Conclusions about Artificial Sweeteners

On the heels of the media coverage of the possible health benefits of a diet low in carbohydrates comes new research into the biological effects of artificial sweeteners. It's hard to resist the urge to magnify a study that supports one's beliefs into gospel, but an eye on any research needs objectivity. Whether or not you agree with the results of a study, all research has utility and limitations. 

Artificial sweeteners are chemicals manufactured and used for two reasons. The first is that they are very sweet, many times sweeter than sugar, meaning they have a much more powerful effect on human sweet taste buds. Second, they are chemicals humans cannot digest and absorb. Thus, they have no calories.

In essence, artificial sweeteners trick the body into perceiving sweet taste without providing any energy or nutrition, an apparent boon for a society bent on losing weight but maintaining pleasure. 

In this study, newborn mice either drank water with various artificial sweeteners or with sugar. Simply put, the results revealed that baby mice exposed to sweeteners showed signs of glucose intolerance while the mice which drank sugar water did not. 

Glucose intolerance is a metabolic precursor to diabetes. The hallmark of Type II diabetes is an inability to maintain normal blood glucose levels. The body has to manage an intricate balance between absorbing food from the stomach while releasing energy to organs all while keeping blood glucose levels within a narrow range. When this system malfunctions, diabetes ensues with the initial sign of elevated blood sugar followed by the many medical repercussions that come with the illness. 

With no other interfering factors, it appears that the exposure to artificial sweeteners had a part in causing glucose intolerance in these baby mice. This is the first study to convincingly show any possible linkage between diabetes and artificial sweeteners. 

The theory behind this result reinforces the idea that tricking our bodies to eat processed food is replete with dangers. Stimulating our taste buds begins a process of synchronized reactions in the body: preparation in the stomach and intestines for food, secretion of digestive enzymes, shunting of blood to the gastrointestinal system to absorb food and many more.

If this reaction is triggered routinely but then leads to no actual needed digestion, the theory suggests it would have an impact on our biological function. In this case, that means management of blood glucose levels goes awry. 

The study then continues to try to suggest these findings apply to people as well. This part of the study was less conclusive and in many ways secondary to the initial study. 

The most significant limitation of this study is how it applies to people. Mice may be mammals, but a study like this only makes it clear similar research needs to be performed on humans rather than proof we should all stop using artificial sweeteners.

Developing research to show long-term harm from these chemicals in people will be much more challenging. One cannot use human babies as experimental subjects as one can use baby mice. 

As with all research, the conclusions are interesting and thought-provoking but still leaves each of us with personal decisions about how to use artificial sweeteners.

A New Study about Low Carbohydrate Diets: A Study in Irresponsible Journalism

An article in the New York Times recently reported the health benefits of a low carbohydrate diet. The article attempted to explain the importance of such a finding and balance it within the current medical knowledge about nutrition and health.

Instead, this article reinforced that journalists need to better understand the influence of such a piece on the public at large. Many people will use this study to justify disordered eating and strict decision-making around food and health. Influential media need to heed their own power and adjust their reporting accordingly.

The article summarized the findings of a study in a respectable medical journal as follows: a diet comprised of low carbohydrates and high unsaturated fats appears to have improved health outcomes, especially cardiovascular health.

On the surface, a few simple conclusions seem harmless and perhaps even useful for a population eager for guidance on nutrition, but newspapers, desperate for an uptick in unique views and ad revenue, need to understand the way the public will interpret these conclusions.

The article surprisingly suggests that few people will heed this information, but that is clearly untrue. A stamp of approval by this newspaper immediately turns reasoned, balanced conclusions into fact for the public.

For a readership already plagued by confusing nutrition information and a terror of obesity and eating disorders, new, far reaching conclusions from a study the public is not educated to interpret only worsen the fear for the normal eater, who now will believe carbohydrates to be an evil food.

The newspaper needed to expound on the significant limitations of such a study. On first glance, the research has four glaring concerns which limit the utility of the conclusions. I imagine a more indepth analysis of this research would reveal many more.

The first is that the researchers have no way of proving that each subject followed the prescribed diet, and, in fact, research into dietary studies has repeatedly shown that people do not report diets faithfully. They tend to alter food diaries to reflect what they want the researchers to see rather than the truth. This is a common issue with studies about nutrition but must also be acknowledged.

Second, it is almost impossible to factor out all possible reasons for improved health and single out a change in diet as the cause. Making broad medical conclusions from a dietary change is hard to prove in subjects of a study and thus risky to propose, especially for information so desperately sought after, and then followed, by the public.

Third, changing one's diet for one year is nowhere near long enough to make any overall conclusions. The relationship between diet and a lifetime of health is broad and the information available is inconclusive. In order to have real value, a study will need to track health over a much longer period of time and will need to attempt to factor out the many other causes of health problems. However, that is a long and expensive endeavor that this study did not attempt.

Last, over 95% of people who change their diet end the changes within two years, so the likelihood subjects will continue this diet once they are no longer tracked by the researchers is extremely low. Making any reasonable connection between the general public and a dietary change needs to take into account the current, accepted knowledge about how hard it is to maintain changes in one's eating habits over an extended period of time.

The desire for a quick-fix diet and for definitive data to choose a philosophy of eating as healthful is overwhelming. Confusion around endless food choice and unlimited, delectable eating options leaves most people unsure of how to eat each day. Instead, the latest diet craze, research conclusions or evil nutrient lead to the endless string of nutrition fads in recent decades.

With a plethora of knowledgeable, balanced journalists, this reputable paper needed balance the conclusions of one study with the irrefutable evidence that scientific knowledge of nutrition is limited and that a balanced diet is the best alternative. As many of their esteemed reporters have said, we are omnivores who survive best on a varied diet with more real food and less processed food eaten regularly through the day. Any other information presented as fact is, at this point in time, purely conjecture that needs much more extensive research to have medical value.

The media needs to understand its responsibility in presenting new nutritional information and translate the findings into valuable information for the general public.