Any idea why artificial sweeteners cause symptoms?

[Mimicry]

I just drank an energy drink with sucralose and within 20 minutes my brain fog, vision problems and lightheadedness got worse. I've noticed the same effect from acesulfame-K, aspartame and erythritol (which is unfortunate because I'm on keto diet but absolutely love sweet treats). Coffee doesn't cause these symptoms for me so I know it's not the caffeine.

I tried to find out the exact mechanisms how sweeteners cause this effect but the only scientific papers I found only talk about long-term effects. I didn't find anything that explains how they immediately cause symptom exacerbation. I know for a fact that sensitivity to sweeteners is relatively common, I've seen people talk about on migraine groups on fb. I just have zero idea why. Anyone here have any clue?

 

[BrightCandle]

Artificial sweeteners kill bacteria in our gut rather rapidly, alas the good guys tend to die quicker and worse than the bad guys. The other thing is that a lot of the sweeteners actually result in an insulin response and a glucose drop, the body perceives them as glucose and is duped into the wrong reaction. About the only good one is monk fruit or inulin, everything else has some significant tradeoffs ans problems. If you already have gut issues then this is just more fuel for that fire.

I would recommend a full on candida, parasites and bacterial infection stool test to see what is going on especially one that finds leaky gut.

 

[Judee]

I tried some nutrasweet-type sweetener recently because I wanted to see if the aminos in it would help with my mood but my skin reacted like it used to when I was drinking Mountain Dew all the time and set off Keratosis Pilaris.

Can you use stevia instead? This is the kind I use: https://www.amazon.com/NOW-Foods-Or...8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&th=1

Or maybe you can do monk fruit? (was typing this when BrightCandle said the same ) I found this one which appears to be only monk fruit. Some of the others have erythritol. https://www.amazon.com/Organic-Extr...d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9tdGY&psc=1#customerReviews (I don't know how that one tastes though.)

 

[Wishful]

If other artificial sweeteners cause the same symptoms, with a 20-minute delay, I think microbiome changes are a likely cause. I think this is one of those cases where you just have to accept that <whatever ingredient> is something to avoid.

Be wary of any "zero calorie" sweetener that comes in tiny packets. They likely have as many calories as sugar, but when packaged in a quantity small enough, they get away with rounding down to zero.

 

[datadragon]

Researchers ID biomarker for weight gain, fat-mass growth​

When participants drank 13C-labeled glucose, it was metabolized and appeared in blood erythritol after some time. Researchers found that students who gained weight and abdominal fat over the course of the year had fifteenfold higher blood erythritol levels at the start of the year compared with their counterparts who were stable or lost weight and fat mass over the academic year. http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017/05/researchers-id-biomarker-weight-gain-fat-mass-growth

And...
The World Health Organization (WHO) has released a new guideline on non-sugar sweeteners (NSS), which recommends against the use of NSS to control body weight or reduce the risk of diet related noncommunicable diseases (NCDs).

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review of the available evidence which suggests that use of NSS does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. Results of the review also suggest that there may be potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.

"Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” says Francesco Branca, WHO Director for Nutrition and Food Safety. "NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health."

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with pre-existing diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified non-nutritive sweeteners that are not classified as sugars found in manufactured foods and beverages, or sold on their own to be added to foods and beverages by consumers. Common NSS include acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin, sucralose, stevia and stevia derivatives. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05...or-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline

 

[JES]

Could be something else as well. Energy drinks contain quite a few other ingredients such as B-vitamins and taurine, which again *should* not be an issue, but for ME/CFS patients anything can be an issue (as I experienced by not tolerating a few hundred milligrams of Vitamin C unless I have an acute cold).

The only way to really know then is to test artificial sweeteners in separation to everything else like with stevia that is sold as such.

 

[datadragon]

Sugar guzzles through magnesium stores during metabolism and also increases the excretion of magnesium by the kidneys by inhibiting tubular reabsorption. Refined white sugar removes all magnesium. Molasses, which is removed from the sugar cane in refinement, contains up to 25% of the RDA for magnesium in one tablespoon. The refined sugar has none. However you can now get organic turbinado sugar (one brand is Sugar in the Raw) which contains the molasses so sugar doesnt have to be evil in moderation. I see they also make a sugar in the raw organic white version. That one is crystallized from the sugar cane juice, washed with water to remove molasses, and dried. This certified organic process leaves a small amount of natural molasses in the product, giving it its slight coloration and delicate flavor. Regular refined white sugar, however, is further processed to remove all color (hint: molasses). So if the better turbinado doesnt work with the added molasses you have another in between that can be used on lesser occasions. They also make a liquid cane (which may be better to stir) out of the turbinado but its hard to find in stores would have to order online it seems and would need small container like at the dollar tree store so you dont carry the entire breakable bottle.

So added sugar such as in soda and sports drinks are unfortunately not too good because they contain no magnesium and other nutrients at all needed for sugar metabolism and then guzzle up your low existing magnesium and other nutrient stores to process the sugar nor other beneficial parts.

There is also agave and I did find at least one monk fruit without erythritol (now foods in liquid form). Still not sure about stevia (in liquid form). The leaf extract of Stevia possesses many phytochemicals, which include austroinullin, β-carotene, dulcoside, nilacin, rebaudi oxides, riboflavin, steviol, stevioside, and tiamin with known antimicrobial properties against many pathogens and even lyme. Stevia is also well known in traditional medicine for its use in treatment of many diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, and weight loss. In a few clinical studies, it is reported that the phytochemical stevioside (one of the phytochemicals) reduces blood pressure in patients experiencing mild hypertension and reduces blood glucose levels in type 2 diabetic patients. So what you are likely seeing sometimes is on an isolated study only on Rebaudioside A without the other components in the liquid extract. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4681354/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4681354/ For lyme this one seems a good option to check out https://www.cassingram.com/oreganol-clove-cinnamon-lyme-disease/

 

[Garz]

pretty much all artificial sweeteners including the "natural" ones like the sugar-alcohols stevia and xylitol have powerful biofilm disrupting effects

xylitol is used in mainstream medicine topically to treat antibiotic resistant wound infections for this reason.

there ere are also studies of its oral use in combating recurrent Otitis media infections (a known biofilm forming infection) in children

and one of the longest serving lyme literate doctors also uses xylitol orally as his chosen biofilm disrupting agent in all of his patients - due to borrelia burgdorferi being such a prolific biofilm producing organism
doses do not have to be very high - typical is 1teaspoon 2x a day - so about the same amount of xylitol as you would put in your coffee - perhaps less for stevia.

all artificial sweeteners seem to have this effect - not just the sugar-alcohols (mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, lactitol, isomalt, maltitol and hydrogenated starch hydrolysates (HSH))

pretty much universally - those with chronic stealth infections have dramatic symptoms aggravation from taking these compounds - especially if taken alongside anti-microbials.

its also possible that anyone with a leaky gut - who will be reacting to fragments and by products of their own gut gut bacteria - will get an extra surge of such products into the blood stream after taking such products orally - that will inflame the immune system - and flare such symptoms as those you mention

brain fog, fatigue, headaches - maybe sleep disturbance and pain also depending on the individual

note. most people with these infections are initially diagnosed with CFS by their medical providers - due to ignorance of these diseases and their pathology.

 

[GreenEdge]

I just drank an energy drink with sucralose and within 20 minutes my brain fog, vision problems and lightheadedness got worse. I've noticed the same effect from acesulfame-K, aspartame and erythritol (which is unfortunate because I'm on keto diet but absolutely love sweet treats). Coffee doesn't cause these symptoms for me so I know it's not the caffeine.

I tried to find out the exact mechanisms how sweeteners cause this effect but the only scientific papers I found only talk about long-term effects. I didn't find anything that explains how they immediately cause symptom exacerbation. I know for a fact that sensitivity to sweeteners is relatively common, I've seen people talk about on migraine groups on fb. I just have zero idea why. Anyone here have any clue?

Normally when consuming sugary drinks it's the speed of consumption* that causes dangerously high levels of blood sugar and when repeated often leads to insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

* Our bodies are equipped to consuming sugars in small amounts at a time. Our ancestors didn't have food processing to extract and concentrate sugars to make sweet drinks. Fruit was not juiced, it was eaten whole.

With artificial sweeteners, our senses get fooled and our bodies react to sweet taste by releasing insulin. Insulin's primary purpose is to lower blood sugar (glucose) by signaling to cells to take up glucose. Insulin's secondary purpose is energy storage (via glycogenesis and lipogenesis) - the opposite of ketosis.

When ketogenic you already have a low but steady supply of endogenous glucose (via glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis). The insulin released in response to sweet taste shuts down this glucose production by shutting off access to your fat stores. You now have an energy crises and that's the cause of your symptoms.

Your body was fooled by the sweet taste, it was expecting energy but no energy arrived. The insulin released caused blood glucose to drop further. You should now fall unconscious, but you don't because you still have some ketones in your blood supplying your brain with energy. However, production of ketones has been shut down. You're no longer in ketosis.

What happens now?
You caused your body stress and in response it will ramp up hunger and fat storage to try to prepare itself for next time (in the only way it knows how). Your body now wants to gain weight.

I hope I explained that clearly. Can you now see that artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar?

Try carnivore diet, it's much easier, the masters of keto are carnivore.

 

[Garz]

With artificial sweeteners, our senses get fooled and our bodies react to sweet taste by releasing insulin.

is there good evidence to support this statement ?

i did a quick google - and found that while there has been lots of research - and lots of different claims being made, so far not really a repeatable consensus coming out - in terms of artificial sweeteners triggering anything like the amount of insulin release as traditional sugars.

as per this 2020 review - which seems reasonably thorough and well referenced
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7547772/

"Most studies have flaws in the study design resulting in haphazard claims with no follow-up studies to confirm reliability. It is concluded that while it is not possible to claim that ASs are metabolically inert, at the moment the haphazard evidence is not enough to link their use with glucose metabolism, "

and

"Overall, as provided in Table 1, the vast majority of clinical trials that have investigated the effects of AS intake on glycemic response observed no significant differences between AS consumption and placebo on various measures of glycemic response, including plasma glucose, insulin, HbA1c, and C-peptide. "

 

[GreenEdge]

is there good evidence to support this statement ?

Thanks for the question. Your right, each sweetener is different. This might be helpful:
Artificial Sweeteners and Insulin by Dr. Ben Bikman

Also, watch this video: 3 Ways Sugar-Free Sweeteners Stall Weight Loss (2023) (5:44)

 

[Garz]

Thanks for the question. Your right, each sweetener is different. This might be helpful:
Artificial Sweeteners and Insulin by Dr. Ben Bikman

OK thanks for the link - i should say i am not here to get into a deep debate on the topic - as its not a topic that's particularly dear to my heart - i am just wary of statements presented as fact - that on further inspection are really more like theories that do not appear to have much basis in science.

The table in the first link you gave actually seems to agree with the review i googled - in that very few if any of the artificial sweeteners actually spike insulin as you described - especially when taken on their own.

i should make clear i am not "having a pop" or trying to change your mind - i just think that we do a disservice to other users if we write something as if its an established fact - when in fact its a theory or belief with perhaps little actual scientific evidence to back it up.

Of course, being fully aware of what is a belief and what is factual and where the line lies is tricky. so we all struggle with this. some things are such firmly held beliefs that is hard for us not to present them as facts - i do it myself, but i also appreciate people pulling me up on it.

 

[Wishful]

i just think that we do a disservice to other users if we write something as if its an established fact - when in fact its a theory or belief with perhaps little actual scientific evidence to back it up.

I never trust claims based on "Here's a video about it, therefore it must be true!" I think videos offer the most opportunity to sway beliefs without presenting actual proven facts. Graphs and statistics, while useful tools for some purposes, are also widely misused to mislead people, especially people who are not experts in the math behind the numbers. I'm thinking of claims such as "This supplement reduces your chance of death from heart attack by 50%!!!", when the study (poorly done) actually claims a death rate of 1/1000000000 rather than 1/500000000, which means that it changes your actual chance of dying from a heart attack by an insignificant amount (you're far more likely to die from some other cause). Trickery!


Hmmm, I forsee a war between AIs who help us answer questions about marketing claims, and the marketers who try to manipulate those AIs. I suppose that's no different from when we had to rely on books and magazines for advice.

 

[Garz]

There are fast and slow carbs. Unless you're zero carb or intermittent fasting, your always digesting carbs, so you're always under the effect of insulin, right? So wouldn't the right column "Insulin effect with carbohydrates" apply? -

err - nope - if you read the paper I am pretty sure their definition of column 1 is when artificial sweeteners are given on their own - and column 2 is when they are given at the same time as food with carbs - so what they are eaten with is the distinction - not what might be in the system already, some way through the digestive process.

Therefore, 5 out of 8 raise insulin.

are you reading the same table as i am? - column 2 - which, as above, doesn't really apply to the situation the OP is asking about and that you originally claimed spiked insulin - but since that seems to to be the one you are now focussed on.

is your interpretation of column 2 really that 5 out of 8 increase insulin significantly?
ie enough to spike insulin and cause someone significant symptoms from low blood sugar

mine is that -
-3 definitely do not
-2 were unclear - studies didn't agree - with possibly some signs that they might increase insulin
-1 variable - some studies found it went up - some that it went down - but with more suggesting up than down - so it likely increased insulin
-1 increased it but only by a little (not clear if enough to spike insulin?)
-only one 1 increased it significantly

so 1 up significantly - 1 only a little ( so not enough to have a major effect on insulin) - another one probably does - and all the rest had mixed signals - variable in different studies.

to get to 5 out of 8 increased insulin significantly - one would have to read everything other than "None" as confirmation of one's already held belief that it does

which, by the way, is exactly what you accuse me of doing

“Possessing bias is part and parcel of being human. And the more we think we are immune to it, the greater the likelihood that our own biases will be invisible or unconscious to us!”
― Howard J. Ross,