Re: sweeteners - Follow Up

[Guest guest]

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

> comments inserted below

>

> JR

*****And yet, if one searches hard enough, other " sides " to the issue

of the cephalic reflex appear!

For example, in the March 1997 issue of the American Journal of

Clincal Nutrition, a study regarding the cephalic phase responses to

sweet taste was published by Abdallah L, Chabert M and Louis-

Sylvestre J, working out of the Laboratoire de Neurobiologie de la

Nutrition, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris, France. The

abstract is as follows:

" The sweet taste of nonnutritive sweeteners has been reported to

increase hunger and food intake through the mechanism of cephalic-

phase insulin release (CPIR). We investigated the effect of oral

sensation of sweetness on CPIR and other indexes associated with

glucose metabolism using nutritive and nonnutritive sweetened tablets

as stimuli. At lunchtime, 12 normal-weight men sucked for 5 min a

sucrose, an aspartame-polydextrose, or an unsweetened polydextrose

tablet (3 g) with no added flavor. The three stimuli were

administered in a counterbalanced order, each on a separate day

at 1-wk intervals. Blood was drawn continuously for 45 min before and

25 min after the beginning of sucking and samples were collected at 1-

min intervals. Spontaneous oscillations in glucose, insulin, and

glucagon concentrations were assessed as were increments (slopes) of

fatty acid concentrations during the baseline period. The nature of

the baseline (oscillations: glucose, insulin, and glucagon; and

slopes: fatty acids) was taken into account in the analyses of

postexposure events. No CPIR and no significant effect on plasma

glucagon or fatty acid concentrations were observed after the three

stimuli. However, there was a significant decrease in plasma glucose

and insulin after all three stimuli. Only the consumption of the

sucrose tablet was followed by a postabsorptive increase in plasma

glucose and insulin concentrations starting 17 and 19 min,

respectively, after the beginning of sucking. In conclusion, this

study suggested that oral stimulation provided by sweet nonflavored

tablets is not sufficient for inducing CPIR. "

.......so where does that leave us? She said/He said? Things are not

that clear cut! One study " shows " an effect; another study counters

the previous one's claim. And we're back to square one! I suspect

that if the issue was cut-and-dry, most studies would end up falling

on one side or the other. At this point, however, I remained

unconvinced either way!

~ andy

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the more recent study. From the abstract you posted...

=======clip

" However, there was a significant decrease in plasma glucose

and insulin after all three stimuli. "

--------

OK, all three stimuli triggered reduction of blood sugar. This is consistent

with the cephalic reflex increasing insulin for all three cases (including

unsweetened polydextrose tablets whatever polydextrose is?). The reduction

of insulin too, is not consistent with my understanding. Where did the sugar

go without insulin? Perhaps the actual curves might explain.

=============clip

" Only the consumption of the

sucrose tablet was followed by a postabsorptive increase in plasma

glucose "

------

Well, only the sucrose tablet was real sugar, polydextrose is a patented,

manufactured, " funny " sugar/bulking agent (1 Kcal/gm). I don't know how the

body reacts to it but the fact that it's named polydextrose suggests to me

it's somehow chemically similar to other sugars. Perhaps in some cases the

body reacts to it like a sugar?

=============

I would have to see the details of this study before abandoning my personal

understanding of cephalic reflex response. Some of the comments in the

abstract appear self contradictory. For example I would expect insulin and

blood glucose to move in opposite directions. I don't see how both would go

down at the same time?

Draw whatever conclusions you wish. I don't claim any special expertise in

this area, but I remain skeptical.

JR

PS... FWIW None of this makes any difference in my personal decision to use

or not use artificial sweeteners. However the basic cephalic reflex might

explain why some of those fat people drinking diet coke are still getting

fatter. (diet coke= more insulin= lower blood sugar= more hungry= another

snack & diet coke= more insulin, etc ad obeseum).

-----Original Message-----

From: Andy [mailto:endofthedream@...]

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:05 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: sweeteners - Follow Up

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

> comments inserted below

>

> JR

*****And yet, if one searches hard enough, other " sides " to the issue

of the cephalic reflex appear!

For example, in the March 1997 issue of the American Journal of

Clincal Nutrition, a study regarding the cephalic phase responses to

sweet taste was published by Abdallah L, Chabert M and Louis-

Sylvestre J, working out of the Laboratoire de Neurobiologie de la

Nutrition, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris, France. The

abstract is as follows:

" The sweet taste of nonnutritive sweeteners has been reported to

increase hunger and food intake through the mechanism of cephalic-

phase insulin release (CPIR). We investigated the effect of oral

sensation of sweetness on CPIR and other indexes associated with

glucose metabolism using nutritive and nonnutritive sweetened tablets

as stimuli. At lunchtime, 12 normal-weight men sucked for 5 min a

sucrose, an aspartame-polydextrose, or an unsweetened polydextrose

tablet (3 g) with no added flavor. The three stimuli were

administered in a counterbalanced order, each on a separate day

at 1-wk intervals. Blood was drawn continuously for 45 min before and

25 min after the beginning of sucking and samples were collected at 1-

min intervals. Spontaneous oscillations in glucose, insulin, and

glucagon concentrations were assessed as were increments (slopes) of

fatty acid concentrations during the baseline period. The nature of

the baseline (oscillations: glucose, insulin, and glucagon; and

slopes: fatty acids) was taken into account in the analyses of

postexposure events. No CPIR and no significant effect on plasma

glucagon or fatty acid concentrations were observed after the three

stimuli. However, there was a significant decrease in plasma glucose

and insulin after all three stimuli. Only the consumption of the

sucrose tablet was followed by a postabsorptive increase in plasma

glucose and insulin concentrations starting 17 and 19 min,

respectively, after the beginning of sucking. In conclusion, this

study suggested that oral stimulation provided by sweet nonflavored

tablets is not sufficient for inducing CPIR. "

.......so where does that leave us? She said/He said? Things are not

that clear cut! One study " shows " an effect; another study counters

the previous one's claim. And we're back to square one! I suspect

that if the issue was cut-and-dry, most studies would end up falling

on one side or the other. At this point, however, I remained

unconvinced either way!

~ andy