15 replies to this topic

[MissKBuff]

Ok, so I'm a tad confused. I was under the impression that when consuming the likes of Aspartame, sucralose, etc, it tricks your body into thinking that you have consumed sugar, and then when it realizes that you have not, your body retains more calories (HORRIBLE explanation job here, but I'm trying ) to make up for that, which is why drinking a diet coke, can in the end, end up being more calorific than a regular coke....

I read some kind of article on it a while ago, and when I went to look into it as I don't think I've got it quite right, I couldn't find it.

Can someone please explain to be, or help me figure out, what really happens? As youc an see from above ^ I'm a little confused, LOL...

thanks!

[ashley2212]

Someone JUST posted this on another forum:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1711763,00.html

What they mean is that like Pavlov's dog, trained to salivate at the sound of a bell, animals are similarly trained to anticipate lots of calories when they taste something sweet — in nature, sweet foods are usually loaded with calories. When an animal eats a saccharin-flavored food with no calories, however — disrupting the sweetness and calorie link — the animal tends to eat more and gain more weight, the new study shows. The study was even able to document at the physiological level that animals given artificial sweeteners responded differently to their food than those eating high-calorie sweetened foods. The sugar-fed rats, for example, showed the expected uptick in core body temperature at mealtime, corresponding to their anticipation of a bolus of calories that they would need to start burning off — a sort of metabolic revving of the energy engines. The saccharin-fed animals, on the other hand, showed no such rise in temperature. "The animals that had the artificial sweetener appear to have a different anticipatory response," says Susan Swithers, a professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University and a co-author of the study. "They don't anticipate as many calories arriving." The net result is a more sluggish metabolism that stores, rather than burns, incoming excess calories.

Link to the actual study...
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bne-feb08-swithers.pdf

[bambam9193]

Very interesting...I always thought that would only apply for those w/o will power. I have heard that diet drinks cause you to want more so it's better to drink the real thing. So I figured as long as I watch myself with artificial sweetner it wouldn't do any harm. I didn't read the entire article but if I read portions of the article correctly, your body actually has a reaction with the artificial sweeter and stores it so that it has an impact on your metabolism. Throwing my theory out the window!

[Styler]

So whats the verdict here?

Should you or shouldn't you consume these products?

It seems as though it's detrimental to trick your body with non sugar sweeteners, so there must be a way to halt this adverse effect.

[MissKBuff]

So whats the verdict here?

Should you or shouldn't you consume these products?

It seems as though it's detrimental to trick your body with non sugar sweeteners, so there must be a way to halt this adverse effect.

Well it's always been clear that you should NOT consume these products. As you can see from what Ashley quoted above, your body will in the end, store more calories than burn, so it is always best to consume the real deal...also, I really hate the thought of putting anything with the term "artificial" into my body...lol...

Someone JUST posted this on another forum:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1711763,00.html

What they mean is that like Pavlov's dog, trained to salivate at the sound of a bell, animals are similarly trained to anticipate lots of calories when they taste something sweet — in nature, sweet foods are usually loaded with calories. When an animal eats a saccharin-flavored food with no calories, however — disrupting the sweetness and calorie link — the animal tends to eat more and gain more weight, the new study shows. The study was even able to document at the physiological level that animals given artificial sweeteners responded differently to their food than those eating high-calorie sweetened foods. The sugar-fed rats, for example, showed the expected uptick in core body temperature at mealtime, corresponding to their anticipation of a bolus of calories that they would need to start burning off — a sort of metabolic revving of the energy engines. The saccharin-fed animals, on the other hand, showed no such rise in temperature. "The animals that had the artificial sweetener appear to have a different anticipatory response," says Susan Swithers, a professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University and a co-author of the study. "They don't anticipate as many calories arriving." The net result is a more sluggish metabolism that stores, rather than burns, incoming excess calories.

Link to the actual study...
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bne-feb08-swithers.pdf

THANKS ASHLEY!!! That is exactly what I was looking for

[deadweight]

Thank whom ever i dont have to count calories.....How depressing....dw

[ashley2212]

You have to keep in mind, though, that the "sluggish metabolism" they describe is likely mild... AND it was tested on rats - not humans. Also keep in mind that regular sugar has more calories. So while the sweeteners may give you a mildly "sluggish" metabolism, regular sugar will give you more calories... essentially balancing out in the end, no?

I think this theory comes into play with contest prep. If you're a certain number of weeks out, this study shows it may benefit you to cut artificial sweeteners. This does NOT mean replace them with sugar.

I think the moral of this story is: suck it up and have neither I use Stevia.

[\SHINE/]

Someone JUST posted this on another forum:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1711763,00.html

What they mean is that like Pavlov's dog, trained to salivate at the sound of a bell, animals are similarly trained to anticipate lots of calories when they taste something sweet — in nature, sweet foods are usually loaded with calories. When an animal eats a saccharin-flavored food with no calories, however — disrupting the sweetness and calorie link — the animal tends to eat more and gain more weight, the new study shows. The study was even able to document at the physiological level that animals given artificial sweeteners responded differently to their food than those eating high-calorie sweetened foods. The sugar-fed rats, for example, showed the expected uptick in core body temperature at mealtime, corresponding to their anticipation of a bolus of calories that they would need to start burning off — a sort of metabolic revving of the energy engines. The saccharin-fed animals, on the other hand, showed no such rise in temperature. "The animals that had the artificial sweetener appear to have a different anticipatory response," says Susan Swithers, a professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University and a co-author of the study. "They don't anticipate as many calories arriving." The net result is a more sluggish metabolism that stores, rather than burns, incoming excess calories.

Link to the actual study...
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bne-feb08-swithers.pdf

Thanks for the study! I was gona do a bit of research on the topic , that made it much easer! lol

[MissKBuff]

Thank whom ever i dont have to count calories.....How depressing....dw

I am SO jealous of you!!! (it really is annoying sometimes, lol)

You have to keep in mind, though, that the "sluggish metabolism" they describe is likely mild... AND it was tested on rats - not humans. Also keep in mind that regular sugar has more calories. So while the sweeteners may give you a mildly "sluggish" metabolism, regular sugar will give you more calories... essentially balancing out in the end, no?

I think this theory comes into play with contest prep. If you're a certain number of weeks out, this study shows it may benefit you to cut artificial sweeteners. This does NOT mean replace them with sugar.

I think the moral of this story is: suck it up and have neither I use Stevia.

I agree, neither would definitely win!

I think it balances out, aside from the medical crap with sweetners being artificial and poisonous, sugar has calories, and sweetner makes you store more calories in the end, so really...toss up there...

[\SHINE/]

You have to keep in mind, though, that the "sluggish metabolism" they describe is likely mild... AND it was tested on rats - not humans. Also keep in mind that regular sugar has more calories. So while the sweeteners may give you a mildly "sluggish" metabolism, regular sugar will give you more calories... essentially balancing out in the end, no?

I think this theory comes into play with contest prep. If you're a certain number of weeks out, this study shows it may benefit you to cut artificial sweeteners. This does NOT mean replace them with sugar.

I think the moral of this story is: suck it up and have neither I use Stevia.

I'm guessing now the negative effects of theese ( for example splenda) is a Chlorinated sugar molecule wherein 3 hydroxyls are replaced with three Chloro groups

thus it is wholly synthetic and probably not much is metabolized by the body at all

whether it is toxic or not i have no clue, but in theory it should pass harmlessly through one according to what is presently being promoted are minimal,

But like I said i'm not completely sure on the toxicity issue yet.

[\SHINE/]

Aspartame Ingestion Causes Formaldehyde Accumulation in the Body
Excerpt from:

Trocho, C., et al., 1998. "Formaldehyde Derived From Dietary Aspartame Vinds to Tissue Components in vivo," Life Sciences, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 337+, 1998


"These are indeed extremely high levels for adducts of formaldehyde, a substance responsible for chronic deleterious effects that has also been considered carcinogenic.
....
"It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts."


"It was a very interesting paper, that demonstrates that formaldehyde formation from aspartame ingestion is very common and does indeed accumulate within the cell, reacting with cellular proteins (mostly enzymes) and DNA (both mitochondrial and nuclear). The fact that it accumulates with each dose, indicates grave consequences among those who consume diet drinks and foodstuffs on a daily basis." (Neuroscientist Russell Blaylock, MD)

[TexSon]

whether you should use the products or not is beyond me. i go by the imperical evidence (correctness simply because it exists) and when I switch to nutra sweet from sugar for my coffee and cereal, the fat percent goes down, and thats all the proof I need.

[\SHINE/]

whether you should use the products or not is beyond me. i go by the imperical evidence (correctness simply because it exists) and when I switch to nutra sweet from sugar for my coffee and cereal, the fat percent goes down, and thats all the proof I need.

Well sure, Do to these being synthetic sweetners i'm jus trying to find out possible toxicity issues.
Key is find a happy medium. take jus enuff to help weight loss but not so much you end up with health issues later on.

[MissKBuff]

whether you should use the products or not is beyond me. i go by the imperical evidence (correctness simply because it exists) and when I switch to nutra sweet from sugar for my coffee and cereal, the fat percent goes down, and thats all the proof I need.

Well sure, Do to these being synthetic sweetners i'm jus trying to find out possible toxicity issues.
Key is find a happy medium. take jus enuff to help weight loss but not so much you end up with health issues later on.

I agree I was worried about weight gain at first, for the simple fact that it makes you retain more calories in the end...but I really think you would need to drink a HELL of a lot of diet coke to achieve that, lol...

[BeefMaster]

Like some of you, I prefer stevia or no sweetners at all.

I have found (as have others) that Sucralose/Splenda makes me hungry after ingesting it, and of course it not good for you (even in small doses imo).