Artificial Sweeteners are Healthy

[SQAAD]

Don't take the title too literally. I am just trying to capture your attention. 

I would like some evaluation of Dr. Layne Norton's content. 

He is a Stage Orange nutritional scientist. Very hard nosed. Very facts over feelings (he even wears t- shirts with this phrase). 

He doesn't believe that McDonald's burgers and many other things are bad you. He considers all of that bro science. 

His argument is usually '' There is no evidence to support X claim"

From him and other nutritional scientists came the culture of IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros). Where basically you can eat anything you want (pop tarts, burgers, candy) as long as you hit all your macronutrients micronutrients without exceeding your needs. 

I think he is right in certain aspects. People demonize sugar and other things without enough information. For example sugar doesn't appear to be bad for you if you are physically active and don't consume ridiculous quantities of it. 

Nutritional sciences is an interesting field of study for sure without easy answers. And the big picture isn't quite clear without the details. 

I find most people making completely biased claims around nutrition just because they believe that if you were evolved to eat something it must be good for you. And that the opposite holds true. But in reality it's much more complicated than that. 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by SQAAD

[Michael569]

25 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

From him and other nutritional scientists came the culture of IFFYM (If It Fits Your Macroa). Where basically you can eat anything you want (pop tarts, burgers, candy) as long as you hit all your macronutrients micronutrients without exceeding your needs. 

Hmm yes and no. Yes that it will meet your nutritional needs because even pop tarts are now enriched with nutrients to support global deficiencies. And remember that whenever we say "avoid deficiency" means you hit just above the bare minimum to prevent a disease such as scurvy or beriberi. It is not a level at one will thrive. 

No, in a sense that this sort of eating won't be ideal for preventing something like early-onset cardiovascular disease for which 7/10 people will die.  IIFYM is bro-nutrition driven by bodybuilders and stage orange bro-science of people who don't know how to interpret nutritional epidemiology and who do not really understand the consequences of dietary choices of one's health. Calories in calories out is not the most complete interpretation of the literature. 

There was a video in which Layne was interpreting his blood lipid results and his total cholesterol and LDL-C were just fucking through the roof! with levels you would see in men much older than him and he completely dismissed that. Vegan gains actually addressed that bit in his video really well by looking at the LDL-C and atherosclerosis development chart https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3GtMScnqHQ

The point of nutritional epidemiology is to assess potential health outcomes of different eating patterns and saying "it does not matter as long as you don't overeat" is a huge disservice to the public especially when it clearly shows on test that it is not working. 

 

25 minutes ago, SQAAD said:

He doesn't believe that McDonald's burgers and many other things are bad you. He considers all of that bro science.

Norton is approaching nutriiton from the standpoint of total caloric intake. The theory usually is that " as long as you are not overeating you won't get sick" and to a large point that is true because things like diabetes for example (Type 2 I mean) are basically energy status disease caused by long term overeating over the body's fat storage tolerance. 

But we lave loads of data on switching people's diet from saturated fats and beef and that sort of stuff (that he would consider ok) and seeing dramatic improvements in health (within the remit of their caloric needs) so I don't think as a hard-nosed PhD scientist he is being totally correct there. I have seen a lot of criticism for this on Norton's head. He is a denier of many things that are gradually being established in nutrition such as that consumption of PUFAs over saturated fats is actually healthy for humans. 

This particular video is on sweeteners for which I haven't done in-depth review but from hearing about others who have, they do not appear to be damaging although there is emerging literature in animals that they may be harming microbiome so that's something to keep in mind for future. So far we have no human data on that topic. 

[SQAAD]

@Michael569

20 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

Hmm yes and no. Yes that it will meet your nutritional needs because even pop tarts are now enriched with nutrients to support global deficiencies. And remember that whenever we say "avoid deficiency" means you hit just above the bare minimum to prevent a disease such as scurvy or beriberi. It is not a level at one will thrive. 

No, in a sense that this sort of eating won't be ideal for preventing something like early-onset cardiovascular disease for which 7/10 people will die.  IIFYM is bro-nutrition driven by bodybuilders and stage orange bro-science of people who don't know how to interpret nutritional epidemiology and who do not really understand the consequences of dietary choices of one's health. Calories in calories out is not the most complete interpretation of the literature. Wasn't there a vdeo in which Norton was interpeting his blood lipid results and his LDL cholesterol was  through the roof?  and he was like "nah thats all good as long as HDL is high enough " His range was like 300% over what it should be. 

The point of nutritional epidemiology is to assess potential health outcomes of different eating patterns and saying "it does not matter as long as you don't overeat" is a huge disservice to the public. 

Norton is approaching nutriiton from the standpoint of total caloric intake. The theory usually is that " as long as you are not overeating you won't get sick" and to a large point that is true because things like diabetes for example (Type 2 I mean) are basically energy status disease caused by long term overeating over the body's fat storage tolerance. 

But we lave loads of data on switching people's diet from saturated fats and beef and that sort of stuff (that he would consider ok) and seeing dramatic improvements in health (within the remit of their caloric needs) so I don't think as a hard-nosed PhD scientist he is being totally correct there. I have seen a lot of criticism for this on Norton's head. He is a denier of many things that are gradually being established in nutrition such as that consumption of PUFAs over saturated fats is actually healthy for humans. 

This particular video is on sweeteners for which I haven't done in-depth review but from hearing about others who have, they do not appear to be damaging although there is emerging literature in animals that they may be harming microbiome so that's something to keep in mind for future. So far we have no human data on that topic. 

No, IIFYM is completely anti bro science. It originates from very hard nosed Stage Orange nutritional scientists. 

IIFYM is Scientism. Not bro science. 

Most bodybuilders are just the opposite of IIFYM. They consume religiously rice and chicken and they don't believe that you can eat anything you want (in the context of IIFYM) and have a great physiques. They also believe in lies that you have to eat every 3 hours to keep your metabolism high. They believe you have to eat 6-12 times a day otherwise you will remain without nutrients, even though it i takes 6 hours to digest a regular meal lol. 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by SQAAD

[SQAAD]

@Michael569

37 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

there is emerging literature in animals that they may be harming microbiome so that's something to keep in mind for future. So far we have no human data on that topic. 

Those studies were done on petri dish from what I saw. Norton has a made a video about it criticizing this new literature. Basically he says that you can get the same result by pouring amino acids in a petri dish. 

And in studies done on people it's a completely different outcome. 

Edited April 1, 2022 by SQAAD

[undeather]

Its just bad sensemaking. What the fuck.
"High sugar diets do not increase inflammatory markers when controlled for calories - therfore, sugar is not pro-inflammatory"

Okay, so we are not going to talk about:
- mid to long term outcomes due to second order effects like increasing the relative abundance of Proteobacteria in the gut, while simultaneously decreasing the abundance of Bacteroidetes -> which serves as a playing ground for inflammation!
- Correlation between high sugar intake and SIBO/IBD prevalence 
- The worsening of mainly chronic inflammatory conditions during periods of hightened sugar intake
- Overclocking PKB/M-TOR  through spiking insulin (aging process)
- Disadvantagious changes in patterns of DNA methylation and gene expression
- Potential impacts on long term HbA1c
- Correlation between high sugar diets and mental health outcomes like anxiety & depression
- Interindividual differences in the ability to process short chain carbohydrates
- the chosen sample of pro-inflammatory markers are highly problematic and reductionistic
- we dont eat sugar in its raw form since its usually mixed up in a highly processed piece of garbage with many other ingredients
..... and so on.

It's just bro science with a PhD. 


 

Edited April 1, 2022 by undeather

[Michael569]

3 hours ago, SQAAD said:

Those studies were done on petri dish from what I saw.

I don't know if that's true. While I didn't find human studies there are a few lab animal studies out there, look. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5464538/ - 4-week mice study Collectively, our data evidence that Ace-K consumption can lead to adverse effects in the gut microbiome of mice.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4615743/ - Mice recipients of saccharin-associated microbiomes developed glucose intolerance and their microbiomes reflected many of the changes observed in the donors, as compared to those receiving microbiomes of control mice.

And of course in-vivo (lab animals)  studies are at the very lowest in the hierarchy of evidence, I totally grant that and without human outcome data we can just speculate but boldly dismiss the evidence available (due to the absence of more robust studies) shows a lot of arrogance, especially by a PhD. If you listen to people like the Sonnenburgs (top-level microbiome researchers)  and Chris Gardner (an actual clinical nutrition researcher) you'll quickly understand why creating studies that monitor microbiome outcomes is just ridiculously difficult to due because there is a gazilion of potential correlates in there. I think Norton is way out of his league being so dismissive here. 

3 hours ago, SQAAD said:

Basically he says that you can get the same result by pouring amino acids in a petri dish. 

This is how science starts. In the absence of human data, petri dish studies and in-vivo studies is the best we have. Every human data has at some point been initiated by a bunch of petri dish studies, the science takes time to catch up. One can only dismiss petri dish studies if they have been superseded by human outcome data or at least animal outcome data.  On the topic of artificial sweeteners and microbiota, they haven't so I wouldn't be as dismissive straight away. Maybe he is right but maybe he isn't.

 

[SQAAD]

@undeather

6 hours ago, undeather said:

Its just bad sensemaking. What the fuck.
"High sugar diets do not increase inflammatory markers when controlled for calories - therfore, sugar is not pro-inflammatory"

I think sugar and carbohydrates are not the devil some people make them to be. Also if something is highly processed, it's not necessarily bad for you. That's a bias many people hold that many times has no scientific basis. 

According to research if we equte for calories and weight loss, inflammatory markers don't differ significantly in high carb or low carb. Keto diets actually raise inflammation a lil bit more. 

If you eat more calories than needed inflammation goes up very similarly regardless the diet you are on. 

Also according to Norton we don't understand what short term rises on inflammation actually mean. 

If inflmmation goes up that doesn't tell us everything. When you exercise, inflammation goes up short term. But it's good for us. 

Personally I don't really know what is going on or what to believe any more. 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by SQAAD

[Leo Gura]

I just read a new study last week which said that artificial sweeteners have been linked to increase cancer rates.

They are definitely not healthy.

If you want a sweetener, just use raw honey and take the calorie hit.

There is no need for artificial sweeteners when you have a solid whole foods diet.

[something_else]

IMO the sensible approach to artificial sweeteners is 'why bother taking the risk?'

Maybe they're fine or maybe they fuck up your gut biome, make you hungrier, and give you cancer

Is it really so important for you to drink some diet coke that you wanna take that risk? Lol

[Leo Gura]

The study:

https://www.sciencealert.com/large-study-suggests-a-small-link-between-artificial-sweeteners-and-cancer

[thisintegrated]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The study:

https://www.sciencealert.com/large-study-suggests-a-small-link-between-artificial-sweeteners-and-cancer

This is just really bad science.  This much should be obvious even to a child.

 

Bottom of the article:

Quote

"cancer risk may be raised in the type of person who uses artificial sweetener rather than the sweetener itself."

 [..] does not mean consumers should rush back to sugary drinks – [..] they were also linked to a higher risk of several cancer types.

 

Don't spread misinformation on this forum, please.

[undeather]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The study:

https://www.sciencealert.com/large-study-suggests-a-small-link-between-artificial-sweeteners-and-cancer

Interesting.

Nutritional epidemiology is sadly one of the weakest forms of scientific evidence but its still a conspicuous finding. 
 

[Yarco]

I'm not gonna even consider diet advice from someone making ? ?? faces in their thumbnails lmao

Edited April 1, 2022 by Yarco

[SQAAD]

@Leo Gura

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

They are definitely not healthy.

That's a very bold claim. How can you be so sure? 

I think in reality you don't know whether they are healthy or not. 

They are not healthy for rats that consume 1.000 times more than the recommended amount. 

For humans they appear to be pretty safe . Personally I don't know. 

Here Norton reviews this latest study you referred and goes in on a lot of depth. 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by SQAAD

[SQAAD]

20 hours ago, something_else said:

IMO the sensible approach to artificial sweeteners is 'why bother taking the risk?'

Maybe they're fine or maybe they fuck up your gut biome, make you hungrier, and give you cancer

Is it really so important for you to drink some diet coke that you wanna take that risk? Lol

@something_else Sometimes you do the best with what you have. Let's take into consideration someone who is morbidly obese and drinks 2 liters of soda everyday for multiple years. 

If he replaces that soda with diet soda he will lose weight and decrease his overall risk of getting cancer. 

It's hard to ask that person to quit drinking sodas all together. 

Edited April 2, 2022 by SQAAD

[Rokazulu]

Studies, data— all well and good.

But, one can sense the body when consuming foods.
And find out exactly what needs eliminating.

[Ampresus]

On 3-4-2022 at 5:05 AM, Rokazulu said:

Studies, data— all well and good.

But, one can sense the body when consuming foods.
And find out exactly what needs eliminating.

Lets just sense whether or not it gives me cancer. Surely I know my body better than any study or doctor.