SWEETENERS & INSULIN LEVELS-SOME RESEARCH

Cavegirl · 05-02-2009, 01:14 AM

OK so i'm still trawling through the research but a complex issue for me is artificial sweeteners/sugar alcohol/natural non-sugar sweetners (Stevia)...

So there are many who believe that the very anticipation or consumption of "sweet" raises insulin regardless of whether the "sweet" flavour is accompanied by carbohydrate or even calories.

Just wondering what peoples beliefs are around this?

I found a few studies that show no correlation and also wondered what people thought about that?

Link to abstracts/study;

rhesus monkeys-
SpringerLink Home - Main

rats-
Anticipatory changes in liver metabolism and entrainment of insulin, glucagon, and corticosterone in food-restricted rats -- Daz-Muoz et al. 279 (6): 2048 -- AJP - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology

There's a lot of concerns about artificial sweeteners but i'm guessing stevia wont have quite the same concerns?

I also found an abstract directly linking artificial sweeteners to insulin secretion;

The effect of artificial sweetener on insulin secr...[Horm Metab Res. 1987] - PubMed Result

Also wondering if the necessity some people feel to avoid anything sweet to control cravings is more on a psychological level? Not to suggest that psychological and psychosomatic issues are less relevant...hell no!! For many they are much touhger to deal with but maybe it's the psychological addiction to sweet which is the bigger issue?

Any ideas or more knowledgeable/informed advise greatly welcomed!!! I find the whole topic really confusing!!!

Blood Sugar 101 · 05-02-2009, 04:32 AM

I've seen the studies. My understanding is that lack of glucose coming into the brain doesn't turn off some satiety switch so your brain gets a glucose expectation, drinks the soda, and doesn't get the "I've been fed" message so the brain keeps looking for more food and you tend to overeat.

There's enough data behind this concept that I'd take it seriously.

That said, the really bad news about diet sodas isn't the sweeteners. It's the phosphates which over time compromise kidney function and the plastic that leaches out of the can linings and bottles.

I don't believe in the concept of "addiction" to sweets because though I have experienced horrendous food cravings they are always linked to fluctuating blood sugars. When I flatten out my blood sugars (with the help of insulin injections as I am insulin deficient) I completely lose my hunger. So I believe that the "addiction" people attribute to sugar is really coming from their having higher than realized blood sugars which aren't diagnosable with the cheap tests most doctors run.

If you think you have a sugar addiction, test your blood sugar with a meter 1 hour after eating and you'll probably find you are spiking 50-100 points over where you started from. That will cause brain-induced hunger in anyone. Low carb shuts down hunger not because you're addicted but because when you don't eat carbs, your blood sugar stays flat.

I haven't ever seen a blood sugar rise from artificial sweeteners, BTW. I do see a slight blood sugar rise from coffee, however. THis is probably a reaction to the adreniline it releases, since there aren't significant carbs in it.

porkfatrules · 05-02-2009, 06:12 AM

Wow, that third abstract from PubMed was scary -- that the AceK artificial sweetener raised insulin just as much as glucose? If it's true in humans, and for other sweeteners, that's definitely bad news for those of us who like to use it.

I want to see a similar study for Stevia-sweetened egg creams!

CindyCRNA · 05-02-2009, 07:17 AM

My only question with the Ace-K study is that it stated that the rats were given a bolus of Ace-k of 150 mg/kg and that the spike is dose dependent. When I drink a soda with Ace-K, how many mg/kg am I getting? If I am getting 1/100th of that that amount, will my spike be barely perceptible? This study is with Ace-K. What about SA's? Not that they are better but their GI does vary and I was wondering. Is the Ace-K study skewed by the fact that it was directly injected and not having gone through the GI tract? Does it undergo changes in the GI tract that would break it down into components that would have a lesser effect on BS? I'm not defenfing Ace-K. I actually try to stay away from the stuff but in looking at anything where they have used megadoses (?) and changed the route of adminisration (I generally don't mainline my Ace!) if this is a reliable study?

porkfatrules · 05-02-2009, 07:22 AM

Cindy -- all great questions. Sort of like the saccharine studies in the 70s, which used the equivalent of 10,000 can of soda/day (or whatever -- some unbelievable amount) to cause cancer in lab rats -- gives you less than useful info about how a person drinking a normal amount of saccharine-flavored soda would actually respond.

As you said, I don't want to be blind to the effects of ASs, but I also don't want to be pushed away by inaccurate conclusions either.

iakaren · 05-02-2009, 08:18 AM

Curious as to what others think/find, so tagging on to this thread to keep up.

I used to think SF drinks didn't have any affect, but I do believe now they affect my weight loss/gain to some extent.

cleochatra · 05-02-2009, 08:20 AM

My anecdotal experience:

Aspartame-- no ill effects for insulin, but did damage to my neurosystem
Splenda-- caused me hunger
saccharine-- no problems in any way, but still avoid it since it's a chemical
stevia-- no problems, but there are side effects claimed that have me somewhat concerned, and I dislike the addition to sugar alcohols to the stuff

Madam De Leon · 05-02-2009, 09:50 AM

I've had roller-coaster blood sugar issues my entire life, and am now in the process of trying to figure out what (other than starches and sugars) sweeteners, if any, cause me to produce excess insulin, thereby causing a hunger response.

I've been using primarily stevia (KAL - dry extract, no fillers) over the past year or so, and haven't noticed any problems with it. Same with saccharin (the liquid - the pink packets have all those fillers that can cause a problem if you need to use much of it). I don't seem to have a problem with liquid splenda (Da Vinci's) since there are no fillers. I don't think I've used the dry splenda since starting to carefully observe how I react, but I would imagine the issues would be similar to the pink packets, since the fillers are the same ones.

Fizgig · 05-02-2009, 10:17 AM

I use quite a bit of splenda in my morning coffee and can't detect any issues.

star a.d. · 05-02-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleochatra

My anecdotal experience:

Aspartame-- no ill effects for insulin, but did damage to my neurosystem
Splenda-- caused me hunger
saccharine-- no problems in any way, but still avoid it since it's a chemical
stevia-- no problems, but there are side effects claimed that have me somewhat concerned, and I dislike the addition to sugar alcohols to the stuff

cleo, what are the side effects of stevia that you've heard of?

CindyCRNA · 05-02-2009, 11:21 AM

Right now, I use liquid Splenda and Truvia which is a combo of my favorite SA, erythritol and Stevia. Good stuff and is blended in the right proportions so there is no bitterness from the Stevia. And Netrition's price is better than the store's.

porkfatrules · 05-02-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madam De Leon

I've been using primarily stevia (KAL - dry extract, no fillers) over the past year or so, and haven't noticed any problems with it. Same with saccharin (the liquid - the pink packets have all those fillers that can cause a problem if you need to use much of it). s.

Where are you getting liquid saccharine? I've heard of pure saccharine tablets, but you can only get them in Canada, I believe. Would love to find a no-filler version to rotate with stevia.

cleochatra · 05-02-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by star a.d.

cleo, what are the side effects of stevia that you've heard of?

I keep seeing this at various places...

from this site

Scientists studying the potential toxicology and toxicity of stevia have several main concerns:

Energy Metabolism: Large amounts of stevioside can potentially interfere with absorption of carbohydrates in animals. It can further disrupt the metabolising/conversion of food into energy.

Cancer: Steviol has successfully been converted into a mutagenic compound, which may promote cancer by causing genetic mutation of a cell’s DNA. The catch? Scientists don’t yet know if this will happen in human cells.

Reproductive problems: European scientists cite potential adverse side effects to the male reproductive system. When fed high doses of stevioside for nearly two years, sperm production in male rats was noticeably reduced and the weight of seminal vesciles declined. Likewise, when female hamsters were fed large amounts of a stevioside derivative called steviol, their offspring were found to be fewer and smaller. Again, it should be noted that this has been neither tested nor proven in humans.

Stevia is also said to lower blood pressure as well as blood sugar. Not always a good thing.

DrugDigest

Cavegirl · 05-02-2009, 04:01 PM

Hmmmmmmmmm...many wise people we here have. Much to learn this padawan learner does!

Madam De Leon · 05-02-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porkfatrules

Where are you getting liquid saccharine? I've heard of pure saccharine tablets, but you can only get them in Canada, I believe. Would love to find a no-filler version to rotate with stevia.

My grocery store still carries Sweet 10 liquid. 10 drops equivalent to 1 tsp sugar in sweetness.

They had run out of it for a while, and I couldnt' find any liquid saccharin anywhere around here... I did a search and found that sweet'n'low also makes a liquid version, but couldn't find it in my area, so I was very glad when this store suddenly got the sweet 10 back in stock again.

low carb dietitian · 05-02-2009, 07:34 PM

If you try to keep the artificial sweetners to a minimum, a small amount should not be so bad. Assess your diet and note how often you consume it. One packet of anything/day is unlikely to hurt you.

I tell people who must have it to rotate different sweetners so you do not take in too much of any one.

Otherwise, avoid it as much as possible.

Cavegirl · 05-03-2009, 02:44 AM

[COLOR="Purple"]WOW!!!![/COLOR]

So much great advise here...thanks everyone! I think i can put my paranoia to one side...try a little personal experimentation and see if a little stevia effects me or not (i'm not so keen on the aftertaste of artificial sweeteners).

Cleochatra....i read awhile ago that there was a big bad conspiracy theory type black ball done on Stevia in america (believed to have been orchestrated by the sugar and artificial sweetener companies).

Obviously Stevia has been embraced in many areas of the world and is the main alternative to sugar used in some places...so that for financial reasons Stevia posed a huge threat to the financial monopoly of certain sugar & sweetener companies and they sort to discredit and raise health concerns to effectively destroy the competition. But because there wasn't actual and sufficient grounds for the black ball, rather than banning Stevia they refused to license it as a sugar substitute and it had to be categorised (i'm british the s is not a typo!) as a 'supplement'.

I cant remember where i read this but if i do, i'll post it.

05-02-2009, 01:14 AM	#1
Cavegirl Senior LCF Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: uk Posts: 309 Gallery: Cavegirl Stats: 217/217/147 WOE: VLC/paleo/fat fast Start Date: June 2012	SWEETENERS & INSULIN LEVELS-SOME RESEARCH OK so i'm still trawling through the research but a complex issue for me is artificial sweeteners/sugar alcohol/natural non-sugar sweetners (Stevia)... So there are many who believe that the very anticipation or consumption of "sweet" raises insulin regardless of whether the "sweet" flavour is accompanied by carbohydrate or even calories. Just wondering what peoples beliefs are around this? I found a few studies that show no correlation and also wondered what people thought about that? Link to abstracts/study; rhesus monkeys- SpringerLink Home - Main rats- Anticipatory changes in liver metabolism and entrainment of insulin, glucagon, and corticosterone in food-restricted rats -- Daz-Muoz et al. 279 (6): 2048 -- AJP - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology There's a lot of concerns about artificial sweeteners but i'm guessing stevia wont have quite the same concerns? I also found an abstract directly linking artificial sweeteners to insulin secretion; The effect of artificial sweetener on insulin secr...[Horm Metab Res. 1987] - PubMed Result Also wondering if the necessity some people feel to avoid anything sweet to control cravings is more on a psychological level? Not to suggest that psychological and psychosomatic issues are less relevant...hell no!! For many they are much touhger to deal with but maybe it's the psychological addiction to sweet which is the bigger issue? Any ideas or more knowledgeable/informed advise greatly welcomed!!! I find the whole topic really confusing!!! __________________ Posting helps keep me clean!!!! Last edited by Cavegirl; 05-02-2009 at 01:28 AM..

05-02-2009, 09:50 AM	#8
Madam De Leon Major LCF Poster! Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Where student drivers are taught how to dodge road apples Posts: 1,923 Gallery: Madam De Leon	I've had roller-coaster blood sugar issues my entire life, and am now in the process of trying to figure out what (other than starches and sugars) sweeteners, if any, cause me to produce excess insulin, thereby causing a hunger response. I've been using primarily stevia (KAL - dry extract, no fillers) over the past year or so, and haven't noticed any problems with it. Same with saccharin (the liquid - the pink packets have all those fillers that can cause a problem if you need to use much of it). I don't seem to have a problem with liquid splenda (Da Vinci's) since there are no fillers. I don't think I've used the dry splenda since starting to carefully observe how I react, but I would imagine the issues would be similar to the pink packets, since the fillers are the same ones. __________________ Every time you make a typo, the errorists win.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-02-2009, 04:32 AM	#2
Blood Sugar 101 Major LCF Poster! Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: New England Posts: 2,895 Gallery: Blood Sugar 101 Stats: 1998-2009 170/142/145---2010 138/142/138 WOE: 80-100g per day. Metformin (no more prandin!) Start Date: First LC diet 1998, goal 2003, continual vigilance	I've seen the studies. My understanding is that lack of glucose coming into the brain doesn't turn off some satiety switch so your brain gets a glucose expectation, drinks the soda, and doesn't get the "I've been fed" message so the brain keeps looking for more food and you tend to overeat. There's enough data behind this concept that I'd take it seriously. That said, the really bad news about diet sodas isn't the sweeteners. It's the phosphates which over time compromise kidney function and the plastic that leaches out of the can linings and bottles. I don't believe in the concept of "addiction" to sweets because though I have experienced horrendous food cravings they are always linked to fluctuating blood sugars. When I flatten out my blood sugars (with the help of insulin injections as I am insulin deficient) I completely lose my hunger. So I believe that the "addiction" people attribute to sugar is really coming from their having higher than realized blood sugars which aren't diagnosable with the cheap tests most doctors run. If you think you have a sugar addiction, test your blood sugar with a meter 1 hour after eating and you'll probably find you are spiking 50-100 points over where you started from. That will cause brain-induced hunger in anyone. Low carb shuts down hunger not because you're addicted but because when you don't eat carbs, your blood sugar stays flat. I haven't ever seen a blood sugar rise from artificial sweeteners, BTW. I do see a slight blood sugar rise from coffee, however. THis is probably a reaction to the adreniline it releases, since there aren't significant carbs in it.

05-02-2009, 06:12 AM	#3
porkfatrules Major LCF Poster! Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,506 Gallery: porkfatrules Stats: 223/183.5/110 WOE: HCG R3 Start Date: Re-re-re-start 5/8/11	Wow, that third abstract from PubMed was scary -- that the AceK artificial sweetener raised insulin just as much as glucose? If it's true in humans, and for other sweeteners, that's definitely bad news for those of us who like to use it. I want to see a similar study for Stevia-sweetened egg creams!

05-02-2009, 07:17 AM	#4
CindyCRNA Always on, slightly off Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Midwest Posts: 5,268 Gallery: CindyCRNA Stats: 152/132/121 Currently 120's lbs, 5'7" 51 years old WOE: 40%/25%/35% (F,P,C 1700 calories/day) Start Date: Raising carbs 1/10	My only question with the Ace-K study is that it stated that the rats were given a bolus of Ace-k of 150 mg/kg and that the spike is dose dependent. When I drink a soda with Ace-K, how many mg/kg am I getting? If I am getting 1/100th of that that amount, will my spike be barely perceptible? This study is with Ace-K. What about SA's? Not that they are better but their GI does vary and I was wondering. Is the Ace-K study skewed by the fact that it was directly injected and not having gone through the GI tract? Does it undergo changes in the GI tract that would break it down into components that would have a lesser effect on BS? I'm not defenfing Ace-K. I actually try to stay away from the stuff but in looking at anything where they have used megadoses (?) and changed the route of adminisration (I generally don't mainline my Ace!) if this is a reliable study?

05-02-2009, 07:22 AM	#5
porkfatrules Major LCF Poster! Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,506 Gallery: porkfatrules Stats: 223/183.5/110 WOE: HCG R3 Start Date: Re-re-re-start 5/8/11	Cindy -- all great questions. Sort of like the saccharine studies in the 70s, which used the equivalent of 10,000 can of soda/day (or whatever -- some unbelievable amount) to cause cancer in lab rats -- gives you less than useful info about how a person drinking a normal amount of saccharine-flavored soda would actually respond. As you said, I don't want to be blind to the effects of ASs, but I also don't want to be pushed away by inaccurate conclusions either.

05-02-2009, 08:18 AM	#6
iakaren Blabbermouth!!! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Iowa Posts: 6,644 Gallery: iakaren Stats: 191/181/160 WOE: LC 11/06;CAD 11/11 Start Date: October 28, 2006	Curious as to what others think/find, so tagging on to this thread to keep up. I used to think SF drinks didn't have any affect, but I do believe now they affect my weight loss/gain to some extent.

05-02-2009, 08:20 AM	#7
cleochatra something there Join Date: May 2005 Location: Baconland, USA Posts: 14,452 Gallery: cleochatra Stats: (>^.^ )> / (>'.')> / ‎=^..^= WOE: >30 net carbs/day	My anecdotal experience: Aspartame-- no ill effects for insulin, but did damage to my neurosystem Splenda-- caused me hunger saccharine-- no problems in any way, but still avoid it since it's a chemical stevia-- no problems, but there are side effects claimed that have me somewhat concerned, and I dislike the addition to sugar alcohols to the stuff

05-02-2009, 10:17 AM	#9
Fizgig Blabbermouth!!! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 7,244 Gallery: Fizgig Stats: 5'7", 148/128/130 WOE: Pre-maintenance, kind of Start Date: Pretty much forever	I use quite a bit of splenda in my morning coffee and can't detect any issues.

05-02-2009, 11:21 AM	#11
CindyCRNA Always on, slightly off Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Midwest Posts: 5,268 Gallery: CindyCRNA Stats: 152/132/121 Currently 120's lbs, 5'7" 51 years old WOE: 40%/25%/35% (F,P,C 1700 calories/day) Start Date: Raising carbs 1/10	Right now, I use liquid Splenda and Truvia which is a combo of my favorite SA, erythritol and Stevia. Good stuff and is blended in the right proportions so there is no bitterness from the Stevia. And Netrition's price is better than the store's.

05-02-2009, 04:01 PM	#14
Cavegirl Senior LCF Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: uk Posts: 309 Gallery: Cavegirl Stats: 217/217/147 WOE: VLC/paleo/fat fast Start Date: June 2012	Hmmmmmmmmm...many wise people we here have. Much to learn this padawan learner does!

05-02-2009, 07:34 PM	#16
low carb dietitian Senior LCF Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Woodbury, NY Posts: 134 Gallery: low carb dietitian WOE: Stubborn Fat Fix Start Date: 2002	If you try to keep the artificial sweetners to a minimum, a small amount should not be so bad. Assess your diet and note how often you consume it. One packet of anything/day is unlikely to hurt you. I tell people who must have it to rotate different sweetners so you do not take in too much of any one. Otherwise, avoid it as much as possible.

05-03-2009, 02:44 AM	#17
Cavegirl Senior LCF Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: uk Posts: 309 Gallery: Cavegirl Stats: 217/217/147 WOE: VLC/paleo/fat fast Start Date: June 2012	[COLOR="Purple"]WOW!!!![/COLOR] So much great advise here...thanks everyone! I think i can put my paranoia to one side...try a little personal experimentation and see if a little stevia effects me or not (i'm not so keen on the aftertaste of artificial sweeteners). Cleochatra....i read awhile ago that there was a big bad conspiracy theory type black ball done on Stevia in america (believed to have been orchestrated by the sugar and artificial sweetener companies). Obviously Stevia has been embraced in many areas of the world and is the main alternative to sugar used in some places...so that for financial reasons Stevia posed a huge threat to the financial monopoly of certain sugar & sweetener companies and they sort to discredit and raise health concerns to effectively destroy the competition. But because there wasn't actual and sufficient grounds for the black ball, rather than banning Stevia they refused to license it as a sugar substitute and it had to be categorised (i'm british the s is not a typo!) as a 'supplement'. I cant remember where i read this but if i do, i'll post it.