Re: Artificial Sweeteners & Insulin Response

[Guest guest]

For me...I know that there is a marked difference in how I handle sucralose and sugar. If I eat a favorite of mine, sour cherry balls....it is almost impossible for me to stop.

With a splenda or malitol enhanced food, I can eat one and no more and I do not have the drugged feeling that I get with sugar. I am a terrible carb addict. Sweeteners have helped me a lot.

[Guest guest]

By definition non-sugar sweeteners should not raise blood sugar, but they

can induce an insulin increase (cephalic phase reflex). My recollection is

that over time the body will learn if a food does not contain energy and

adjust it's response, but I don't know how hard wired the " sweet " response

is.

An excellent book in that general field is " The Psychology of eating &

Drinking " A.W. Logue. While a little dated (C'86), the book is heavily

footnoted and I would suggest finding it and/or searching out CPH (cephalic

phase hypothesis) rather than relying upon my recollection.

JR

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

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

Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:24 AM

Subject: [ ] Artificial Sweeteners & Insulin Response

I have not been able to find any research that clearly answers this

question. Any input would be appreciated.

Q: Do artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose) provoke a blood

sugar response, and subsequent spike in insulin levels among healthy

(not diabetic) people?

A: I've read two sides the this story.

One side argues it does not matter whether the substance consumed has

or does not have any caloric value. As long as the tastebuds

perceive the substance to be sweet (even artifically), then there is

first a salivary response followed by a neurochemical reaction in the

body (blood sugar increase followed by insulin reaction and a drop in

blood sugar). Of course one wants to keep insulin levels as low as

possible (on an even keel of course) and consuming sweet foods may

keep a fairly high level of insulin circulating in the blood (which

contributes to maintining body fat by keeping the fat inaccessible

for use as an energy source).

The other side states that the reaction described above only happens

in the presence of carbohydrates (and, to a lesser extent, protein).

They say that non-caloric sweeteners do NOT provoke the insulin

response that occurs with sugary foods, and this group would include

fruit, thought to a lesser degree. The above positions assumes that

the non-caloric sweeteners are consumed in the absence of other carbs

and protein, e.g., a cup of decaf tea sweetened with sucralose. Zero

carbs; zero calories. But sweet.

The first group states that even such a benign drink as the decaf

tea/sucralose combination will provoke a rise in blood sugar,

followed by a measured insulin reaction because the body " senses "

that a sugar-like substance has been consumed (the sucralose 'tricks'

the body into reacting as if a sugary-drink has just been drunk).

And thus one will experience an insulin response, even in the absence

of calories and carbs.

The second group argues that their position is supported by the fact

that diabetics are able to tolerate artificially-sweetened foods as

opposed to their heavily-sugared counterparts. However, the first

group responds to this by stating that the only reason this happens

with diabetics is that the artificial sweetener significantly reduces

the TOTAL carbohydrate load and it is THAT reduction ONLY which

allows the diabetic to consume artificially-sweetened substances, not

the fact that the sugar itself is absent.

Does anyone know of peer-reviewed studies which validate either or

both of these views?

It seems to me a very easy theory to test. Take a large enough

sample size of healthy individuals (>= 20). Begin the tests with the

subjects in a fasting state. Using a double-blind test procedure (to

avoid the placebo effect), have the subjects consume a glass of

sweetened water. The sweetener will be either artificial or sugar-

based. After the appropriate length of time, measure the blood sugar

level.

It seems to me that this is all that is need to determine which

theory is correct (since in a healthy person, a rise in the blood

sugar will provoke an insulin response). If the first theory is

correct there should be similar blood sugar rises in both groups.

However, if the second theory is accurate, then there would only be a

blood sugar rise in the individuals who consumed the water/sugar

drink, not the water/artificial sweetener combo.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

~andy

[Guest guest]

Artificial sweeteners do not raise blood sugar.

Nor do they induce the cephalic response of sugar.

That is the result reported here below.

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

Clinical 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. "

....

On 05 Jan 2004, Andy wrote:

>

> I have not been able to find any research that clearly

> answers this question. Any input would be appreciated.

>

>

> Q: Do artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose) provoke a blood

> sugar response, and subsequent spike in insulin levels among healthy

> (not diabetic) people?

> ...

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> By definition non-sugar sweeteners should not raise blood sugar,

> but they can induce an insulin increase (cephalic phase reflex). My

> recollection is that over time the body will learn if a food does

> not contain energy and adjust it's response, but I don't know how

> hard wired the " sweet " response is.

>

> An excellent book in that general field is " The Psychology of

> eating & Drinking " A.W. Logue. While a little dated (C'86), the

> book is heavily footnoted and I would suggest finding it and/or

> searching out CPH (cephalic phase hypothesis) rather than relying

> upon my recollection.

Thank you for the response, JR. It's wonderful having you people,

this board, this environment to rely on!

I had some vague recollection of the CPH being the " issue " that I did

not address in my detailed post. Something was scratching at the

back of the brain saying " you forgot to consider ... " and your post

brought the memory back. Warren's post, which responds to this

issue, seems to have answered that part of the question. At least

for the time being. Until new " recent " research comes up! Hahaha!!!

[Guest guest]

For me...I know that there is a marked difference in how I handle

sucralose and sugar. If I eat a favorite of mine, sour cherry

balls....it is almost impossible for me to stop.

With a splenda or malitol enhanced food, I can eat one and no more

and I do not have the drugged feeling that I get with sugar. I am a

terrible carb addict. Sweeteners have helped me a lot.

*****Thanks for your words, Kim. Since 'going ON' and especially

since initiating the CR part in late September I have found that with

the exception of occasional 'cheat meals' (one every 10 days or so),

I no longer have 'issues' with carbs.** I think I am probably

getting plenty of low-glycemic carbs in my diet and the consequential

flattening of the glycemic/insulin response is more satisfying (and

experienced subjectively as more soothing) than the waves produced by

sugar carbs.

I hadn't thought about what your post points to until I read it. I

find that most of the alcohol sugars, if consumed in anything other

than minor amounts, gives me gas, so I avoid them almost entirely.

Splenda and aspartame, however, seem to have no unpleasant (and

embarrassing!) " displays " in this physiology so I do partake in them,

in moderate amounts. In retrospect, I too now notice that I simply

don't have the desire to eat and eat and eat artifically sweetened

foods. A small amount satisfies me, unlike sugar-sweetened foods,

and as a result I end up eating moderate (or even small!) portions.

Interesting. Thanx again.

**A recent exception: yesteray I had Sunday brunch at a fancy

restaurant with the folks. I was " captured " by the large, sweet,

Belgian waffles, something I haven't had since I was a young adult,

20 years or so ago. In addition to all the other fixin's of the

buffet brunch that I sampled, I had TWO servings (both topped with

rich maple syrup) of the waffles, and it took an immense amount of

will power to not go back for a third serving! Since starting CRON

I've been tempted by high fat ice cream, candy, cakes, all kinds of

treats, but never found any that appealed to me so much. I think I'm

still waxin' over it because it took me by surprise; I hadn't

expected that reaction. I guess I've discovered my Achilles Heel!

Hahaha!!! (Luckily the restaurant is very expensive and 60 miles

away so I won't be going back there for a spell.)

~andy