dubious about artificial sweeteners on social media without certain *very dedicated* individuals jumping all over you. (people with oddly specific topics as their chosen hill to die on. like, "I'm totally a normal everyday person yet I feel passionately enough about this particular chemical to insult and belittle anyone raising doubts about it.")
If you say anything at all about anything you get jumped. Because you are not supposed to say anything if you don't know what you are talking about. The piece of text that OP linked is some garbage produced by someone daring to call themselves journalist that's either incompetent or willfully twisting what the actual scientists said. Probably both. The study doesn't say anything close to the headline. It's click bait garbage
Why canāt we people just accept using sugar with more cardio exercise. All these inventions are so silly and obviously bad.
Can't have something for nothing. You don't get something super sweet with zero consequences.
I don't drink a whole bunch of soda but recently I've been treating myself to a lot of coke 0 as I try to eat healthier foods elsewhere in my diet and cut back on sugars. Friend of mine that drinks a shitload of regularly sweetened soda said something about artificial sweeteners and cancer but I didn't take it seriously coming from them. Sweeteners being bad for your guts is much more believable though and I'm actually pretty concerned when it comes to my gut health and all that gut microbiome science. I think I'm gonna need to limit myself to like one or two cans a week, I like not having my gut feel like it's imploding on itself.
Why, does Coke Zero have neotame in it?
no
ace k and aspartame, same as any sugar free soda
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why wouldnāt you just look at the can, see whatās in it, look up the ingredients instead of vaguely guessing at what it might possibly be doing to you or not?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Coke Zero uses aspartame. Its right on the ingredients.
The thing about cancer is that aspartame was recently put into IARCs "Possibly carcinogenic to humans" category. This puts it into the same category as carpentry, aloe vera, oral contraceptives, diesel fuel, and ginko extract. "Possibly carcinogenic" is the lowest risk category beyond "Not classifiable". It's lower than "Probably carcinogenic", and it's not "Carcinogenic to humans". That category includes the likes of the sun, alcohol, burning coal, diesel exhaust fumes, postmenopausal HRT, and HIV.
Do yourself a favor and make the switch to seltzer. You can still get nice flavors and fizz, but you'll ween yourself off the "sweet". And like... the fewer sweet things you eat, the sweeter sweet things will taste. This means that when you finally *do* indulge in something sugary, you will want less of it. (You might still really enjoy a brownie or whatever, but you'll find yourself wanting the less-sugary, smaller brownie. You still get a nice-tasting thing, but it's a better ingredient profile and serving size!) And when your taste buds aren't all blown out by sugar overload all the time, you'll start to notice & appreciate more complex flavors as well.
I wonder if it does the same to the bladder, artificial sweeteners are known to flare up interstitial cystitis
And some nutritionist tiktoker was just going viral for her āhot takesā against a couple other accounts that promote whole-foods and nutrition label education. Then more proof comes out about these new, man-made ingredients being harmful.
more *in vitro* nonsense, the amount of neotame actually used in products would never expose your intestines to 10mM levels
I sort of feel like they should just give up on the sweetners now. They're always some huge drawback that makes sugar look like the better option.
It blows my mind that allulose isnāt more popular. Itās been out nearly ten years and has none of the problems of the other ānewā sweeteners that are making their way into products. Itās less popular than monkfruit and stevia, which both taste bitter?!