As a PhD scientist who makes a living doing medical research, and has more than a passing interest in this subject because I am a type 2 diabetic, and I have worn a CGM, I think this study established nothing more than that by changing ones diet, you alter the gut microbiome. Layne is dead on that this is hard to interpret. It could be good, it could be bad, it could be neutral. There is no data in the study that supports am overall negative effect of NNS, and the authors even caution in the manuscript that based on this data one should NOT abandon NNS for sugar. Water will always be the best beverage, but I think for 100% of humans, drinking beverages sweetened with NNS’ is far better than drinking something sweetened with sugar. Having published in Cell myself, I agree with Layne that as high a profile journal as it is, there is plenty of great research and plenty of crap in the journal as well. This study is well designed on the whole, but its publication in Cell will cause its impact to be far greater than the dataset presented justify, in my opinion. Finally - an anecdotal finding with an N of 1; my pretty healthy 80 year old Mother drank TAB for decades and still uses Sweet-N-low in her multiple cups of coffee everyday. So if you are one of those people who insists that NNS’ are bad, you will likely cite this study, probably incorrectly, as supporting your point of view. If you think NNS is good, this paper does little to change your mind.
@@huddwah Why ? Do you think all the charlatans and influencers are humble? He is debunking BS and more power to him. If you can’t be bothered to watch the extremely high quality videos why not unsubscribe? I am sure he will live with it. 😉
It's like those headlines that say "X activity causes changes in the brain." Like okay, what is its significance? Does it have any potential predictable capability or insight of observing as such?
I love how Layne just sticks to the data, regardless of whether it matches his expectation bias and delivers the content with no bullshit. If only the media would report on scientific studies this way.
As a sports medicine physician, I LOVE these deep dives into the research! I also deeply appreciate Layne’s oft-repeated mantras: 1) Facts don’t care about your feelings 2) That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Can you explain what you take "that which can be assertive evidence can be dismissed without evidence", to mean? Is that another way of not reasoning about the assertion? To me when I think on it it isn't saying much or wanting interesting. Thoughts? Thanks
@@jsmith5764 Me: "The world is run by pink unicorns" (assertion) You: ”What evidence do you have for this claim?" Me: "Nothing, but I promise they exist!" (No evidence) You: "Please stop wasting my time" You haven’t disproven that pink unicorns run the world. But on the other hand these unicorns could also green, purple…maybe they are actually tortoises…or any other one of an infinite list of possible claims. How do we know which is correct? It’s pointless to waste time trying to disprove a claim with no evidence since there are infinite such claims
Hey Layne, it’s great to finally see someone address this study and you make some great points. There is one minor thing I think you misunderstood about the study: the participants were screened for 6 months of nonconsumption, not ever in their lives. From the study: “We excluded participants who consumed any quantity of NNS-containing foods or beverages in the six months prior to the trial initiation”. This makes the supposition that the participants had unusually negative opinions on NNS far less likely.
I feel like whenever I see the term gut micro biome, I think of how big and vast the ocean on planet earth is, and how little we know, in depth, about all the creatures that may exist in it
Randomly happened upon this video and was super impressed by your reasoning. I don’t usually go to TH-cam for dietary info, but this was quality content.
Been using liquid Splenda for several years and more recently liquid Splenda monk fruit. Never had any problems with yearning for food containing actual sugar as so many claim results from using no-sugar sweeteners. Have lost more than 60 lbs in conjunction with keto and IF. And my last blood and urine test results were the best in a couple of decades. So I'm fine with taking the opinion that no-sugar sweeteners have been a blessing for me.
if drinking regular water without the spenda gets uncomfortable, you should get off the splenda. splenda addiction will attack the stomach and intestines. it will take two months for your insides to repair themselves from splenda induced damage.
@@phil4986 Where in my post did I say I was uncomfortable with drinking water? I'll wager a ton of internet money that I drink a lot more water than you on any given day. I only drink Splenda-infused drinks, almost always iced tea, when I'm having a meal. And even then there are times when I drink water only. So why you stated what you did is quite perplexing.
I lost weight without artificial sweeteners I drink purified water and soft drinks I find too sweet even if they have artificial sweeteners and no sugar . People who have poor digestion should avoid beverages with artificial sweeteners because our digestive system is styled to digest real foods and nothing artificial.
@@louisaklimentos7583 Ever heard of lactose intolerance? not artificial yet it still irritates the digestive system IF u are sensitive yet people still consume dairy on a daily basis.
Dude, I am hooked to your channel! I can't wait till you tell me one day if sweeteners are unhealthy or not. Till then, I will blast my system with this stuff
As someone who has lost almost 60 lbs within the past 5 months, I can pretty much thank artificial sweeteners for helping me keep myself satisfied with less/zero calorie alternatives (both more natural options like monkfruit and artificial ones like Splenda.) If I had to point to one culprit that made me go up to 300 lbs over the past two years, I think it would have to be the amount of sweet tea I drank on a daily basis. I know this is anecdotal and I can't say definitively that it was as simple as that alone; however, I know I used to drank 30 - 40 oz of sweet tea on a daily basis, and that is somewhere around 320 - 450 extra calories every day that I never considered to be an issue. Once I stopped drinking that stuff and made other low calorie switches to my normal meals--and I even curbed my tea intake to just one 20 - 25 oz just to help with my teeth staining--my weight has been melting off without too much hassle on top of increasing my weekly exercise and portion control.
@@charlesdean640 EXACTLY. these people are quick to blame natural sugar for their weight gain instead of I dunno... Maybe not stuffing their faces with garbage in the first place?!? If you're 300 pounds of fat trust me switching to an artificial sweetener won't solve the other fundamental problems that made you gain that much weight in the first place!
@@charlesdean640 It’s not really anything like that at all. GTFOH if you’re actually afraid of a packet of Splenda. Get real dude. Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Every time there is unsupervised work being done by subjects, it turns out that most subjects lie, make up data, forget to do it... In one study I set up, we asked patients if they lied/made-up data/forgot at the end of the data collection, pretending that it wouldn't matter if they did and behaving like bros. More than half did the measurements wrong and made up the data to cover their mistakes. That is huge.
As someone doing their PhD in microbiome research, I can say for sure that increases in SCFA-producing bacteria is almost always considered a plus. SCFAs, especially butyrate, are extremely beneficial when it comes to intestinal barrier integrity and reduced inflammatory tone.
I wish more folks would bring SCFAs up when fiber is discussed. I only have a BSc in microbiology and only took one course on host-associated microbiomes, but it made a lot stuff click into place. Fiber isn't calorically neutral, we can yield up to 2.5 cals per gram, because of the SCFAs. An important consideration when counting calories. And fiber being super good for you doesn't make much sense if you think of it as just controlling the consistency of stool. Makes people underappreciate the benefits of fiber (and fruits and vegetables generally). And with the gut being such a major immune hub and with the gut-brain axis being recognized as more and more important, seeing fiber as NOT just this passive bulk is super important imo.
@@maravillin based on the video, it seems like they increase levels of SCFAs (butyrate, propionate, valerate) as well as the abundance of SCFA producing bacteria, although the metabolites were correlated with negative outcomes, which is odd. Other non- nutritives like sugar alcohols may also have some prebiotic effect, as does stevia
Not sure if I missed some fact, but it seems like the most emphasis was on the participants potential bias against artificial sweeteners. However around 7:26 in it was stated aspartame didn't affect blood glucose like the sucralose and saccharin, which proves that is not the case.
@@siggyincr7447He’s summarizing a very thorough and technical study. That takes time. Not sure what “point” you want him to make when there are no definitive answers yet.
Whenever I need clarity on these matters I turn to use @biolayne. You cut through the bullshit and simplify the complex in doses the layman can understand. You also show how the vaguely understood scientific method is actually applied IRL and give it depth and context. Thank you sir.
Thank you so much for this video and for breaking down the facts in such a simple and unbiased way! I've seen so many fear-mongering videos regarding non-nutritive sweeteners in the last few days (especially following the WHO's recent recommendation), so this was incredibly refreshing.
18:55 most important part of this video. The study is legit. The interpretation by people with out this sort of critical thinking (aka the media) is what will be dangerous.
The placibo effect reminds me of an experiment a college professor did with his class. One day he told them he was going to break the rules and let them drink beer in class. What the students didn't know was they were drinking non-alcoholic beer (O'Douls). After a little while of "drinking", the student's voices became louder and some started acting buzzed.
The msm is just interested click bait. I remember when they were attacking Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan when in reality it was a positive thing.
I use stevia daily and only have a little sugar once or twice a week. I use a teaspoon in my coffee and 1\4 teaspoon in my tea at bedtime. My mom is sure it will kill me because of some studies. I assured her that I would have to consume a bag or more of stevia a day to hurt me. It keeps me away from sugar and to me it’s a good trade off.
even Stevia triggers an insulin response. The trigger is the sweetness on the tongue that triggers the brain to release insulin preparing for the metabolism of sugar. Not good for the pancreas or the liver. Quit added sweetness and let your brain adapt to not needing it. Coffee is better for you unsweetened.
I really love that you break down the science in a way that the average non-science person can understand. I appreciate your perspective and your opinion. Always entertaining and well informed. I feel like after watching your videos that I learn something new all the time. Thanks for all your hard work!
Yea, people get caught up in this perfection complex. For someone who is drinking 2 sodas, regular, everyday and they switch to say one Celcius (Sucralose) a day, that would be a step in the right direction. While not perfect, though, it is better.
As a person who never liked the taste of diet soda, eating or drinking anything with non nutritive sweetners was a shock to my system - I'm glad I watched this video and have a better understanding of what is happening - thanks Layne for making published research understandable
Note on statistically significance: Once the sample size is very large, like over 5000-10000 participants, significance is without any value. It is only statistically significant, but this days nothing about the value of the outcome. 😮
@@batman-sr2px It's good for some microbes, the ones who can metabolize the non-nutritive sweeteners. Bad for ones that can't, and who need simple sugars. That would lead to the change in composition. The SCFAs they produce are just metabolic waste, like CO2 for us. It doesn't hurt or harm the microbes, but it SUPER helps us. SCFAs are incredibly good for the gut.
Overweight people have more medical issues than thinner or in shape people. Point being that people who for years without a break live in a calorie surplus tend to have the majority of health problems across the board. Not to say there could be something wrong with sweeteners, Just saying being overweight is much worse for your health and more worry some than sweeteners in my opinion.
Of course you can't ....the soda company put a manmade poison in it to addict you to it. They get rich, it makes you sick, the pharma companies get rich ,you die. Everyone wins but you and the family watching you die.
I drink a diet soda for lunch 5 days a week and I can tell you, for me, it keeps me from giving into my sugar cravings. The cravings are simply dulled because my brain thinks it got the sugar already.
Something I have learned wearing a CGM is that if you do not know precisely when to insert the cannula (can't do it when you are dropping sugar or it will be off by a good bit), calibration techniques etc, then the data from it is useless. It was an interesting study to read for sure, but I did wonder how they managed to do some of the data as you spoke to. I will continue with my occasional Coke Zero and motor on. Thanks for the interpretation.
I wonder if the researchers tracked dietary intake outside of the addition of non-nutritive sweeteners. Maybe the groups that were assigned to non-nutritive sweeteners ate differently as a result of knowing they were eating something they identify as "bad", because like mentioned, it's hard to blind here. Just adding my thoughts! Either way, great to know there is finally a human study!
This has always been my issue with all these studies. They will say meat is bad because a certain group was eating this amount of meat and another wasn't eating. They won't say what else those guys were eating.
@jimmymuthami7130 in terms of meat and sugar, there have been plenty of studies where the participants are provided all of their food, which removes that risk. The data is pretty solid that meat and sugar are fine provided they dknt create a calorie surplus and you gain a lot of weight. It's pretty much as simple as calories in. Calories out.
I'm trying to quit my nightly wine habit and the only thing I feel blunts the cravings is Raspberry/Lemonaid Crystal Light. I have to think that Maltodextrin, Aspartame and ACE-K are, on balance, preferable to a bottle of wine a night. :(
believe it or not, a small glass of wine a night is good for you. the best answer to your quantity is to add food to your drinking but also to change your wine. American wines can be really awful. I bought a bottle of California moscata sweet wine from Walmart that was clearly cut with water and tasted like it had aspartame in it. It was awful ....almost like a diet soda wine. But I had been drinking a italian wine from a Giant store that was clearly a real wine. Which I went right back too. I never drink wines in boxes...only bottles. Crystal Light is horrifically addictive and dangerous to your health. Ask this woman. th-cam.com/video/aAPJMMMGCOY/w-d-xo.html Aspartame and splenda /sucrolose are poisons. stay away from both.
Man, why didn't they include Ace K or erythritol in the study? So much more common in everyday food/drink products than something like sacharrin. The only time I see sacharrin is in toothpaste
I used to have basically a diet soda addiction and I don't think drinking a 2 litre of soda in a day is a good idea even if it is low calorie BUT these days I will have a single serving of diet soda a couple of times a week and I'm pretty confident that it's not causing me any issues. I'm in pretty good physical health and while I'm still a tiny bit overweight I used to be bordering on obese and I've been able to keep off 30 pounds for 2 years while drinking diet soda here and there. Of course that's just anecdotal but for me at least it doesn't seem to be a problem,especially compared to all the sugary treats I used to overindulge on.
12 years type 2 diabetic here. I stopped refined sugars immediately. I’ve used artificial sweeteners ever since. They have never elevated my blood sugar, and have never made me crave real sugar. I have had many real arguments with endocrinologists about this. Telling me I’m wrong because of studies. I’ve noticed that most of the studies are funded or done by the sugar companies. Or I’ve seen studies by equal against Splenda. Me personally have never read a non biased study. This one seams more legitimate than any I’ve seen. I’ve just went off what my blood glucose monitor says, and a1c. I even wrote down the time of day I would drink a diet my dew or no sugar coffee creamer, etc. And then I let an endocrinologist load my data to prove it, and they still argued with me. Tbh I’ve never met an endocrinologist that I’ve liked 😂
From the sounds of it, after 12 years you're still type 2 diabetic? IF that's the case, besides weight loss what benefit have you seen from cutting all refined sugars?
I would look into all health effects. Corporations also have funded studies so that their products are promoted in a favorable light. So one study is not enough.
The Placebo Effect may have some response in any study, but it's main role is to measure the standard of error vs. the control group. I hear too many people treating the PE as if it were some magical explanation when a large part of it is just how weak experiments explain or write off large, unexpected deviations.
I am wondering ultimately, with that study even if there is an rise in insulin or glucose, how much of an adverse effect it has on say someone with Diabetes 2? If the raise level is negligible compared to what sugar or carbs does, I am willing to keep using artificial sugar.
Diabetes 2 is mostly caused by carrying too much bodyfat... So no matter if there is a rise in insulin or not (short term), it is quite irrelevant, as the best way to combat D2 for most people is losing weight (calorie defecit, not sugar/insulin deficit lol). It can of course be different for those few who are diabetic without being overweight...
Even if artificial sweeteners do raise glucose levels, they raise them far less than normL sweeteners. Even if artificial sweeteners aren't the best for the microbiome, sugar is not good for it either. This study might very well be 100% accurate, but still, relative to regular sweeteners, artificial sweeteners are still a net positive.
I still don't like artificial sweeteners, because they are not supposed to be in/as food, and I keep staying on the cautious side. Though I admit, sugar is the worst.
3 months ago, i was still watching Dr Eric Berg videos.. Such a development that i got rid of that clown and now i can learn from a real expert. Thanks Layne for the lots of effort you put in your work!
I consumed heavy, heavy aspartame for over 20 years in Diet Mt. Dew. I drank (6) 20oz bottles per day for over 20 years. I felt fine the whole time. I have since quit, but still consume some sucralose in Monster energy drinks. If I drink sugary drinks I feel terrible. The only thing I noticed when stopped aspartame is my severe leg cramps went away. My opinion is artificial sweeteners are better than sugar overall, but that is just my experience.
Apologies if I missed this and maybe this was not something you considered relevant to the topic: What about past evidence pointing to aspartame, et al, being neurotoxic?
It makes logical sense that it would take the body a bit to adapt to something new. It’s actually really cool to see a study on a population where they are trying something brand new to their body chemistry. Shame about the implementation. Fascinating study in any case.
I would like to point out that prior to five years ago I had never consumed artificial sweeteners. Not because I thought they were bad I just liked regular sugar and preferred to make most of my own foods so it is completely within a realm of possibility that the participants just didn't consume them for non ideological reasons. Sounds really interesting, I'm going to go check out the article.
find one that uses stevia or monk fruit . Sucrolose/Splenda and aspartame are man made chemical poisons meant to addict you to the products they are in. Sucrolose/Splenda attacks the stomach and intestines. There is no human dose that is safe.
Even if there is an initial spike, anything in moderation will not harm anyone. People just over due it and then shit gets vilified. I have one or two cans of diet coke a day and I'm never giving that up.
Agreed, I think it is a process of slowly getting off the bad stuff or rather transitioning and asking ourselves, "Do I really need that? Can I do without that?" Yippee!
So with all the uncertainty why risk it? Just stay away from daily use and just moderate. Once or twice a week if you must have it. But if that’s the case might as well have real sugar once a week. All of us are weak. It’s in us all. Telling myself this keeps me from lying to myself and it’s how I get over the “mind over matter” problem i have with trying to stay on a healthy path.
I wonder if he would be so soft on the researchers if they had done a weight loss study with controlling caloric and protein intake, but at the end of 2 weeks letting the participants measure the primary outcome 'bodyweight' at home ...
notes : non nutritive studies - well powered - within regular intake ranges gut microflora changes with any change in diet glyceimic response - adjusts over time metabolites that were changed - we dont know enough to say its bad - some say bad - others say good b fragilis - some say decreases inflammation when i make recommendations - looking at consensus of the data - they are not metabolically inert - but we dont know if its a bad thing or good thing braodly its ogood for human outcomes - because they are just consuming less calories glyceimia - initial response - the body probably adjusts over time - that could explain the difference between short term and long term data power of placebo can be just as powerful as actual drugs - if you are biased against hard - then you will see it as negative and you will have negative outcomes in physiology - placebo if you have no cravings for sweet - avoid non nutritive sweeteners but if you have
I've been reading your work, Layne, since before you entered into your Ph.D. program. As always, enjoy your content. From your MD days to the TH-cam days. Love it.
it's not bad... it's a slight difference... although.. I would be curious to see what the effect would be at the nervous and immunological level. track the metabolite throughout the human system. We need to put this to rest.
I haven't personally done it, but isn't oral glucose disgusting? If it's already drawn up in a syringe, then maybe it's a non-issue. But if it's poured in a cup, then I bet that not everyone is finishing all of it. Do you rinse, swish, and drink? Toss the residue? Lick the cup? I'm with Layne on this one: The task sounds simple, but I don't think it was consistent.
I LOVE telling my weight loss clients that they can basically drink as much diet soda as they want. It's a great jumping off point for talking about smart diet strategies that are NOT about deprivation and self-punishment
to me, artificial sweeteners are so much better than high fructose corn syrup. if you had to choose, pick an artificial sweetener that your gut can handle and go from there.
Did you know that regular table sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, while high fructose corn syrup is 45% glucose and 55% fructose? It's really not very different, but demonized much more
Sure, from a weight management perspective (and from a general health perspective), NNS are obviously preferable to sugar by a large margin. I guess the question is, are unsweetened beverages preferable to artificially sweetened? In other words, is there any reason to choose the unsweetened iced tea over the Diet Coke? Or the unsweetened energy drink over the one sweetened with stevia or monkfruit? Or are they effectively the same?
Unsweetened iced tea does not attack your guts and has anti inflammatory effects on the body. Diet Coke contains aspartame which is a manmade chemical poison meant to addict you to the products it is in. Aspartame causes edema ,brain issues and blood clots. All energy drinks are a chemical soups of awfulness but stay away from Splenda/sucrolose and aspartame sweetened ones especially. The regular RedBull ones...not the diet ones .....seem to be ok but who the hell really knows. Alot of sugar though. Really not drinking or eating sweets unless its actual fruit seems to be the only safe sweet choice. But aspartame and splenda / sucrolose are man made highly addictive poisons. read the labels and do not buy products that contain them.
@@phil4986 1. its not a posion to the human species, it can poison certain animals, but most artificial sweeteners can poison animals, but if it was a poison my mother and grand mother would be dead b y now, 2. almost all food is created with some sorts chemical compounds whether natural or lab made, 3. red bull is not okay in either form as they have been tied to deathss due to cardiac arrests, this is due to the caffiene content that is almost inhuman in terms of caffiene, if you have a heart issue, are prone to heart issues, and have no legitimate need for it (i.e. your not working a job that requires more energy.) then don't drink them, fruit is safe it depends though how much your eating, and what fruit it is, as a diabetic, I can eat certain types of fruit more than others, the sweeter it is, the bad it can be for me, even fruitarians who live on nothing but fruit alone, can induce diabetes or gain weight. sugar is more inherently and proven dangerous than artificial sweeteners you dont need a scientific study to see the damage it has historically wrought, just look at the skeletal remains of a european before the introduction of sugars, to the skeletal remains of those who had sugar readily available,
This is another great video from Layne. However, I think that something important is not being addressed here. These test subjects started taking sweetener, but what did they replace with sweetener? If these people were comsuming lots of sugary beverages and such before the study and then started taking a sweetener instead, could that possibly mean that the lack/absence of sugar is that actual cause of the change in the gut microbiome and not the sweetener itself?
perhaps they used the food history data that they got from the participants to determine if they used NNS before and accounted for it in the results? Dont know without reading the paper itself
As a PhD scientist who makes a living doing medical research, and has more than a passing interest in this subject because I am a type 2 diabetic, and I have worn a CGM, I think this study established nothing more than that by changing ones diet, you alter the gut microbiome. Layne is dead on that this is hard to interpret. It could be good, it could be bad, it could be neutral. There is no data in the study that supports am overall negative effect of NNS, and the authors even caution in the manuscript that based on this data one should NOT abandon NNS for sugar. Water will always be the best beverage, but I think for 100% of humans, drinking beverages sweetened with NNS’ is far better than drinking something sweetened with sugar. Having published in Cell myself, I agree with Layne that as high a profile journal as it is, there is plenty of great research and plenty of crap in the journal as well. This study is well designed on the whole, but its publication in Cell will cause its impact to be far greater than the dataset presented justify, in my opinion. Finally - an anecdotal finding with an N of 1; my pretty healthy 80 year old Mother drank TAB for decades and still uses Sweet-N-low in her multiple cups of coffee everyday. So if you are one of those people who insists that NNS’ are bad, you will likely cite this study, probably incorrectly, as supporting your point of view. If you think NNS is good, this paper does little to change your mind.
Appreciate the information. Do you know if there any correlation between artificial sweeteners and memory loss or cognitive decline?
thanks that saved me from wasting 10 mins... (I have to watch his videos at 2x speed... and wish he had more humility)
@@huddwah Why ? Do you think all the charlatans and influencers are humble?
He is debunking BS and more power to him.
If you can’t be bothered to watch the extremely high quality videos why not unsubscribe? I am sure he will
live with it. 😉
It's like those headlines that say "X activity causes changes in the brain."
Like okay, what is its significance? Does it have any potential predictable capability or insight of observing as such?
@@MarquitoRH lol at your gate keeping
Found you on the Huberman podcast and so happy I did. I love the way you think and explain. Appreciate it.
I love how Layne just sticks to the data, regardless of whether it matches his expectation bias and delivers the content with no bullshit. If only the media would report on scientific studies this way.
Layne is such a gift to the fitness industry, begging for a collab between him and Mike Isratel
That's very true!! Imagine if he was a news journalist....he'd be hunted down
As a sports medicine physician, I LOVE these deep dives into the research! I also deeply appreciate Layne’s oft-repeated mantras:
1) Facts don’t care about your feelings
2) That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Can you explain what you take "that which can be assertive evidence can be dismissed without evidence", to mean? Is that another way of not reasoning about the assertion? To me when I think on it it isn't saying much or wanting interesting. Thoughts? Thanks
On another note #1 and 2 are perfect defeaters for all religions
@@jsmith5764 Me: "The world is run by pink unicorns" (assertion)
You: ”What evidence do you have for this claim?"
Me: "Nothing, but I promise they exist!" (No evidence)
You: "Please stop wasting my time"
You haven’t disproven that pink unicorns run the world. But on the other hand these unicorns could also green, purple…maybe they are actually tortoises…or any other one of an infinite list of possible claims. How do we know which is correct?
It’s pointless to waste time trying to disprove a claim with no evidence since there are infinite such claims
@Zog Bot You're correct, arguments like that only convert intelligent people to the default agnostic position.
@Zog Bot you never won an arguement In your entire life
Hey Layne, it’s great to finally see someone address this study and you make some great points.
There is one minor thing I think you misunderstood about the study: the participants were screened for 6 months of nonconsumption, not ever in their lives. From the study: “We excluded participants who consumed any quantity of NNS-containing foods or beverages in the six months prior to the trial initiation”. This makes the supposition that the participants had unusually negative opinions on NNS far less likely.
I feel like whenever I see the term gut micro biome, I think of how big and vast the ocean on planet earth is, and how little we know, in depth, about all the creatures that may exist in it
Randomly happened upon this video and was super impressed by your reasoning. I don’t usually go to TH-cam for dietary info, but this was quality content.
Been using liquid Splenda for several years and more recently liquid Splenda monk fruit. Never had any problems with yearning for food containing actual sugar as so many claim results from using no-sugar sweeteners. Have lost more than 60 lbs in conjunction with keto and IF. And my last blood and urine test results were the best in a couple of decades. So I'm fine with taking the opinion that no-sugar sweeteners have been a blessing for me.
if drinking regular water without the spenda gets uncomfortable, you should get off the splenda. splenda addiction will attack the stomach and intestines. it will take two months for your insides to repair themselves from splenda induced damage.
@@phil4986 Where in my post did I say I was uncomfortable with drinking water? I'll wager a ton of internet money that I drink a lot more water than you on any given day. I only drink Splenda-infused drinks, almost always iced tea, when I'm having a meal. And even then there are times when I drink water only. So why you stated what you did is quite perplexing.
I lost weight without artificial sweeteners I drink purified water and soft drinks I find too sweet even if they have artificial sweeteners and no sugar . People who have poor digestion should avoid beverages with artificial sweeteners because our digestive system is styled to digest real foods and nothing artificial.
@@louisaklimentos7583 Not an issue for me, but if it is for you, then by all means avoid them.
@@louisaklimentos7583 Ever heard of lactose intolerance? not artificial yet it still irritates the digestive system IF u are sensitive yet people still consume dairy on a daily basis.
Dude, I am hooked to your channel! I can't wait till you tell me one day if sweeteners are unhealthy or not. Till then, I will blast my system with this stuff
Great breakdown layne
As someone who has lost almost 60 lbs within the past 5 months, I can pretty much thank artificial sweeteners for helping me keep myself satisfied with less/zero calorie alternatives (both more natural options like monkfruit and artificial ones like Splenda.) If I had to point to one culprit that made me go up to 300 lbs over the past two years, I think it would have to be the amount of sweet tea I drank on a daily basis.
I know this is anecdotal and I can't say definitively that it was as simple as that alone; however, I know I used to drank 30 - 40 oz of sweet tea on a daily basis, and that is somewhere around 320 - 450 extra calories every day that I never considered to be an issue. Once I stopped drinking that stuff and made other low calorie switches to my normal meals--and I even curbed my tea intake to just one 20 - 25 oz just to help with my teeth staining--my weight has been melting off without too much hassle on top of increasing my weekly exercise and portion control.
That's like a crack addict switching to powder cocaine and thinking they kicked their habit
@@charlesdean640 You seem to know a lot about drugs... hmmm
@@charlesdean640 EXACTLY. these people are quick to blame natural sugar for their weight gain instead of I dunno... Maybe not stuffing their faces with garbage in the first place?!? If you're 300 pounds of fat trust me switching to an artificial sweetener won't solve the other fundamental problems that made you gain that much weight in the first place!
@@charlesdean640 It’s not really anything like that at all. GTFOH if you’re actually afraid of a packet of Splenda. Get real dude. Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good.
@@asyetundetermined did I say I don't consume sugar or Splenda? No I said he kicked one habit for another. Didn't say anything about myself.
Every time there is unsupervised work being done by subjects, it turns out that most subjects lie, make up data, forget to do it... In one study I set up, we asked patients if they lied/made-up data/forgot at the end of the data collection, pretending that it wouldn't matter if they did and behaving like bros. More than half did the measurements wrong and made up the data to cover their mistakes. That is huge.
Maybe you're making this study up? 🤔
I would believe that entirely. Humans are lazy
100% correct. This study dropped the ball in a few very important areas unfortunately.
As someone doing their PhD in microbiome research, I can say for sure that increases in SCFA-producing bacteria is almost always considered a plus. SCFAs, especially butyrate, are extremely beneficial when it comes to intestinal barrier integrity and reduced inflammatory tone.
I wish more folks would bring SCFAs up when fiber is discussed. I only have a BSc in microbiology and only took one course on host-associated microbiomes, but it made a lot stuff click into place.
Fiber isn't calorically neutral, we can yield up to 2.5 cals per gram, because of the SCFAs. An important consideration when counting calories. And fiber being super good for you doesn't make much sense if you think of it as just controlling the consistency of stool. Makes people underappreciate the benefits of fiber (and fruits and vegetables generally).
And with the gut being such a major immune hub and with the gut-brain axis being recognized as more and more important, seeing fiber as NOT just this passive bulk is super important imo.
Do artificial sweeteners increase SCFA producing bacteria?
@@maravillin based on the video, it seems like they increase levels of SCFAs (butyrate, propionate, valerate) as well as the abundance of SCFA producing bacteria, although the metabolites were correlated with negative outcomes, which is odd. Other non- nutritives like sugar alcohols may also have some prebiotic effect, as does stevia
Not sure if I missed some fact, but it seems like the most emphasis was on the participants potential bias against artificial sweeteners. However around 7:26 in it was stated aspartame didn't affect blood glucose like the sucralose and saccharin, which proves that is not the case.
This is the longest "I don't know" response I've ever witnessed
Welcome to science.
Thank you! You helped save me the time of watching this particular video. Still a fan of the channel.
Thanks, 5 minutes in and I'm already losing my patience with him not getting to the point.
@@siggyincr7447He’s summarizing a very thorough and technical study. That takes time. Not sure what “point” you want him to make when there are no definitive answers yet.
Coke zero is the peak achievement of the scientific community. FTA.
They should've won a nobel prize
💯😆😂
That stuff is nuts, can’t tell the difference
No, diet mountain dew is
@@TheCCBoi I haven't drank mt dew in 15+ years. I'll give it a shot though.
Would be interesting if you also mentioned who funded the studies.
0:17 as soon as you start talking about new studies, the first question that pops into my mind is, who funded the studies?
Good one!...
Really good talking points! That stress response explanation makes major sense
thanks for breaking down the study, and your criticism was very interesting and which teaches us a lot about the limitation of individual studies
Whenever I need clarity on these matters I turn to use @biolayne. You cut through the bullshit and simplify the complex in doses the layman can understand. You also show how the vaguely understood scientific method is actually applied IRL and give it depth and context. Thank you sir.
Thank you so much for this video and for breaking down the facts in such a simple and unbiased way! I've seen so many fear-mongering videos regarding non-nutritive sweeteners in the last few days (especially following the WHO's recent recommendation), so this was incredibly refreshing.
18:55 most important part of this video. The study is legit. The interpretation by people with out this sort of critical thinking (aka the media) is what will be dangerous.
Well said. Unfortunately, this is the case with MANY media vs. studies with nutrition
👍🏻
Hey, it's Editor Steve. Hello Editor Steve. Fan of your work.
The placibo effect reminds me of an experiment a college professor did with his class. One day he told them he was going to break the rules and let them drink beer in class. What the students didn't know was they were drinking non-alcoholic beer (O'Douls). After a little while of "drinking", the student's voices became louder and some started acting buzzed.
The msm is just interested click bait. I remember when they were attacking Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan when in reality it was a positive thing.
A fair summary, critique, and conclusion
I have been taking in enough artificial sweetener to satisfy an elephant on a daily basis for 17 years now. I am lucky to be alive.
Me too!
Lol
Your brain must be turning to mush as we speak!
Bro you got cancer running thru your veins🤣
It depends on what kinds of sugar substitutes
I use stevia daily and only have a little sugar once or twice a week. I use a teaspoon in my coffee and 1\4 teaspoon in my tea at bedtime. My mom is sure it will kill me because of some studies. I assured her that I would have to consume a bag or more of stevia a day to hurt me. It keeps me away from sugar and to me it’s a good trade off.
Have you tried monkfruit extract?😊
just stay away from aspartame and splenda/sucrolose.
Both are man made chemical poisons in foods only because they are cheap and highly addictive.
Look on the back. You're actually consuming 99% erythritol
even Stevia triggers an insulin response. The trigger is the sweetness on the tongue that triggers the brain to release insulin preparing for the metabolism of sugar. Not good for the pancreas or the liver. Quit added sweetness and let your brain adapt to not needing it. Coffee is better for you unsweetened.
I really love that you break down the science in a way that the average non-science person can understand. I appreciate your perspective and your opinion. Always entertaining and well informed. I feel like after watching your videos that I learn something new all the time. Thanks for all your hard work!
30 years using aspartame, 65 now. Feel great fit as I have ever been.
Weve had saccharin for 140 years now. My mom said it was popular in Nigeria in the 60-70s. We should have enough safety data at this point
aspartame is the only sweetener that give me heart palpitation ...I prefer stevia and the other option anything but aspartame!
@@funnygaming2672 aspartame is poison.
Mr.Baillie will find out soon enough but that is his choice.
When ever i start falling for woo...i rewatch Laynes videos.
Sound knowledge Layne !! Thank you
Yea, people get caught up in this perfection complex. For someone who is drinking 2 sodas, regular, everyday and they switch to say one Celcius (Sucralose) a day, that would be a step in the right direction. While not perfect, though, it is better.
My Doctor recommended you.... sure glad he did
Especially for diabetics, sugar substs helps to reduce carbohydrates.
Thank you for the information and summarizing it in such a straightforward way!!! 🙏🏻
As a person who never liked the taste of diet soda, eating or drinking anything with non nutritive sweetners was a shock to my system - I'm glad I watched this video and have a better understanding of what is happening - thanks Layne for making published research understandable
Note on DURATION:
1. If something statistically significantly affects you in two weeks, it does.
2. If not, that *could be* because it’s too short.
Note on statistically significance:
Once the sample size is very large, like over 5000-10000 participants, significance is without any value.
It is only statistically significant, but this days nothing about the value of the outcome. 😮
Great video Layne ! Thank you 🙏 !
Well done- Thank you for the analysis.
The increase in SCFAs suggests to me that the non-nutritive sweeteners are being metabolized by gut microbes similarly to fiber.
so is that bad for the microbes? What is the result of this?
@@batman-sr2px It's good for some microbes, the ones who can metabolize the non-nutritive sweeteners. Bad for ones that can't, and who need simple sugars. That would lead to the change in composition.
The SCFAs they produce are just metabolic waste, like CO2 for us. It doesn't hurt or harm the microbes, but it SUPER helps us. SCFAs are incredibly good for the gut.
Overweight people have more medical issues than thinner or in shape people. Point being that people who for years without a break live in a calorie surplus tend to have the majority of health problems across the board. Not to say there could be something wrong with sweeteners, Just saying being overweight is much worse for your health and more worry some than sweeteners in my opinion.
Fascinating! Can’t give up my Dew Zero.
Of course you can't ....the soda company put a manmade poison in it to addict you to it. They get rich, it makes you sick, the pharma companies get rich ,you die.
Everyone wins but you and the family watching you die.
I drink a diet soda for lunch 5 days a week and I can tell you, for me, it keeps me from giving into my sugar cravings. The cravings are simply dulled because my brain thinks it got the sugar already.
Something I have learned wearing a CGM is that if you do not know precisely when to insert the cannula (can't do it when you are dropping sugar or it will be off by a good bit), calibration techniques etc, then the data from it is useless. It was an interesting study to read for sure, but I did wonder how they managed to do some of the data as you spoke to. I will continue with my occasional Coke Zero and motor on. Thanks for the interpretation.
I wonder if the researchers tracked dietary intake outside of the addition of non-nutritive sweeteners. Maybe the groups that were assigned to non-nutritive sweeteners ate differently as a result of knowing they were eating something they identify as "bad", because like mentioned, it's hard to blind here. Just adding my thoughts! Either way, great to know there is finally a human study!
This has always been my issue with all these studies. They will say meat is bad because a certain group was eating this amount of meat and another wasn't eating. They won't say what else those guys were eating.
@jimmymuthami7130 in terms of meat and sugar, there have been plenty of studies where the participants are provided all of their food, which removes that risk. The data is pretty solid that meat and sugar are fine provided they dknt create a calorie surplus and you gain a lot of weight. It's pretty much as simple as calories in. Calories out.
I'm trying to quit my nightly wine habit and the only thing I feel blunts the cravings is Raspberry/Lemonaid Crystal Light. I have to think that Maltodextrin, Aspartame and ACE-K are, on balance, preferable to a bottle of wine a night. :(
Resveratrol though 😉
@@DarthNoshitam LOL! What a load of bullocks that resveratrol nonsense is!
sounds like you shouldnt have wine in the house for a while..
@@shinpaws1014 It's true, everything I had in the house is swimming with the fishes. Going forward, the plan is to just not have alcohol in the house.
believe it or not, a small glass of wine a night is good for you.
the best answer to your quantity is to add food to your drinking but also to change your wine.
American wines can be really awful.
I bought a bottle of California moscata sweet wine from Walmart that was clearly cut with water and tasted like it had aspartame in it.
It was awful ....almost like a diet soda wine.
But I had been drinking a italian wine from a Giant store that was clearly a real wine.
Which I went right back too.
I never drink wines in boxes...only bottles.
Crystal Light is horrifically addictive and dangerous to your health.
Ask this woman.
th-cam.com/video/aAPJMMMGCOY/w-d-xo.html
Aspartame and splenda /sucrolose are poisons.
stay away from both.
Great video. Thanks Layne!
This study also got my attention, Happy to hear your analysis!
Man, why didn't they include Ace K or erythritol in the study? So much more common in everyday food/drink products than something like sacharrin. The only time I see sacharrin is in toothpaste
I used to have basically a diet soda addiction and I don't think drinking a 2 litre of soda in a day is a good idea even if it is low calorie BUT these days I will have a single serving of diet soda a couple of times a week and I'm pretty confident that it's not causing me any issues. I'm in pretty good physical health and while I'm still a tiny bit overweight I used to be bordering on obese and I've been able to keep off 30 pounds for 2 years while drinking diet soda here and there. Of course that's just anecdotal but for me at least it doesn't seem to be a problem,especially compared to all the sugary treats I used to overindulge on.
this young woman had a massive reaction to aspartame and lost nine pounds in four days when she got off it.
th-cam.com/video/aAPJMMMGCOY/w-d-xo.html
Awesome summary and analysis mate! Cheers from Australia!
Life is turning out to be pretty dangerous, there are literally billions of things that can harm and kill you
thanks, layne. interesting breakdown of the strengths and potential weaknesses of the study.
12 years type 2 diabetic here. I stopped refined sugars immediately. I’ve used artificial sweeteners ever since. They have never elevated my blood sugar, and have never made me crave real sugar. I have had many real arguments with endocrinologists about this. Telling me I’m wrong because of studies. I’ve noticed that most of the studies are funded or done by the sugar companies. Or I’ve seen studies by equal against Splenda. Me personally have never read a non biased study. This one seams more legitimate than any I’ve seen. I’ve just went off what my blood glucose monitor says, and a1c. I even wrote down the time of day I would drink a diet my dew or no sugar coffee creamer, etc. And then I let an endocrinologist load my data to prove it, and they still argued with me. Tbh I’ve never met an endocrinologist that I’ve liked 😂
From the sounds of it, after 12 years you're still type 2 diabetic?
IF that's the case, besides weight loss what benefit have you seen from cutting all refined sugars?
What about the rest of their diet? What about what other things they did? A lot of things can affect these results.
I would look into all health effects. Corporations also have funded studies so that their products are promoted in a favorable light.
So one study is not enough.
The Placebo Effect may have some response in any study, but it's main role is to measure the standard of error vs. the control group. I hear too many people treating the PE as if it were some magical explanation when a large part of it is just how weak experiments explain or write off large, unexpected deviations.
Thank you for helping me understand, great channel !
As always very well done 💪🏼
We knew all this. Didn’t t need the study. Can you imagine if people waited around for studies to declare if something is poison or not?
Crazy right? People today will get shot in the head and say "I'm waiting for a study to tell me if excess lead to my skull is bad"
I am wondering ultimately, with that study even if there is an rise in insulin or glucose, how much of an adverse effect it has on say someone with Diabetes 2? If the raise level is negligible compared to what sugar or carbs does, I am willing to keep using artificial sugar.
Its safe. Why? Because products contain maybe 100 mg aspartame. MG. NOT GRAMS.
its so little your body wont even notice
@@gamer4ever838
100mg can be a lot...or nothing, depends on how toxic it is really.
Diabetes 2 is mostly caused by carrying too much bodyfat... So no matter if there is a rise in insulin or not (short term), it is quite irrelevant, as the best way to combat D2 for most people is losing weight (calorie defecit, not sugar/insulin deficit lol).
It can of course be different for those few who are diabetic without being overweight...
@@xMCxVSxARBITERx thank you. You are one of the few people that understand CICO
@@gamer4ever838
Was that sarcasm or was you serious? 😊
Even if artificial sweeteners do raise glucose levels, they raise them far less than normL sweeteners. Even if artificial sweeteners aren't the best for the microbiome, sugar is not good for it either. This study might very well be 100% accurate, but still, relative to regular sweeteners, artificial sweeteners are still a net positive.
I still don't like artificial sweeteners, because they are not supposed to be in/as food, and I keep staying on the cautious side. Though I admit, sugar is the worst.
I am here from Greg Doucette super interesting video thanks. Subscribed directly 👍
3 months ago, i was still watching Dr Eric Berg videos.. Such a development that i got rid of that clown and now i can learn from a real expert. Thanks Layne for the lots of effort you put in your work!
I consumed heavy, heavy aspartame for over 20 years in Diet Mt. Dew. I drank (6) 20oz bottles per day for over 20 years. I felt fine the whole time. I have since quit, but still consume some sucralose in Monster energy drinks. If I drink sugary drinks I feel terrible. The only thing I noticed when stopped aspartame is my severe leg cramps went away. My opinion is artificial sweeteners are better than sugar overall, but that is just my experience.
Apologies if I missed this and maybe this was not something you considered relevant to the topic: What about past evidence pointing to aspartame, et al, being neurotoxic?
WOW. God bless you! I wish you were the head of the FDA. 👏👏👏👏
Power of placebo! Great call out! Thank you!
Always great content from you! Thank you
Again a great nuanced non-biased analysis. This is so valuable. Thanks Biolayne, for always keeping it real💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼
You rule bro. Big fan here all the way from New Zealand..
Often share and post your content.. especially the bro science, whatever zealot bullshit..
Great explanation Dr. Norton!👏🙂
I may have to watch again but did you ever mention what the study said or was that a prerequisite.
I thought it was just me.
@7:00 you say that they cannot be blinded.
IMO They definitely could be blinded by adding some kind of flavor with a bad taste
Always interesting to hear all the different things that can alter an outcome, influence a study etc!
It makes logical sense that it would take the body a bit to adapt to something new. It’s actually really cool to see a study on a population where they are trying something brand new to their body chemistry. Shame about the implementation. Fascinating study in any case.
I would like to point out that prior to five years ago I had never consumed artificial sweeteners. Not because I thought they were bad I just liked regular sugar and preferred to make most of my own foods so it is completely within a realm of possibility that the participants just didn't consume them for non ideological reasons.
Sounds really interesting, I'm going to go check out the article.
You are in the 0.0001%
Never is a very strong word.
Should I worry about sucralose in my whey protein isolate? I take 1 scoop a day
find one that uses stevia or monk fruit .
Sucrolose/Splenda and aspartame are man made chemical poisons meant to addict you to the products they are in.
Sucrolose/Splenda attacks the stomach and intestines.
There is no human dose that is safe.
Even if there is an initial spike, anything in moderation will not harm anyone. People just over due it and then shit gets vilified. I have one or two cans of diet coke a day and I'm never giving that up.
I’ve seen a ton of friends going from sugar beverages to artificial sweeteners to just water.
Agreed, I think it is a process of slowly getting off the bad stuff or rather transitioning and asking ourselves, "Do I really need that? Can I do without that?" Yippee!
Water won't kill you.
Aspartame and Splenda / sucrolose will.
This was just the thing I was interested to know.
So with all the uncertainty why risk it? Just stay away from daily use and just moderate. Once or twice a week if you must have it. But if that’s the case might as well have real sugar once a week. All of us are weak. It’s in us all. Telling myself this keeps me from lying to myself and it’s how I get over the “mind over matter” problem i have with trying to stay on a healthy path.
What a freaking phenomenal breakdown great job dude, killer info!
Waw colon dewaay won a prize from Layne . How cool
@@priscillabahaw5673 😂🤦🏻♂️ dang spam bots
Physique on point: opinion respected.
The check just cleared, folks!!
Yes its nice to pick up whatever is convenient and if it tastes good we should be able to trust them.
I wonder if he would be so soft on the researchers if they had done a weight loss study with controlling caloric and protein intake, but at the end of 2 weeks letting the participants measure the primary outcome 'bodyweight' at home ...
Excellent video, learned a lot but sorry I am already subscribed to REPS!
notes :
non nutritive studies - well powered - within regular intake ranges
gut microflora changes with any change in diet
glyceimic response - adjusts over time
metabolites that were changed - we dont know enough to say its bad - some say bad - others say good
b fragilis - some say decreases inflammation
when i make recommendations - looking at consensus of the data -
they are not metabolically inert - but we dont know if its a bad thing or good thing
braodly its ogood for human outcomes - because they are just consuming less calories
glyceimia - initial response - the body probably adjusts over time - that could explain the difference between short term and long term data
power of placebo can be just as powerful as actual drugs - if you are biased against hard - then you will see it as negative and you will have negative outcomes in physiology - placebo
if you have no cravings for sweet - avoid non nutritive sweeteners
but if you have
I've been reading your work, Layne, since before you entered into your Ph.D. program.
As always, enjoy your content. From your MD days to the TH-cam days. Love it.
it's not bad... it's a slight difference... although.. I would be curious to see what the effect would be at the nervous and immunological level. track the metabolite throughout the human system. We need to put this to rest.
True scientist indeed ❤
Love your content. Much love from London
I haven't personally done it, but isn't oral glucose disgusting? If it's already drawn up in a syringe, then maybe it's a non-issue. But if it's poured in a cup, then I bet that not everyone is finishing all of it. Do you rinse, swish, and drink? Toss the residue? Lick the cup? I'm with Layne on this one: The task sounds simple, but I don't think it was consistent.
I LOVE telling my weight loss clients that they can basically drink as much diet soda as they want. It's a great jumping off point for talking about smart diet strategies that are NOT about deprivation and self-punishment
to me, artificial sweeteners are so much better than high fructose corn syrup. if you had to choose, pick an artificial sweetener that your gut can handle and go from there.
Did you know that regular table sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, while high fructose corn syrup is 45% glucose and 55% fructose?
It's really not very different, but demonized much more
Sure, from a weight management perspective (and from a general health perspective), NNS are obviously preferable to sugar by a large margin. I guess the question is, are unsweetened beverages preferable to artificially sweetened? In other words, is there any reason to choose the unsweetened iced tea over the Diet Coke? Or the unsweetened energy drink over the one sweetened with stevia or monkfruit? Or are they effectively the same?
Unsweetened iced tea does not attack your guts and has anti inflammatory effects on the body.
Diet Coke contains aspartame which is a manmade chemical poison meant to addict you to the products it is in.
Aspartame causes edema ,brain issues and blood clots.
All energy drinks are a chemical soups of awfulness but stay away from Splenda/sucrolose and aspartame sweetened ones especially.
The regular RedBull ones...not the diet ones .....seem to be ok but who the hell really knows.
Alot of sugar though.
Really not drinking or eating sweets unless its actual fruit seems to be the only safe sweet choice.
But aspartame and splenda / sucrolose are man made highly addictive poisons.
read the labels and do not buy products that contain them.
@@phil4986 1. its not a posion to the human species, it can poison certain animals, but most artificial sweeteners can poison animals, but if it was a poison my mother and grand mother would be dead b y now, 2. almost all food is created with some sorts chemical compounds whether natural or lab made, 3. red bull is not okay in either form as they have been tied to deathss due to cardiac arrests, this is due to the caffiene content that is almost inhuman in terms of caffiene, if you have a heart issue, are prone to heart issues, and have no legitimate need for it (i.e. your not working a job that requires more energy.) then don't drink them, fruit is safe it depends though how much your eating, and what fruit it is, as a diabetic, I can eat certain types of fruit more than others, the sweeter it is, the bad it can be for me, even fruitarians who live on nothing but fruit alone, can induce diabetes or gain weight. sugar is more inherently and proven dangerous than artificial sweeteners you dont need a scientific study to see the damage it has historically wrought, just look at the skeletal remains of a european before the introduction of sugars, to the skeletal remains of those who had sugar readily available,
This is another great video from Layne. However, I think that something important is not being addressed here. These test subjects started taking sweetener, but what did they replace with sweetener? If these people were comsuming lots of sugary beverages and such before the study and then started taking a sweetener instead, could that possibly mean that the lack/absence of sugar is that actual cause of the change in the gut microbiome and not the sweetener itself?
perhaps they used the food history data that they got from the participants to determine if they used NNS before and accounted for it in the results? Dont know without reading the paper itself
I just tend to stay away from any added suger/sweetener all together.
smartest person in the room by far
Why is Ace K so overlooked? I see it everywhere including PROTEIN POWDER