Do Lo-Cal Sweeteners Encourage Eating?

(WebMD)  It may sound counterintuitive, but replacing sugar with reduced- and no-calorie sweeteners may make weight control harder, a small animal study shows.

Rats in the Purdue University study that were fed regular feed and yogurt sweetened with no-calorie saccharin took in more total calories and gained more weight than rats fed regular feed and yogurt sweetened with sugar.

Researchers speculate that over time, reduced-calorie sweeteners like saccharin, aspartame, and sucralose condition the body to no longer associate sweetness with calories, thereby disrupting its ability to accurately assess caloric intake.

This disruption may, in turn, lead to overeating, they note.

"If this is the case in rats, there is little reason to think that humans don't have this same response," researcher Susan Swithers, Ph.D. tells WebMD. "It is possible that consuming these products interferes with one of the mechanisms that helps to regulate weight."

She adds that this could help explain why the dramatic rise in obesity has occurred at the same time that sales of low-calorie sweeteners and products containing them have skyrocketed.

Industry Response

But a spokeswoman for the low-calorie sweetener industry was highly critical of the research, noting that the study involved just 27 rats.

"I think studies like this are a disservice to the consumer because they oversimplify the causes of obesity," registered dietitian Beth Hubrich of the Calorie Control Council tells WebMD.

"It is true that there has been an increase in the use of low-calorie sweeteners at the same time that we have seen an increase in obesity, but there has also been an increase in the use of cell phones and nobody is suggesting that they are causing obesity."

Rats Ate More, Expended Less Energy

The new study is not the first by Swithers and co-researcher Terry L. Davidson, Ph.D., of the Purdue Digestive Behavior Research Center, to link artificial sweeteners with weight increases in rats.

In a study designed to measure energy expenditure, the saccharin-conditioned rats had slightly lower energy expenditures after eating a high-calorie meal containing sugar.

"In addition to somehow stimulating food intake, we think that artificial sweeteners may blunt the energy expenditure mechanism as well," Swithers says.

Rat Studies Relevant to Humans?

Hubrich counters that it is far from clear if the rat studies have any relevance to people, adding that many human studies suggest low-calorie sweeteners are beneficial for weight loss.

One of the most recent suggested that use of sucralose - the sugar substitute sold as Splenda - along with increased physical activity, helped children lose weight, she says.

"I am not aware of any studies in humans suggesting that the use of low-calorie sweeteners is associated with weight gain," she says.

Clinical psychologist Edward Abramson, Ph.D., who specializes in treating patients struggling with weight, agrees that rat studies may not have much relevance to humans when it comes to appetite and weight control.

"The issue of food intake and energy expenditure is much more complicated in humans," he says.

But he adds that reduced-calorie sweeteners may trigger overeating in some overweight people, especially those who are binge eaters.

Abramson is a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University and author of the 2005 book "Body Intelligence."

"About 30% of obese people are binge eaters, and it may be true that for some eating artificially sweetened foods trigger binges," he says.
By Salynn Boyles
Reviewed by Louise Chang
© 2008 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved

[toxicpmpsmk]

Throughout history, non-animal methods of scientfic invstigation have taught researchers much much more about how the human body works than animal research. These methods include clinical(huaman) research,epidemjiolgy(studying human population segments) and postmortem examinations.
rats have nothing to do with humans...no matter how close another species is..they are not us and the results can not be reliable...waste of time, money and lives.

[nsqljs]

Human beings are not rats. We have far greater brain function. Unlike rats we know the caloric difference between low calorie sweeteners and non-low calorie sweeteners. We have the capacity to understand that drinking a diet beverage won''t add to our caloric intake and make us gain weight, but that brick sized piece of cheese cake definitely will make us gain weight even though both items are sweet tasting. The problem is food choices. The deeper problem beyond food choices is why people make the food choices they do. Most people who I have met that are obese use food as a drug to make themselves feel better. They have emotional and/or life problems that are distressing them deeply, but instead of making life choices to solve these deeper problems they turn to food like a drug user turns to drugs to give themselves some type of momentary happiness and escape from their real problems. So enough with all these ridiculous "Scientific" studies and "Scientific" results. They are looking too hard and in all the wrong places for reasons that cause obesity. They are making an issue far more complicated than it really is. What needs to be studied is why people make the food choices they make and more importantly the underlying emotional cause of these choices. It is all about underlying mind set and subsequent choices people make in reaction to these mental factors that is the cause of obesity.

[jshmks]

Waste of a story. After I have a crystal light, or a diet soda I don''t have the urge to eat. Maybe you should call marijuana an artificial sweetener.

[random_radar]

This is just the latest in a long line of suppressed studies showing that artificial sweeteners are hazardous to your health. I remember a University of Texas professor about 20 years ago who did several studies showing that aspartame caused cancer in rats. But you probably never heard about it because it was suppressed by the major media.

Weight control is a national preoccupation, and no one wants bad news when there is so much money involved. But that''s odd since we are ignoring information that will kill us. Well, maybe that''s not odd at all for **** sapiens?

[fstop100]

But the FDA is our friend, to protect us from this kind of thing....NOT

[bcbbkake]

You want some TRUTH? You want to know how the FDA banned artificial sweeteners for 16 years...then what really happened? Read this:

http://www.douglassreport.com/reports/rhb_bait_news.htm?gclid=CIuvqoyX9I0CFR7qYAodi0IhOA

[kennergirl]

A friend of mine told me years back that her Dr. said drinking Diet soda was the worst thing you could do on a diet. I know she knows what shes talking about because she cut out soda all together and drinks only water (not Crystal Light etc). She lost probably close to 200 lbs and has kept it off. She said her Dr. told her that drinking diet soda''s makes you more hungry...this info has been known by at least some doctor''s for awhile (at least by her doctor). Same was said about high fructose corn syrup...it should be avoided because it does the same thing basically.

[mcmarturano]

For those comments based on "the study was done in 27 rats, and so is not valid in humans", please see my article. It explains very clearly why this is a false argument.

Yellow Doc
http://yellowdoc.blogspot.com/2008/02/fake-sugar-may-make-you-fatter.html

[Chaoticamusic.com]

IMO: This study is biased and a ploy by the makers of Splenda to take heat off their product and try to make it seem like ALL sweeteners are as bad. It isn''t Saccharin (Sweet & Low) that causes hunger; it is Sucralose (Splenda) that has the adverse side-effect of making you hungry for sweets. Not all artificial sweeteners are the same. Saccharin has been around the longest and is the least harmful. Sucralose (Splenda) is much more harmful. Just Google "dangers Sucralose" and "dangers Aspartame" and you''ll see why Saccharin is better than the other two.

Regardless, Xylitol or Stevia are much healthier alternatives to sugar or any of those others fake sweetners.

[rudy654-2009]

Posted by juwboy at 05:29 AM

Oh and you are such a great scientist? The racist you are(note the name)? Go find a rock and slither right back under it.

Yep folks, I got it wrong about adding carbon, it is of course adding hydrogen to carbon chains in oil (the racist is right, I''m not a chemist but do know something about the subject):

From BanTransFats:

Partial hydrogenation is an industrial process used to make a perfectly good oil, such as soybean oil, into a perfectly bad oil. The process is used to make an oil more solid; provide longer shelf-life in baked products; provide longer fry-life for cooking oils, and provide a certain kind of texture or "mouthfeel." The big problem is that partially hydrogenated oil is laden with lethal trans fat.

It is only the trans fat created by the partial hydrogenation of vegetable oils that we are concerned about and that should be eliminated completely from your diet.