artificial sweeteners Archives - Amazing Health Advances

Protect Yourself From “Poison Pushers”

The AHA! Team — Fri, 07 Mar 2025 06:12:58 +0000

Al Sears, MD, CNS – Our modern food supply is turning healthy people into diabetics. And people already battling diabetes are now facing cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s. While the connection that links these chronic diseases is often ignored by the media and medical journals, the carefully crafted narrative that tricks the public into eating these poison foods is rooted in junk science. Let me explain… The big, multinational companies that produce the majority of our food are puppet masters. And they’re pulling the strings of the research institutions and their “scientific studies” that frame the medical advice you receive from trusted national organizations. The companies who produce these fake foods have billions of dollars at their disposal. They’re using this money to literally take over our food supply. You’ll find evidence simply by looking for corporate sponsors. The Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics is sponsored by corporations like PepsiCo, Danone, and the Campbell Company.1 And the American Diabetes Association is backed by pharmaceutical behemoths Merck and AstraZeneca.2 Business Insider reported that only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the entire world. This includes names you’ll be familiar with — Kellogg’s, Coca-Cola, Nestle, and General Mills.3 Lobbying to influence our food choices is one thing. But actively manipulating scientific studies is even worse. Often, these large corporations will fund nutritional research — leaving us with biased outcomes and cherry-picked results. Kellogg’s Australia funded one such study. They were looking at whether whole grain cereal could help people with type 2 diabetes manage their condition. Of course, they proudly concluded that whole grains were an “important” part of a diabetic’s diet.4 It wasn’t long before this study came under fire by a number of respected health experts. They accused Kellogg’s of practicing “junk science.”5,6 This assertion that “grains are important for diabetics” is one of the most reckless and dangerous claims I see today. Let’s take a closer look at how a high carbohydrate diet affects your type 2 diabetes. In the past 60 years, our modern diet has become more starch-loaded than at any other time in human history.7 Our Standard American Diet (SAD) is filled with processed foods containing an unnaturally high amount of grains. This is made even worse by cheap and unhealthy seed oils. Refined sugars are added at every opportunity. Even the red meat you buy at the grocery store is from animals that have been grain-fed. And milk, cheese, and butter come from grain-fed cows. A nationwide analysis of U.S. grocery stores revealed that more than 60% of the calories we buy come in the form of highly processed foods.8 Our levels of disease have kept pace with this increase in grain and processed food consumption. If you look back to 1957, you’d find that only about 1% of the U.S. population had high blood sugar.9 It was around this time the American Heart Association famously – and falsely – linked dietary fat to heart disease. The result? Millions of Americans began to remove fat from their diet and replace it with low fat/high-carbohydrate items. Fast forward to the decades between 1980 and 2016. The number of people suffering from high blood sugar rocketed from around 6 million to 111 million people. That’s a 1,750% increase in just 35 years! It gets worse. By the year 2030, the World Health Organization estimates that 40% of the U.S. population — 144 million people — will be diabetic or prediabetic.10 The American Diabetes Association still encourage 25% of a diabetic’s food plate to be filled with grains and starches. And they list whole grains as a superfood on their website.11 The result of all this bad messaging is a widespread pandemic that was raging out of control long before our most recent pandemic hit the news cycle. People are dealing with uncontrollable weight gain, fatigue, high blood sugar, and organ malfunction. This has resulted in a constellation of chronic diseases that threaten every man, woman, and child on our planet. It’s insulin resistance on a global scale. At the Sears Institute, I help my patients beat diabetes and insulin resistance using intermittent fasting. It helps improve glucose regulation… increases stress resistance… and suppresses inflammation. It also helps cells to activate an important process called autophagy. This is where the body cleans house and disposes of old or damaged cells. One study of 16 healthy people found “alternate-day fasting” for 22 days helped them lose 2.5% of their initial weight and 4% of their fat mass. This came with a 57% decrease in insulin levels.12 To see the positive effects of this way of eating, we just need to look to the island inhabitants of Okinawa in Japan. This population traditionally eats on an intermittent fasting schedule and has low rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes. They also live extremely long lifespans — many more exceeding 100 years of age. Lower Insulin Resistance with Intermittent Fasting If you’d like to start using intermittent fasting to control your type 2 diabetes, start with a form known as time-restricted eating. It calls for an 8-hour eating window each day, followed by a 16-hour fast. Here’s how it works: Start your day with a 10 a.m. breakfast Lunch at your regular time Finish your dinner by 6 p.m. Your body gets no additional food from 6 p.m. until 10 a.m. the next day When your body gets used to the 16-hour fast, you can move up to the 24-hour mark. You can practice one-day fasts as often as every two weeks. To Your Good Health, Al Sears, MD, CNS References: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Meet Our Sponsors,” https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/advertising-and-sponsorship/meet-our-sponsors. Accessed on September 30, 2024. American Diabetes Association, “Corporate Support,” https://www.diabetes. org/about-us/corporate-support. Accessed on September 30, 2024. Business Insider, “These 10 companies control everything your buy.” www.businessinsider.com/10 companies-control-food-industry-2017-3. Accessed on September 30, 2024. Deloitte, “Analysis: Healthcare and productivity savings from increased intake of grain fiber.” www2.deloitte.com. Accessed on September 30, 2024. Harcombe, PhD, “Increasing Australia’s grain fiber intake could save the economy $3.3 billion a year.” www.zoeharcombe.com. Accessed on September 30, 2024. Demasi M. “Kellogg’s ‘junk science’ and Australia’s health policy.” www.michaelwest.com.au. Accessed on September 30, 2024. Pew Research Center. “Modern American Diet Has Gotten Bigger, Heavier on Grains and Fat.” Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). “Highly processed foods dominate U. S. grocery purchases.” ScienceDaily. 29 March 2015. https://www.sciencedaily.com. Accessed on September 30, 2024. “Long-term Trends in Diabetes.” April 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Global Report on Diabetes. World Health Organization. Fact sheet. American Diabetes Association, “Nutrition.” www.diabetes.org/ nutrition. Accessed on September 30, 2024. Heilbronn LK, et al. “Alternate day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism.” Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:69-73. To read the original article click here.

The post Protect Yourself From “Poison Pushers” appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

The Bizarre Link Between Oreos and Hot Flashes

The AHA! Team — Mon, 04 Nov 2024 06:05:32 +0000

Al Sears, MD, CNS – If you’ve ever eaten an Oreo, you’ve probably noticed how hard it was to eat just one. Don’t worry, it’s not just you! Research has found that Oreos are more addictive than cocaine.[1] A big reason for that is the fact that the cookies are loaded with the artificial sweetener high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). A Canadian study found that HFCS can cause behavioral reactions similar to those produced by common street drugs.[2] Other research shows that HFCS and cocaine stimulate the same brain circuits. I know what you’re probably thinking… What does all this have to do with hot flashes? Let me explain. As you probably know, HFCS is in a lot of foods that make up the standard American diet. It’s a big part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic in our country. But HFCS does more than make you gain weight. It also causes fat to build up in your liver. When that happens, you can end up with a condition called fatty liver disease. Over the last 10 to 15 years, I’ve seen a sharp increase in the number of patients with fatty liver disease at my clinic – in both men and women. But for women, the symptoms of fatty liver disease can look a lot like menopause. Symptoms like night sweats, exhaustion, extra weight around the abdomen… and hot flashes. That’s why so many mainstream doctors miss this diagnosis. They write the symptoms off as “women’s problems.” The truth is, you could have fatty liver disease and not even know it. Liver diseases are one of the fastest-growing health epidemics in the world. According to a new study, today up to 50% of Americans suffer from nonalcoholic liver disease (NAFLD) – including children as young as 2 years old.[3] And HFCS is a big contributor. You see, HFCS isn’t like other sugars. Most of it goes straight to your liver instead of going into your muscles and tissues for energy. It promotes the formation of new fat molecules. It triggers your liver cells to store this fat where it doesn’t belong. At the same time, it blocks the breakdown of old fats. A study from the University of Florida found patients with fatty liver disease ate two to three times more high fructose corn syrup.[4] And just like alcohol, this cheap fructose is addictive. Once you start eating it, you crave even more sweets. Corn syrup floods your bloodstream, overwhelming your liver’s processing capacity. Your liver becomes inflamed and develops into NAFLD. 3 Simple Tips to Improve Your Liver Health Mainstream medicine has no treatments for this condition. However, I help my patients treat fatty liver disease with three simple, natural solutions. Supplement with DHA. Researchers found that supplementing with the omega-3 fatty acid DHA stops fatty liver disease in its tracks. In the study, they fed animals a Western-style diet that leads to obesity. Then they gave them DHA. The team found that DHA blocked the progression of the worst form of fatty liver disease – even though the animals continued to eat the same dangerous diet.[5] In a human study, volunteers taking 1,000 mg per day of omega-3s decreased serum markers of liver cell damage and levels of triglyceride fats.[6] You see, DHA is anti-inflammatory. It helps to heal liver cell membranes. DHA also suppresses the production of new liver fat cells and stimulates the burning of fat cells. You can get DHA from grass-fed meats and organs. But it’s almost impossible to get enough from your diet. I advise my patients to supplement with between 600 mg and 1,000 of DHA daily from a combination of squid oil and krill oil. Take the liver herb. Milk thistle is also known as the “liver herb.” It has an active compound called silymarin. In a placebo-controlled study of 100 patients, silymarin promoted a significant decline in liver enzyme markers. That indicated a reversal of NAFLD with no serious side effects.[7] Use my favorite supplement. A study in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition proved that CoQ10 can also treat NAFLD.[8] The trial included 41 people with mild to moderate NAFLD. Researchers gave half the patients 100 mg of CoQ10 every day. The other half got a placebo. After 12 weeks, all signs of NAFLD were lower in the CoQ10 group. Four of the patients on CoQ10 even returned to normal liver function. You can get CoQ10 from grass-fed organ meat and beef, game, and wild-caught fatty fish. But again, it’s hard to get all you need from diet alone. Normally, I recommend 50 mg daily. But to treat NAFLD, I suggest taking 100 to 300 mg per day of the ubiquinol form of CoQ10. Divide it into two doses. References [1] Connecticut College News, October 15, 2013 [2] Addiction to unhealthy foods could help explain the global obesity epidemic. EurekAlert! [3] Cha A. “Fatty liver disease was a disease of the old. Then kids started getting sick.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/nonalcoholic-fatty-liver-disease-kids/. [4] Lyssoiotis C, Cantley. “F stands for fructose and fat.” Nature. 2013;502:181-182. [5] https://synergies.oregonstate.edu/2017/dha-offers-hope-to-stop-deadly-march-toward-cirrhosis-liver-cancer/ [6] Capanni M, et al. “Prolonged n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation ameliorates hepatic steatosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a pilot study.” Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Apr 15;23(8):1143-51. [7] Hashemi et al. “A placebo-controlled trial of silymarin in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.” Hepatitis Monthly. 2011;9(4):265-270. [8] Farnaz Farsi et al. “Functions of Coenzyme Q10 Supplementation on liver enzymes, markers of systemic inflammation, and adipokines in patients affected by nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.” J Am Coll Nutr. 2016;35(4):346-353 To read the original article click here.

The post The Bizarre Link Between Oreos and Hot Flashes appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Heart Attack Risk Goes UP With the Consumption of Artificial Sweeteners, New Study

AHA Publisher — Mon, 26 Sep 2022 07:00:11 +0000

News Staff via NaturalHealth365 – It’s no secret that too much sugar is bad for your health. But what about artificial sweeteners? In case you didn’t notice, the mainstream media barely says a word about this toxic creation. Unfortunately, too many people still consume artificial sweeteners … thinking they’re “better” than real sugar. The fact is there are many respected researchers and medical doctors like, Dr. Russell Blaylock warning the public about the dangers of artificial sweeteners. For example, a recent study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggests artificial sweetener consumption may be linked to heart attacks! WARNING: Study Links Artificial Sweeteners to Increased Cardiovascular Disease Risk Artificial sweeteners are suspected of contributing to a whole slew of health problems. However, researchers have struggled to come to a consensus on just how harmful they might be. The new BMJ study reveals a shocking link between sweeteners and heart attack risk. The study looked at information on over 100,000 participants in France. At the beginning of the study, the average participant’s age was 42, and the majority were female. The study followed people for an average of 9 years. First of all, participants filled out personal information such as their physical activity level, diet, smoking status, and jobs. The web-based study then tracked artificial sweetener dietary consumption, which included numerous popular brand-name sweeteners. The study concluded that higher intakes of artificial sweeteners were associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases, including coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease. Aspartame, sucralose, and acesulfame potassium were especially linked to the increased risk of heart disease. This is especially concerning, considering that artificial sweeteners are widespread in many processed foods. But Wait, That’s Not All! Obesity Is a Real Danger Besides the ominous heart disease concerns, artificial sweeteners have been singled out as increasing the risk of other diseases as well. Yet, many people still use them for health reasons. Those with diabetes mellitus, dental issues, or reactive hypoglycemia tend to think these sweeteners will help them to avoid blood sugar spikes. Many other people also use them to substitute sugar and avoid calories when trying to lose weight. However, animal studies have suggested worrisome links that sugar substitutes promote carcinogenicity, obesity, and weight gain. Given their widespread use, artificial sweeteners may soon be re-evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority and the World Health Organization. How to Improve Heart Health Through Diet Considering the recent BMJ study, the smartest choice would be to avoid artificial sweeteners. Even though there is disagreement among the scientific community on just how detrimental artificial sweeteners might be, why take the risk with your health? Eliminating or minimizing processed foods from your diet goes a long way toward improving your overall health. Besides cutting out unhealthy foods, there are several simple things you can do to keep your heart and body healthy. Consuming a diet rich in organic fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and sprouts is beneficial for your cardiovascular system. Additionally, healthy fats like avocado and coconut are great for your heart. Ultimately, a natural, organic diet is a wonderful way to promote heart health. Additionally, lifestyle changes like consistent exercise, adequate sleep, avoiding alcohol consumption and developing a more positive mindset will contribute to a strong, healthy heart. Sources for this article include: TheGatewayPundit.com BMJ.com NIH.gov Healthline.com To read the original article click here.

The post Heart Attack Risk Goes UP With the Consumption of Artificial Sweeteners, New Study appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Stevia and Monk Fruit vs. Aspartame and Splenda

AHA Publisher — Wed, 06 Jul 2022 07:00:11 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – The natural plant-based sweeteners stevia and monk fruit (Luo Han Guo) are pitted head-to-head against aspartame and Splenda. A number of artificial sweeteners have been approved in North America by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including aspartame and sucralose (sold as Splenda), but there are also natural “high-intensity sweeteners” found in plants. The global market for non-nutritive, or non-caloric, sweeteners, in general, is in the billions. This includes all the artificial ones and two natural ones extracted from plants—stevia and monk fruit. You may recall I’ve discussed stevia before, but what about monk fruit? That’s the subject of my video Is Monk Fruit Sweetener Safe?. “The fruits of Luo Han Guo [monk fruit in Chinese] have been used for hundreds of years in China as a natural sweetener and as a folk medicine….The non-caloric sweet taste…results primarily from mogrosides, a group of cucurbitane-type triterpene glycosides that are present at about 1% in the flesh of the fruit.” “The mixed mogrosides have been estimated to be about 300 times as sweet as sucrose [table sugar] so that an 80% extract was nearly 250 times sweeter than sugar.” If you read reviews in Chinese natural medicine journals, you’ll see pronouncements like this: Monk fruit “has been shown to have the following effects: antitussive [anti-coughing], anti-asthmatic, anti-oxidation, liver-protection, glucose-lowering [blood sugar-lowering], immuno-regulation, and anti-cancer.” What they don’t tell you up front, however, is that they’re talking about reducing ammonia-induced mouse coughs. What is this about a “natural food sweetener with anti-pancreatic cancer properties”? Indeed, monk fruit “may be used for daily consumption as an additive in foods and drinks to prevent or treat pancreatic cancer”—in your pet mouse. There was a study conducted on the “antiproliferative activity of triterpene glycoside nutrient from monk fruit in colorectal cancer and throat cancer,” but it was on colorectal and throat cancer cells in a petri dish. As you can see at 1:53 in my video, researchers did show mogrosides killing off colorectal cancer cells and throat cancer cells, and our digestive tract could be exposed directly to these compounds if we ate them. What’s missing, though? The researchers didn’t test it against normal cells. I mean, you could pee in a petri dish and kill off cancer cells, but the whole point is to find something that kills off cancer while leaving normal cells alone, something the researchers weren’t able to show in this study. Are there any human studies on monk fruit? We’re in luck. “Owing to the rapidly growing popularity of natural plant-derived compounds, it will be of interest to determine whether natural NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] would be a healthier alternative to sugar and artificial NNS for consumers.” So, researchers randomized people to drink beverages sweetened with either aspartame, monk fruit, stevia, or table sugar. They then measured blood sugars over 24 hours and found there was no significant difference amongst any of the four sweeteners. Wait a second. As you can see at 2:58 in my video, the sugar group was given 16 spoonsful of sugar, the amount of added sugar in a 20-ounce bottle of Coke. So, the other three groups consumed 16 fewer spoonsful of sugar yet still had the same average blood sugars? Table sugar causes a big blood sugar spike, as you can see at 3:20 in my video. Drink that bottle of sugar water with its 16 spoonsful of sugar, and your blood sugars jump 40 points over the next hour. If you’re given a beverage sweetened with aspartame, monk fruit, or stevia, though, nothing happens. That’s to be expected, right? Those are non-caloric sweeteners without any calories, so isn’t it just like drinking water? In that case, how could your daily blood sugar values average out the same as drinking the sugar-sweetened drink? The only way that could happen is if the non-calorie sweeteners somehow made your blood sugar spikes worse later in the day. Indeed, when people drink Splenda mixed with sugar water, they get a greater blood sugar spike and a greater insulin spike chugging the sugar with sucralose (Splenda) than without, even though Splenda alone causes no spike of its own, as you can see at 4:04 in my video. What about aspartame? Does it do the same thing? At the one-hour mark, the researchers fed the study participants a regular lunch, and their blood sugars went back up and down as they normally would after a meal. In the sugar group, their post-lunch levels didn’t spike as high as they did an hour earlier when they drank straight sugar water, though; there was just a gentle up and down. In the aspartame group, however, even though their blood sugars didn’t rise at the time they drank the aspartame-sweetened beverage, their blood sugars shot up higher, an hour later at lunch, as if they had just drank a bottle of soda. What about the natural sweeteners? What happened in the stevia and monk fruit groups? The same thing happened. There was the same exaggerated blood sugar spike after a regular meal eaten an hour after drinking the naturally sweetened drinks. And, remember, this despite the fact that the three non-caloric sweetener groups—aspartame, stevia, and monk fruit—took in 16 fewer spoonsful of sugar. So, you can see how it all equals out in terms of average blood sugars, at least in part because those in the non-caloric sweetener groups ate more. After drinking a Diet Coke, you’re more likely to eat more at your next meal than after drinking a regular Coke. In fact, you’re likely to eat so much more that the energy “saved” from replacing sugar with non-caloric sweeteners is fully compensated for at subsequent meals, so there is no difference found in total daily calorie intake. The sugar-sweetened beverage led to large spikes in both blood sugar and insulin, whereas these responses were higher for the three other beverages following the lunch eaten later. So, when it comes to calorie intake, blood sugars, or insulin spikes, they were all just as bad. Is Stevia Good for You? is the video I mentioned. KEY TAKEAWAYS The global market for non-caloric sweeteners is in the billions and includes artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose (sold as Splenda), as well as two natural ones extracted from plants—stevia and monk fruit (Luo Han Guo). Monk fruit has been used for centuries in China as both a natural sweetener and a folk medicine. The non-caloric sweet taste has been estimated to be about 300 times as sweet as table sugar, and monk fruit has been said to be antitussive (anti-coughing), anti-asthmatic, anti-cancer, and more, but those were from animal and petri dish studies. When researchers randomized human subjects to drink beverages sweetened with aspartame, monk fruit, stevia, or table sugar and then measured their blood sugars over 24 hours, no significant difference was found amongst any of the four sweeteners despite the sugar group getting 16 spoonsful of sugar, the amount of added sugar in a 20-ounce bottle of Coke. Although the three non-caloric sweetener groups—aspartame, stevia, and monk fruit—took in 16 fewer spoonsful of sugar, it all equaled out in terms of average blood sugars. This is due in part to those in the non-caloric sweetener groups eating more. Indeed, after drinking a Diet Coke, you’re more likely to eat more at your next meal than after drinking a regular Coke and are more likely to eat so much more that the energy “saved” from replacing sugar with non-caloric sweeteners is fully compensated for at subsequent meals. The sugar-sweetened beverage led to large spikes in both blood sugar and insulin, but the responses were higher for the three non-caloric sweetened beverages following lunch eaten an hour later. So, when it comes to calorie intake, blood sugars, or insulin spikes, they were all equally bad. To read the original article click here.

The post Stevia and Monk Fruit vs. Aspartame and Splenda appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Do Artificial Sweeteners Increase Your Cancer Risk?

AHA Publisher — Fri, 06 May 2022 07:00:31 +0000

Ethan Boldt via Dr. Axe – The widespread use of artificial sweeteners occurred, at the end of the day, because food and beverage manufacturers saw a business opportunity: They could tease their low-calorie foods or even zero-calorie drinks to potential customers who were looking to cut back on their calorie and sugar consumption. The bonus sounded too good to be true: You could enjoy the taste (okay, not quite like the real thing but close) of a soda or some chewing gum, for example, but without the calories, all the while helping your trim down. A win-win, right? That, of course, is not how it’s worked out. Already linked to worsening several chronic diseases, now artificial sweeteners are definitively linked to one of the worst diseases: cancer. Study: Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer Risk While artificial sweeteners were already linked to several chronic diseases, a group of French researchers noted the safety of these food additives remains a debated topic and conflicting reports abound. “In particular, their carcinogenicity has been suggested by several experimental studies, but robust epidemiological evidence is lacking.” Therefore, their objective was to examine the associations between artificial sweetener intakes and cancer risk, and this type of study was the first of its kind (investigating intakes as well as different types of sweeteners). The most commonly consumed artificial sweeteners were aspartame, acesulfame-K and sucralose, so they received the most scrutiny. Over 100,000 French adults were included in the study, with a median follow-up time of just under 8 years. Dietary intakes and consumption of sweeteners were tracked daily. Meanwhile, adjusted for other factors, links between sweeteners and cancer were assessed. In the end, researchers found a link between some artificial sweeteners — especially aspartame and acesulfame-K — and an increased risk for cancer. Higher risks were also recognized for breast cancer and obesity-related cancers. What It Means Simply put, these results suggest that artificial sweeteners “may represent a modifiable risk factor for cancer prevention,” says the authors. Remove them from your diet, lower your cancer risk. Seems like a no-brainer. Ultimately, of course, such a finding will also apply pressure to health and safety agencies across the world when it comes to the regulation of foods, beverages and other products that use artificial sweeteners. Study authors are already asking the European Food Safety Authority to re-evaluate food additive sweeteners. How to Avoid Artificial Sweeteners 1. Remove all products that contain artificial sweeteners from your diet Maybe you’re one of those people who eat a pretty healthy diet and consider a diet soda, for example, part of that approach. This study should dispel that notion. While many so-called diet foods and drinks can even be addictive, this study proves that these products are not worth the risk (i.e. cancer risk). 2. Do a solid label check to make sure artificial sweeteners aren’t sneaking into your diet The diet sodas and “sugar-free” chewing gums are pretty obvious. But did you know that artificial sweeteners are often found in fiber supplements, flavored water, meal replacement bars, sports drinks, yogurt and even vegetable juice?! Scour that nutrition label before purchasing. 3. Opt for natural low-calorie sweetener instead We’re not advocating that you suddenly switch back to sugar for your bit of sweetness (though a little can’t hurt you). Instead, try the many great natural sugar substitutes that exist today, such as no-calorie options stevia and monk fruit as well as natural sweeteners raw honey, maple syrup, banana puree and dates. For example, it’s easy to find soda, gum and even protein powder that’s sweetness comes from stevia rather than artificial sweetener. To read the original article click here.

The post Do Artificial Sweeteners Increase Your Cancer Risk? appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Your Gut Senses the Difference Between Real Sugar and Artificial Sweetener

AHA Publisher — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 08:00:19 +0000

Duke University via Newswise – DURHAM, N.C. – Your taste buds may or may not be able to tell real sugar from a sugar substitute like Splenda, but there are cells in your intestines that can and do distinguish between the two sweet solutions. And they can communicate the difference to your brain in milliseconds. Not long after the sweet taste receptor was identified in the mouths of mice 20 years ago, scientists attempted to knock those taste buds out. But they were surprised to find that mice could still somehow discern and prefer natural sugar to artificial sweetener, even without a sense of taste. The answer to this riddle lies much further down in the digestive tract, at the upper end of the gut just after the stomach, according to research led by Diego Bohórquez, an associate professor of medicine and neurobiology in the Duke University School of Medicine. In a paper appearing Jan. 13 in Nature Neuroscience, “we’ve identified the cells that make us eat sugar, and they are in the gut,” Bohórquez said. Infusing sugar directly into the lower intestine or colon does not have the same effect. The sensing cells are in the upper reaches of the gut, he said. Having discovered a gut cell called the neuropod cell, Bohórquez with his research team has been pursuing this cell’s critical role as a connection between what’s inside the gut and its influence in the brain. The gut, he argues, talks directly to the brain, changing our eating behavior. And in the long run, these findings may lead to entirely new ways of treating diseases. Originally termed enteroendrocrine cells because of their ability to secrete hormones, specialized neuropod cells can communicate with neurons via rapid synaptic connections and are distributed throughout the lining of the upper gut. In addition to producing relatively slow-acting hormone signals, the Bohórquez research team has shown that these cells also produce fast-acting neurotransmitter signals that reach the vagus nerve and then the brain within milliseconds. Bohórquez said his group’s latest findings further show that neuropods are sensory cells of the nervous system just like taste buds in the tongue or the retinal cone cells in the eye that help us see colors. “These cells work just like the retinal cone cells that that are able to sense the wavelength of light,” Bohórquez said. “They sense traces of sugar versus sweetener and then they release different neurotransmitters that go into different cells in the vagus nerve, and ultimately, the animal knows ‘this is sugar’ or ‘this is sweetener.’” Using lab-grown organoids from mouse and human cells to represent the small intestine and duodenum (upper gut), the researchers showed in a small experiment that real sugar stimulated individual neuropod cells to release glutamate as a neurotransmitter. Artificial sugar triggered the release of a different neurotransmitter, ATP. Using a technique called optogenetics, the scientists were then able to turn the neuropod cells on and off in the gut of a living mouse to show whether the animal’s preference for real sugar was being driven by signals from the gut. The key enabling technology for the optogenetic work was a new flexible waveguide fiber developed by MIT scientists. This flexible fiber delivers light throughout the gut in a living animal to trigger a genetic response that silenced the neuropod cells. With their neuropod cells switched off, the animal no longer showed a clear preference for real sugar. “We trust our gut with the food we eat,” Bohórquez said. “Sugar has both taste and nutritive value and the gut is able to identify both.” “Many people struggle with sugar cravings, and now we have a better understanding of how the gut senses sugars (and why artificial sweeteners don’t curb those cravings),” said co-first author Kelly Buchanan, a former Duke University School of Medicine student who is now an Internal Medicine resident at Massachusetts General Hospital. “We hope to target this circuit to treat diseases we see every day in the clinic.” In future work, Bohórquez said he will be showing how these cells also recognize other macronutrients. “We always talk about ‘a gut sense,’ and say things like ‘trust your gut,’ well, there’s something to this,” Bohórquez said. “We can change a mouse’s behavior from the gut,” Bohórquez said, which gives him great hope for new therapies targeting the gut. To read the original article click here.

The post Your Gut Senses the Difference Between Real Sugar and Artificial Sweetener appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Commonly Used Sweeteners May Promote Antibiotic Resistance

AHA Publisher — Thu, 04 Mar 2021 08:00:02 +0000

Sally Robertson, B.Sc. via News-Medical Net – Researchers in Australia have conducted a study showing that commonly used nonnutritive sweeteners can promote the spread of antibiotic-resistant genes in the intestine. The study found that the sweeteners saccharine, sucralose, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium all promoted horizontal transfer of the genes between bacteria in both environmental and clinical settings. The sweeteners accelerated the exchange of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) via a process called conjugation. The genes are transferred from donor to recipient bacteria, which may then go on to develop multidrug resistance, says Zhigang Yu and colleagues from The University of Queensland in St. Lucia, Brisbane. Writing in The ISME Journal, the team says the findings provide insight into the spread of antimicrobial resistance and point to the potential risk associated with the presence of these sweeteners in food and drink. Antimicrobial Resistance Poses One of the Greatest Global Threats Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents one of the most significant global threats to public health and biosecurity in the coming decades. Currently, 700,000 people worldwide die from infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria every year. It is estimated that 10 million people will die from such infections by 2050 if action is not taken immediately. The emergence of ARGs that give rise to resistant bacteria is generally attributed to the misuse or overuse of antibiotics. The spread of ARGs among different bacterial species is mainly driven by a process called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). Conjugation is an HGT mechanism that transfers ARGs carried on mobile genetic elements such as plasmids from one bacterial cell to another. The ARGs are transferred via a pilus or pore channel connecting the host and recipient bacteria. Where Do Sweeteners Come In? Although nonnutritive sweeteners have been developed and promoted as safe food additives that allow individuals to avoid the adverse effects of consuming sugar, some commonly used sweeteners have recently been associated with health risks. For example, in vitro studies have shown that the sweeteners saccharin (SAC), sucralose (SUC), and aspartame (ASP) can induce the formation of urinary bladder tumors. These sweeteners are also associated with glucose intolerance, which is thought to arise through alterations in the gut microbiota. Studies have also provided evidence that SAC, SUC, and ASP, as well as acesulfame potassium (ACE-K), cause DNA damage in bacteria. The researchers say this is likely to activate the DNA damage response system (SOS response). Furthermore, evidence suggests that conjugative ARG transfer may be related to the SOS response. Studies have also recently demonstrated that the use of SAC, SUC, and ASP is associated with shifts in the gut microbiota that resemble those caused by antibiotics. “As antibiotics can promote the spread of ARGs, we hypothesize that these nonnutritive sweeteners could have a similar effect,” writes Yu and the team. What Did the Researchers Do? The team used three model conjugation systems to investigate whether SAC, SUC, ASP, and ACE-K promote plasmid-mediated conjugative transfer in both environmental and clinical settings. The conjugation process was also visualized at the single-cell level using microfluidics and confocal microscopy. The researchers carried out whole-genome RNA sequencing analysis and measured changes in reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, the SOS response, and cell membrane permeability. What Did They Find? All four sweeteners were found to promote plasmid-mediated conjugative transfer between the same bacteria and different phylogenetic strains. Bacteria exposed to these compounds exhibited increases in ROS production, the SOS response, and conjugative ARG gene transfer at environmentally and clinically relevant concentrations. Cell membrane permeability, especially that of the donor, also played an important role in the frequency of conjugative transfer. When the cell permeability of the donor (but not the recipient bacteria) was increased, a significant increase in conjugative transfer was observed. When the cell permeability of the recipient (but not the donor) was increased, no significant change in conjugative transfer was observed. “It has been reported that in the transfer of ARGs, donors with high expression of the conjugation machinery were shown to be associated with low-receptivity recipients,” says Yu and colleagues. “Thus, the increased permeability of the donor may cause increased ARG transfer to the recipient and result in increased conjugative transfer frequency.” What Are the Implications of the Study? The researchers say studies have previously shown that wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) can serve as hotspots for antibiotic-resistant bacteria and ARGs due to HGT among indigenous bacterial species. Since the concentrations of nonnutritive sweeteners used in this study were environmentally relevant, it is reasonable to assume that upon exposure to these compounds, the transfer frequency of ARGs would be promoted in WWTPs, says the team. “It is possible that these sweeteners could cause a cascading spread of ARGs in the WWTPs, thus facilitating increased development of antibiotic resistance in downstream environmental bacteria,” writes Yu and colleagues. “Considering the substantial application of these sweeteners in the food industry (over 117,000 metric tons globally consumed per year), our findings are a wake-up call to start evaluating the potential antibiotic-like roles induced by nonnutritive sweeteners,” concludes the team. To read the original article click here.

The post Commonly Used Sweeteners May Promote Antibiotic Resistance appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.