Artificial sweeteners getting pissed out - bad for your kidneys?

[repoman]

I just have the question, anyone here have any idea about this?

 

[bilby]

I just have the question, anyone here have any idea about this?

Which one(s)? Apartame, Saccharin, Stevia, Cyclamic Acid, Sucralose, Acesulphame, Mogroside, Neotame?

There is no one 'artificial sweetener', and indeed it is not clear that the word 'artificial' adds anything to your question; Undoubtedly sweeteners (Including 'ordinary' and 'natural' sugars) are excreted in part via the kidneys if sufficient amounts are consumed, and if they are able to get out of the alimentary canal and past the liver to reach the renal blood supply. Whether that harms the kidneys seems doubtful, at least for those compounds approved by first-world regulatory agencies, unless very large quantities are consumed. But anything will harm your internal organs (including your kidneys) if you manage to get enough of it into your system.

There seem to be a number of underlying false or over-simplified assumptions in this question. Neither 'artificial' nor 'sweetener' defines a group of chemicals with uniform toxicity; all chemicals, natural and artificial, are non-toxic if the dose is sufficiently low, (and are toxic at sufficiently high doses); and a toxic dose of almost anything will damage the kidneys if it doesn't kill you by damaging something else first.

This question is apparently grounded in a model of how human beings and their food interact, that is so far removed from the real interaction between humans and their food, as to render it meaningless.

 

[untermensche]

Pissing things out is good for the kidneys. The problem is when you are not pissing things out.

As far as a general toxicity to the kidney?

I don't think there is any evidence to support that in any of the non-sugar sweeteners.

Millions and millions of people use these products daily.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't think there is any evidence to support that in any of the non-sugar sweeteners.

Millions and millions of people use these products daily.

It would help you scientific argument if you called our attention to such as: Aspartame, low-calorie sweeteners and disease: Regulatory safety and epidemiological issues http://www.obesityday.org/usr_files/area-stampa/comunicati/2013/aspartame_low-calorie_sweeteners.pdf

With reference to epidemiologic data, evidence on low-calorie sweeteners – and specifically aspartame – does not support the existence of a consistent association with hematopoietic neo-plasms, brain cancer, digestive sites, breast, prostate and several other neoplasms, similarly, low-calorie sweeteners are not related to vascular events and preterm deliveries.

Just saying. Evidence is always better that declared self evidence.

 

[untermensche]

It would help you scientific argument if you called our attention to such as: Aspartame, low-calorie sweeteners and disease: Regulatory safety and epidemiological issues http://www.obesityday.org/usr_files/area-stampa/comunicati/2013/aspartame_low-calorie_sweeteners.pdf

With reference to epidemiologic data, evidence on low-calorie sweeteners – and specifically aspartame – does not support the existence of a consistent association with hematopoietic neo-plasms, brain cancer, digestive sites, breast, prostate and several other neoplasms, similarly, low-calorie sweeteners are not related to vascular events and preterm deliveries.

Just saying. Evidence is always better that declared self evidence.

I agree studies are better than opinion.

But sometimes the study says one thing and opinion about what the study or any single study says is another.

Thorough examination of these sweeteners is part of the pharmacy curriculum.

When I say I know of no evidence it is based on my education.

But it is true, to know anything about any chemical entering the body you have to look at studies.

 

[fromderinside]

But sometimes the study says one thing and opinion about what the study or any single study says is another.

Thorough examination of these sweeteners is part of the pharmacy curriculum.

When I say I know of no evidence it is based on my education.

But it is true, to know anything about any chemical entering the body you have to look at studies.

Comment here is read more studies, find policy publications using studies. Try to use premier journals on topics for final position.

If all the above leaves doubt, find a way to get research done.

Of course I'm presuming you' are expert, hopefully scientist, working in the area. If not read more studies. Consult with leaders in area. Forget living, become a slave to technical literature and research.

Not a bad life actually.

FDI - retired

 

[untermensche]

But sometimes the study says one thing and opinion about what the study or any single study says is another.

Thorough examination of these sweeteners is part of the pharmacy curriculum.

When I say I know of no evidence it is based on my education.

But it is true, to know anything about any chemical entering the body you have to look at studies.

Comment here is read more studies, find policy publications using studies. Try to use premier journals on topics for final position.

If all the above leaves doubt, find a way to get research done.

Of course I'm presuming you' are expert, hopefully scientist, working in the area. If not read more studies. Consult with leaders in area. Forget living, become a slave to technical literature and research.

Not a bad life actually.

FDI - retired

Are you saying the opinion is right or wrong?

It is not an opinion based on thorough knowledge of all the primary research.

It is an opinion based on the opinion of other people who do know the research.

"The Handbook of Non-Prescription Drugs" is a research based text.

 

[Underseer]

It would help you scientific argument if you called our attention to such as: Aspartame, low-calorie sweeteners and disease: Regulatory safety and epidemiological issues http://www.obesityday.org/usr_files/area-stampa/comunicati/2013/aspartame_low-calorie_sweeteners.pdf



Just saying. Evidence is always better that declared self evidence.

I agree studies are better than opinion.

But sometimes the study says one thing and opinion about what the study or any single study says is another.

Thorough examination of these sweeteners is part of the pharmacy curriculum.

When I say I know of no evidence it is based on my education.

But it is true, to know anything about any chemical entering the body you have to look at studies.

If you are not qualified to evaluate the studies, then just go with the consensus opinion of those who conduct that kind of research.

 

[untermensche]

I agree studies are better than opinion.

But sometimes the study says one thing and opinion about what the study or any single study says is another.

Thorough examination of these sweeteners is part of the pharmacy curriculum.

When I say I know of no evidence it is based on my education.

But it is true, to know anything about any chemical entering the body you have to look at studies.

If you are not qualified to evaluate the studies, then just go with the consensus opinion of those who conduct that kind of research.

It has nothing to do with qualification.

It is about time and motivation.

If one has neither the time nor any real need to know the results of all the primary research you rely on the opinions of those who do.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I just have the question, anyone here have any idea about this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3856475/

Sucralose, a synthetic organochlorine sweetener: overview of biological issues.
Abstract
Sucralose is a synthetic organochlorine sweetener (OC) that is a common ingredient in the world's food supply. Sucralose interacts with chemosensors in the alimentary tract that play a role in sweet taste sensation and hormone secretion. In rats, sucralose ingestion was shown to increase the expression of the efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and two cytochrome P-450 (CYP) isozymes in the intestine. P-gp and CYP are key components of the presystemic detoxification system involved in first-pass drug metabolism. The effect of sucralose on first-pass drug metabolism in humans, however, has not yet been determined. In rats, sucralose alters the microbial composition in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), with relatively greater reduction in beneficial bacteria. Although early studies asserted that sucralose passes through the GIT unchanged, subsequent analysis suggested that some of the ingested sweetener is metabolized in the GIT, as indicated by multiple peaks found in thin-layer radiochromatographic profiles of methanolic fecal extracts after oral sucralose administration. The identity and safety profile of these putative sucralose metabolites are not known at this time. Sucralose and one of its hydrolysis products were found to be mutagenic at elevated concentrations in several testing methods. Cooking with sucralose at high temperatures was reported to generate chloropropanols, a potentially toxic class of compounds. Both human and rodent studies demonstrated that sucralose may alter glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) levels. Taken together, these findings indicate that sucralose is not a biologically inert compound.

Not exactly reassuring...
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819855/

Artificial Sweeteners: A Systematic Review and Primer for Gastroenterologists.
Spencer M1, Gupta A2, Dam LV1, Shannon C3, Menees S1, Chey WD1.
Abstract
Artificial sweeteners (AS) are ubiquitous in food and beverage products, yet little is known about their effects on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and whether they play a role in the development of GI symptoms, especially in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Utilizing the PubMed and Embase databases, we conducted a search for articles on individual AS and each of these terms: fermentation, absorption, and GI tract. Standard protocols for a systematic review were followed. At the end of our search, we found a total of 617 eligible papers, 26 of which were included. Overall, there is limited medical literature available on this topic. The 2 main areas on which there is data to suggest that AS affect the GI tract include motility and the gut microbiome, though human data is lacking, and most of the currently available data is derived from in vivo studies. The effect on motility is mainly indirect via increased incretin secretion, though the clinical relevance of this finding is unknown as the downstream effect on motility was not studied. The specific effects of AS on the microbiome have been conflicting and the available studies have been heterogeneous in terms of the population studied and both the AS and doses evaluated. Further research is needed to assess whether AS could be a potential cause of GI symptoms. This is especially pertinent in patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a population in whom dietary interventions are routinely utilized as a management strategy.

"Artificial sweeteners (AS) are ubiquitous in food and beverage products, yet little is known about their effects on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract" BUT "there is limited medical literature available on this topic"...

What's wrong with us?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819855/

Artificial Sweeteners: A Systematic Review and Primer for Gastroenterologists.
Spencer M1, Gupta A2, Dam LV1, Shannon C3, Menees S1, Chey WD1.
Extract
(...) The remaining approximately 15% of oral intake is absorbed following consumption. Most is excreted unchanged in the urine, but minor metabolites, likely the result of glucoronidation and not products of metabolism, have also been shown to be present in the urine.19 These metabolites represent only about 2–3% of the total oral intake.19 Both sucralose (unchanged) and the suspected glucuronide conjugates are excreted in urine with no bio accumulation. (...)

The amount of sucralose potentially problematic is really very small but it is in widespread use and potentially "consumed" for the best part of one's life. So how do we assess the risks right now? Well, I think we just don't know.

At some point in the future we might learn the effect but it might take so long that you will all be dead by then.

Personally, I can do without sugar or the "taste" of sugar. And sweeteners don't even taste like sugar!
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Are you saying the opinion is right or wrong?

It is not an opinion based on thorough knowledge of all the primary research.

It is an opinion based on the opinion of other people who do know the research.

"The Handbook of Non-Prescription Drugs" is a research based text.

No. Opinion is always wrong. Less so when supported by studies.

No. Most opinion is grabbed from one's arse.

No. Second hand opinions are always wrong even whne supported by research.

Research is research. Summaries of research are reviews. If you can design an experiment from the material it might be satisfactory. If not go to primary sources.

Hard ass FDI retired here.

 

[fromderinside]

If you are not qualified to evaluate the studies, then just go with the consensus opinion of those who conduct that kind of research.

It would be better to post research reference links.

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819855/

Artificial Sweeteners: A Systematic Review and Primer for Gastroenterologists.
Spencer M1, Gupta A2, Dam LV1, Shannon C3, Menees S1, Chey WD1.
Abstract
Artificial sweeteners (AS) are ubiquitous in food and beverage products, yet little is known about their effects on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and whether they play a role in the development of GI symptoms, especially in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Utilizing the PubMed and Embase databases, we conducted a search for articles on individual AS and each of these terms: fermentation, absorption, and GI tract. Standard protocols for a systematic review were followed. At the end of our search, we found a total of 617 eligible papers, 26 of which were included. Overall, there is limited medical literature available on this topic. The 2 main areas on which there is data to suggest that AS affect the GI tract include motility and the gut microbiome, though human data is lacking, and most of the currently available data is derived from in vivo studies. The effect on motility is mainly indirect via increased incretin secretion, though the clinical relevance of this finding is unknown as the downstream effect on motility was not studied. The specific effects of AS on the microbiome have been conflicting and the available studies have been heterogeneous in terms of the population studied and both the AS and doses evaluated. Further research is needed to assess whether AS could be a potential cause of GI symptoms. This is especially pertinent in patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a population in whom dietary interventions are routinely utilized as a management strategy.

"Artificial sweeteners (AS) are ubiquitous in food and beverage products, yet little is known about their effects on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract" BUT "there is limited medical literature available on this topic"...

What's wrong with us?
EB

actually work has been done. Justments have beenmade by authorities who have come to agree on the meaning of the studies as noted in this post: http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...r-your-kidneys&p=300411&viewfull=1#post300411

So not much is wrong with us apparently.

 

[untermensche]

If you are not qualified to evaluate the studies, then just go with the consensus opinion of those who conduct that kind of research.

It would be better to post research reference links.

It's not necessary and not likely to accomplish much.

In terms of medicine there are committees and societies and groups of endocrinologists, practitioners and clinicians, who have to make professional recommendations that constantly look at the research related to these sweeteners because these sweeteners are used by diabetics.

An ordinary practitioner uses the periodic recommendations from these groups. They don't usually read the primary research.

 

[fromderinside]

An ordinary practitioner uses the periodic recommendations from these groups. They don't usually read the primary research.

Their loss and testimony to the woeful state of education. Since I did post one of those society reviews, thank you. Oh, and I am a diabetic.

 

[ronburgundy]

This study in Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13793.htmlclaims to experimental data showing a causal impact of artificial sweeteners on glucose intolerance, and thus likely to diabetes.

Here we demonstrate that consumption of commonly used NAS formulations drives the development of glucose intolerance through induction of compositional and functional alterations to the intestinal microbiota.

On a separate note, other research has shown that artificial sweeteners wind up leading the brain to unlearn its association between sweet flavors and high calories. That association usually makes people who eat sugar feel full and limits their intake. Undermining that link means that when people who eat lots of fake sugars but then also eat real sugar, they eat more of it. IOW, if you drink tons of "sugar-free" soda (as many people do), you'll wind up consuming more real sugars in other parts of your diet.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying the opinion is right or wrong?

It is not an opinion based on thorough knowledge of all the primary research.

It is an opinion based on the opinion of other people who do know the research.

"The Handbook of Non-Prescription Drugs" is a research based text.

No. Opinion is always wrong. Less so when supported by studies.

No. Most opinion is grabbed from one's arse.

No. Second hand opinions are always wrong even whne supported by research.

Research is research. Summaries of research are reviews. If you can design an experiment from the material it might be satisfactory. If not go to primary sources.

Hard ass FDI retired here.

What are you babbling about?

Physicians follow practice guidelines that are OPINION drawn from the research.

That is the way modern medicine works.

Studies do not give us facts. They give data that needs to be interpreted. And interpretation is opinion.

 

[Perspicuo]

I find the YouTube channel Healthcare Triage very helpful with this and other subjects: