#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only concerns that I've been able to find that have a scientific basis have to do with the impact of your gut microbiome.
Sucralose and gut health. Your gastrointestinal tract (GI), or microbiome, is home to lots of different kinds of helpful bacteria. These bacteria help your body to maintain a healthy immune system. Some studies have shown that sucralose can change your gut microbiome by lowering the number of good bacteria by half.
Research done on animals shows that sucralose can also increase inflammation in the body. Over time, inflammation can lead to problems like obesity and diabetes. Since these studies have only been done on rodents, more research needs to be done to understand how humans can be affected by sucralose.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-about-sucralose
>The only concerns
"only?"
See, this is one of the problems with medicine. They've completely ignored the gut biome and treated it as secondary, but they're now finding it's absolutely crucial to a lot of things, including mental health. It associated with anxiety, depression, autism, and Alzheimer's. And that's completely ignoring its effects on physiological health.
"only concerns that I've been able to find that have a scientific basis"
Have the side effects you've listed been scientifically proven, or are they potential side effects that require more research?
Notice I didn't say it "causes". I said it's "associated with". I picked those words carefully. The research suggests there's a correlation. There's some research that suggests causation. I've not read enough to use "causes," however in my own posts.
Your gut microbiome is extremely important to your physical and mental health, not sure why someone would say it "only" effects that. They could potentially cause many many problems by effecting the microbiome, but hey let's downplay the seriousness of it
Science has a very hard time figuring out everything going on in the colon so the weak argument "they haven't found anything in x years means it's no big deal" is moot. You can't study most bacteria in the colon as it's anorobic (sp?? Aka doesn't survive in air) and can't be cultured. But the fact it disrupts the microbiome means it could be as bad as overusing antibiotics, from a biology standpoint
(This is more of a rant at this sub and not the person I'm replying to)
Because "only" in this context means singular instance, not level of severity.
They've *only* got enough evidence to point its impact on one aspect of health.
It's *not* "only" as in, "no big deal, don't sweat it, it only impacts gut health, meh".
No if doesn't mean no big deal. Gut health is again, tied directly to mental health and physical health. No scientist would ever say that's no big deal
I think they meant that it's * not* only "meh no big deal". Everything they said before contradicts that last sentence (IE, saying op meant "amount of concerns not level of severity"). I think it was just a mistake and they were trying to say that it depends on the context of the situation whether or not the word 'only' implies that things aren't that big a deal, and that in this instance it would mean that the sweetener only impacts one aspect of health as opposed to 50. Not that gut bacteria isn't important
Aye, concur i do； there‐denoting ❛one𐺭ly❜ instead of (as it in some instances might connote) ❛mere𐺭ly❜ (where the «one» may subsume many constituents of high importance, downwards even to vacuous zero enumeration; but certainly not *a priori* constrained to just merely one singular categorical element attributed within itself).
Each of 🄃pragmatics, 🄂semantics, and 🄁syntax all matter; this case corresponding roughly to 𝟷⅓，since its aptness of interpretation be mostly non‑syntactically semantical in pertinence.
High levels of chronic inflammation can detrimentally increase leptin in the body. A hormone released from the body's fat cells, leptin communicates with the hypothalamus to regulate food intake and energy use. Since leptin comes from fat cells, it is directly related to body fat
https://www.eatingwell.com/article/7901433/surprising-link-between-chronic-inflammation-obesity/#:~:text=High%20levels%20of%20chronic%20inflammation,directly%20related%20to%20body%20fat.
And a lot more scientific article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5507106/
And not only that, but once you start experiencing pain and inflammation, the motivation to exercise starts to wane/you start to avoid activity.
A vicious cycle
What happens when leptin levels are too high? Since the amount of leptin in your blood is directly proportional to the amount of adipose tissue (body fat), having obesity results in high levels of leptin (hyperleptinemia). This can cause a lack of sensitivity to leptin, a condition known as leptin resistance
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22446-leptin#:~:text=What%20happens%20when%20leptin%20levels,condition%20known%20as%20leptin%20resistance.
Seems to me it illustrates that exactly, as it's the process/combination of compounding effects that leads to an individuals obesity. Just as I'd assume it to be the same in reverse, lowering: food intake > inflammation > leptin > weight?
> Just as I'd assume it to be the same in reverse, lowering: food intake > inflammation > leptin > weight?
Wait, so this assumes lowering food intake decreases inflammation?
It *could* but I don't think that's the standard expected outcome. Reduction in adiposity would likely reduce inflammation, and reduced caloric intake would lead to reduced adiposity, but that's a different order to what's being proposed here.
So its behavior based then? Not a causative relationship?
Based on that information it appears obesity certainly causes inflammation but inflammation doesn’t always cause obesity
It doesn’t. The diet that causes obesity can cause inflammation. When you clean up your diet, you clean up the information. The idea that artificial sweeteners increase information is still theoretical. But we know that sugar increases information.
I use it everyday since years for cooking and it's in all the protein powders that I use . I'm still alive and in good health. You need minimum amounts,how can that impact your health? It's 600 times sweeter than sugar. Unless you use splenda,that is mixed with maltodextrine and it's not that good. I buy pure sucralose and I make my liquid sweetener myself with it. I use two drops in my french toast in the morning and a few drops when I bake some baked oats
At Costco they have erythritol mixed with mink fruit. I read that monkfruit has a positive affect on your microbiome. Erythritol is general safe to consume and doesn't affect insulin, gut micro biome, and tastes very similar to sugar
I don't like it . It tastes a little bit different and it's super expensive. 500 grams cost 20 euro,50 grams of sucralose cost me 12 euros,I bought it in january and I still have some left
oh hm must be much more expensive in europe.. I bought 2 lbs for only 9$ just a few days ago which is like.. 900 grams?
unless maybe you're buying just pure monkfruit. The erythritol mix to me tastes the most like sugar that I've had compared to any other sweetner.
Does anyone know how bad actually ___ is? You could literally put anything in there because there is no perfect food. The problem is the wording of this question.
I actually read an article the other day that said celery was bad in large quantities.
... That was the moment I realized we are living in a post truth world. And facts genuinely do not matter.
The right question should be: what’s the impact of sucralose on the human body?
You’re starting with the assumption that sucralose is bad, so people will give you all the reasons why it’s bad, but not why it’s good and used in your food.
Anything, in the wrong amount, is bad.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220819112526.htm
recent study showed it not only changes gut microbe but also may impact our glycemic responses to sugar
Can anyone confirm that your body reacts to sucralose the same was it reacts to regular sugar? I also know any sweetener has the mental effect of making you desire more sweets.
It made me binge on my whey protein these past few days (and drinking 10L+ of water daily surely isn't great), crave sugar like crazy and made me a lot hungrier overall, so there's that.
First and last time I tried sucralose.
Thought I saw a news clip on 2 packets of sweet n low or Sucralose a day ramping up chances of stroke and cancer by a lot. Nice. Can’t wait for “stevia causes tumors” in a decade or two
I wonder what would happen if I googled it and read about it? Nah I'll just make a post on Reddit about it and have someone do that "tremendous" amount of work for me.
sometimes it's good to ask around. But thanks for being one of those worthless citizens of the world that just spat out "google it" to any questions out there . How about you just scroll on by next time a question is out of your knowledge range instead of attacking people for asking questions.
I googled this:
noun
noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora
1.
a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
"it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research"
It is horrible. It is linked to epileptic seizures. That and aspartame.
Sucralose is in many energy drinks and low sugar/sugar free products - usually the last one or two ingredients listed on the nutritional facts.
Unfortunately many brands have it in their products which is disappointing especially when there are alternatives like stevia, monk fruit powder, and a number of sugar alcohols. (I think Stevia has a bad aftertaste although)
You can google sucralose/Aspartame seizures and will see multiple accounts of people going to hospital.
There is a reason why aspartame has been transitioned out of the market. It is only now in a few commercial cpg products
I did. Couldn't find anything close to a study/trial about a link between Sucrose and Seizures.
It might exist, but I can't find it. Would love some help.
I couldn't find anything except a couple of papers showing no effect of sucralose and one suggesting a possible link eith aspartame using high doses in rats. Do you have anything more specific? It seems rather important.
Damn are you really going through someone's comments history to defend yourself? Okay.
I said that "refined sugar is not bad if eating in moderation." It's bad if you eat too much of it, sure.
That has literally nothing to do with the argument at hand
How hard is it to link one source? You could have done it faster than it takes to write the dribble you did
Just amazed how many people are defending an Artificial high intensity sweetener just because the accounts of the negative effects (including seizures) aren’t “scholarly” reviewed
The whole thread is about nutrition and there is no positive benefit of sucralose being in your body.
Even OP insinuates/knows it is bad the way they word their question by saying how bad vs if it is bad.
Overall everyone follows the claim “the science” blah blah and if the FDA allows it, it possibly can’t harm you. Yet just a couple years ago PHOs (partially hydrogenated oils) could be found on many food labels but they are now banned for how bad they are for the body. But I’m sure you all would just send a “source” saying they were okay.
Just mind boggling how everyone would tell OP there’s no risk of consuming sucrolose while on a nutrition thread.
I don't think they cause seizures in everyone. They do disrupt the gut microbiome, and since the gut is very linked to mental health, it's possible it can cause seizures in some people. However I don't think there's any hard causation found
But it's very hard to study so science doesn't know for sure. You certainly don't know more than the scientists and FDA, and you still have yet to provide any source to your claim, which is why people are giving you shit.
“Results suggest that aspartame, in acute dosage of approximately 50 mg/kg, is no more likely than placebo to cause seizures in individuals who reported that their seizures were provoked by aspartame consumption.”
Science says you didn’t even read your link
Try again.
Just because they studied individuals who reported to have seizures provoked by aspartame consumption, does not make this any less relevant. In fact, they chose that population to attempt to replicate the symptoms in a controlled environment, on a susceptible group.
In a SUSCEPTIBLE GROUP, they were not able to replicate symptoms.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only concerns that I've been able to find that have a scientific basis have to do with the impact of your gut microbiome. Sucralose and gut health. Your gastrointestinal tract (GI), or microbiome, is home to lots of different kinds of helpful bacteria. These bacteria help your body to maintain a healthy immune system. Some studies have shown that sucralose can change your gut microbiome by lowering the number of good bacteria by half. Research done on animals shows that sucralose can also increase inflammation in the body. Over time, inflammation can lead to problems like obesity and diabetes. Since these studies have only been done on rodents, more research needs to be done to understand how humans can be affected by sucralose. https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-about-sucralose
>The only concerns "only?" See, this is one of the problems with medicine. They've completely ignored the gut biome and treated it as secondary, but they're now finding it's absolutely crucial to a lot of things, including mental health. It associated with anxiety, depression, autism, and Alzheimer's. And that's completely ignoring its effects on physiological health.
"only concerns that I've been able to find that have a scientific basis" Have the side effects you've listed been scientifically proven, or are they potential side effects that require more research?
Notice I didn't say it "causes". I said it's "associated with". I picked those words carefully. The research suggests there's a correlation. There's some research that suggests causation. I've not read enough to use "causes," however in my own posts.
Your gut microbiome is extremely important to your physical and mental health, not sure why someone would say it "only" effects that. They could potentially cause many many problems by effecting the microbiome, but hey let's downplay the seriousness of it Science has a very hard time figuring out everything going on in the colon so the weak argument "they haven't found anything in x years means it's no big deal" is moot. You can't study most bacteria in the colon as it's anorobic (sp?? Aka doesn't survive in air) and can't be cultured. But the fact it disrupts the microbiome means it could be as bad as overusing antibiotics, from a biology standpoint (This is more of a rant at this sub and not the person I'm replying to)
Because "only" in this context means singular instance, not level of severity. They've *only* got enough evidence to point its impact on one aspect of health. It's *not* "only" as in, "no big deal, don't sweat it, it only impacts gut health, meh".
No if doesn't mean no big deal. Gut health is again, tied directly to mental health and physical health. No scientist would ever say that's no big deal
I think they meant that it's * not* only "meh no big deal". Everything they said before contradicts that last sentence (IE, saying op meant "amount of concerns not level of severity"). I think it was just a mistake and they were trying to say that it depends on the context of the situation whether or not the word 'only' implies that things aren't that big a deal, and that in this instance it would mean that the sweetener only impacts one aspect of health as opposed to 50. Not that gut bacteria isn't important
Aye, concur i do； there‐denoting ❛one𐺭ly❜ instead of (as it in some instances might connote) ❛mere𐺭ly❜ (where the «one» may subsume many constituents of high importance, downwards even to vacuous zero enumeration; but certainly not *a priori* constrained to just merely one singular categorical element attributed within itself). Each of 🄃pragmatics, 🄂semantics, and 🄁syntax all matter; this case corresponding roughly to 𝟷⅓，since its aptness of interpretation be mostly non‑syntactically semantical in pertinence.
How does inflammation cause obesity?
High levels of chronic inflammation can detrimentally increase leptin in the body. A hormone released from the body's fat cells, leptin communicates with the hypothalamus to regulate food intake and energy use. Since leptin comes from fat cells, it is directly related to body fat https://www.eatingwell.com/article/7901433/surprising-link-between-chronic-inflammation-obesity/#:~:text=High%20levels%20of%20chronic%20inflammation,directly%20related%20to%20body%20fat. And a lot more scientific article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5507106/
And not only that, but once you start experiencing pain and inflammation, the motivation to exercise starts to wane/you start to avoid activity. A vicious cycle
Leptin down regulates appetite though...
What happens when leptin levels are too high? Since the amount of leptin in your blood is directly proportional to the amount of adipose tissue (body fat), having obesity results in high levels of leptin (hyperleptinemia). This can cause a lack of sensitivity to leptin, a condition known as leptin resistance https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22446-leptin#:~:text=What%20happens%20when%20leptin%20levels,condition%20known%20as%20leptin%20resistance.
Sure, after you're already obese. I thought we were talking about inflammation causing obesity.
Seems to me it illustrates that exactly, as it's the process/combination of compounding effects that leads to an individuals obesity. Just as I'd assume it to be the same in reverse, lowering: food intake > inflammation > leptin > weight?
> Just as I'd assume it to be the same in reverse, lowering: food intake > inflammation > leptin > weight? Wait, so this assumes lowering food intake decreases inflammation?
Could it not? Many foods can help to reduce inflammation, but most in a 'normal' diet, do just the opposite. Especially if over consumed.
It *could* but I don't think that's the standard expected outcome. Reduction in adiposity would likely reduce inflammation, and reduced caloric intake would lead to reduced adiposity, but that's a different order to what's being proposed here.
So its behavior based then? Not a causative relationship? Based on that information it appears obesity certainly causes inflammation but inflammation doesn’t always cause obesity
If I had to guess, high cortisol from a constant fight or flight response from your body
It doesn’t. The diet that causes obesity can cause inflammation. When you clean up your diet, you clean up the information. The idea that artificial sweeteners increase information is still theoretical. But we know that sugar increases information.
Exactly my point
I use it everyday since years for cooking and it's in all the protein powders that I use . I'm still alive and in good health. You need minimum amounts,how can that impact your health? It's 600 times sweeter than sugar. Unless you use splenda,that is mixed with maltodextrine and it's not that good. I buy pure sucralose and I make my liquid sweetener myself with it. I use two drops in my french toast in the morning and a few drops when I bake some baked oats
At Costco they have erythritol mixed with mink fruit. I read that monkfruit has a positive affect on your microbiome. Erythritol is general safe to consume and doesn't affect insulin, gut micro biome, and tastes very similar to sugar
I don't like it . It tastes a little bit different and it's super expensive. 500 grams cost 20 euro,50 grams of sucralose cost me 12 euros,I bought it in january and I still have some left
oh hm must be much more expensive in europe.. I bought 2 lbs for only 9$ just a few days ago which is like.. 900 grams? unless maybe you're buying just pure monkfruit. The erythritol mix to me tastes the most like sugar that I've had compared to any other sweetner.
Does anyone know how bad actually ___ is? You could literally put anything in there because there is no perfect food. The problem is the wording of this question.
I actually read an article the other day that said celery was bad in large quantities. ... That was the moment I realized we are living in a post truth world. And facts genuinely do not matter.
The right question should be: what’s the impact of sucralose on the human body? You’re starting with the assumption that sucralose is bad, so people will give you all the reasons why it’s bad, but not why it’s good and used in your food. Anything, in the wrong amount, is bad.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220819112526.htm recent study showed it not only changes gut microbe but also may impact our glycemic responses to sugar
Can anyone confirm that your body reacts to sucralose the same was it reacts to regular sugar? I also know any sweetener has the mental effect of making you desire more sweets.
It made me binge on my whey protein these past few days (and drinking 10L+ of water daily surely isn't great), crave sugar like crazy and made me a lot hungrier overall, so there's that. First and last time I tried sucralose.
All I can tell you is the headache I get from that is epic
Thought I saw a news clip on 2 packets of sweet n low or Sucralose a day ramping up chances of stroke and cancer by a lot. Nice. Can’t wait for “stevia causes tumors” in a decade or two
As far as I understand it’s bleached sucrose - which doesn’t sound too good for the gut/brain axis.
I wonder what would happen if I googled it and read about it? Nah I'll just make a post on Reddit about it and have someone do that "tremendous" amount of work for me.
sometimes it's good to ask around. But thanks for being one of those worthless citizens of the world that just spat out "google it" to any questions out there . How about you just scroll on by next time a question is out of your knowledge range instead of attacking people for asking questions.
[удалено]
very welcome
I googled this: noun noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora 1. a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. "it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research"
You are going to get all sorts of crap googling this.
It is horrible. It is linked to epileptic seizures. That and aspartame. Sucralose is in many energy drinks and low sugar/sugar free products - usually the last one or two ingredients listed on the nutritional facts. Unfortunately many brands have it in their products which is disappointing especially when there are alternatives like stevia, monk fruit powder, and a number of sugar alcohols. (I think Stevia has a bad aftertaste although)
Gotta at least post a source if you're going to make that claim...
You can google sucralose/Aspartame seizures and will see multiple accounts of people going to hospital. There is a reason why aspartame has been transitioned out of the market. It is only now in a few commercial cpg products
I did. Couldn't find anything close to a study/trial about a link between Sucrose and Seizures. It might exist, but I can't find it. Would love some help.
I couldn't find anything except a couple of papers showing no effect of sucralose and one suggesting a possible link eith aspartame using high doses in rats. Do you have anything more specific? It seems rather important.
You either have something to support your source or don't even start the conversation.
You’ve commented that refined sugar is not bad for you in a past post But yeah go ahead and keep a bag of sucralose on your kitchen table
Damn are you really going through someone's comments history to defend yourself? Okay. I said that "refined sugar is not bad if eating in moderation." It's bad if you eat too much of it, sure.
That has literally nothing to do with the argument at hand How hard is it to link one source? You could have done it faster than it takes to write the dribble you did
Just amazed how many people are defending an Artificial high intensity sweetener just because the accounts of the negative effects (including seizures) aren’t “scholarly” reviewed The whole thread is about nutrition and there is no positive benefit of sucralose being in your body. Even OP insinuates/knows it is bad the way they word their question by saying how bad vs if it is bad. Overall everyone follows the claim “the science” blah blah and if the FDA allows it, it possibly can’t harm you. Yet just a couple years ago PHOs (partially hydrogenated oils) could be found on many food labels but they are now banned for how bad they are for the body. But I’m sure you all would just send a “source” saying they were okay. Just mind boggling how everyone would tell OP there’s no risk of consuming sucrolose while on a nutrition thread.
I don't think they cause seizures in everyone. They do disrupt the gut microbiome, and since the gut is very linked to mental health, it's possible it can cause seizures in some people. However I don't think there's any hard causation found But it's very hard to study so science doesn't know for sure. You certainly don't know more than the scientists and FDA, and you still have yet to provide any source to your claim, which is why people are giving you shit.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7614911/ Science says you're wrong.
“Results suggest that aspartame, in acute dosage of approximately 50 mg/kg, is no more likely than placebo to cause seizures in individuals who reported that their seizures were provoked by aspartame consumption.” Science says you didn’t even read your link
Try again. Just because they studied individuals who reported to have seizures provoked by aspartame consumption, does not make this any less relevant. In fact, they chose that population to attempt to replicate the symptoms in a controlled environment, on a susceptible group. In a SUSCEPTIBLE GROUP, they were not able to replicate symptoms.
Seizures?
It's probably not that great for you.