What I don’t get is why it took them decades to figure this out. Why have they been giving us sugar substitutes without understanding what they have been doing to us? Why were these approved for use in the first place?

  • Veedem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    5 days ago

    Sorbitol-degrading Aeromonas bacterial strains convert the sugar alcohol into a harmless bacterial byproduct.

    “However, if you don’t have the right bacteria, that’s when it becomes problematic. Because in those conditions, sorbitol doesn’t get degraded and as a result, it is passed on to the liver,” he said.

    Pretty big caveat but the sensationalist headline is all people will see.

  • medgremlin@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    5 days ago

    Copied from another posting of this article:

    The headline (and the article for that matter) are very sensationalist and I don’t think they’ve presented this in a balanced way. They are discussing how sorbitol behaves in zebrafish with limited data presented on human biochemistry, and they discuss it in a vacuum without quantifying the amount of sorbitol it takes to cause a problem. Yes, any substance in excess can be harmful, but the amount of sorbitol in food compared to the amount of high fructose corn syrup makes it the substantially lesser evil. The artificial sweeteners are vastly more potent than actual sugar, so you don’t need very much of it to get the same amount of sweetness. High fructose corn syrup is used in massive amounts in food and is much worse for you on the scale that either substance would be consumed.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      The scientific paper grift chain: get private funding from a company to publish a paper, use wild methodology, have the shit denounced and condemned by mainstream academia but not before every fucking news outlet in the world puts out a headline “BREAKING: SCIENTIFIC PAPER LINKS EATING SALAD TO BRAIN-EXPLODING DISEASE”

      Never mind that to get this evidence they had to inject a marmot with enough salad dressing directly into its skull to make it explode thousand-island grey matter across its cage.

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      There’s a whole cycle of perverse incentives with University Press.

      The underlying research is necessary and valuable but the marketing arm of universities blow everything out of proportion.

    • Xanthobilly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 days ago

      Comments like this are ignorant to evolution. Zebrafish are an extremely powerful model for drug development and toxicology.

      • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 days ago

        You are obviously correct.

        Nonetheless, the headline doesn’t even hint at the YEARS of research required before this becomes something people should worry about.

        • Xanthobilly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          What? I’m saying most research translates to humans and therefore people should cut back on sorbitol immediately or risk liver damage. Especially since people have very poor diets and do not maintain healthy gut flora. Are you seriously taking the stance that we should ignore this study and consume sorbitol? You first.

          • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Maybe

            Half baked (well done, but incomplete) research has said:

            -Eggs are dangerous to eat

            -Saccharine causes bladder cancer

            -Smoking is good for colds

            -The way to lose weight is to eat a low fat high carb diet.

            Maybe not

            Part of science is recognizing how strong your data are and not generating hysteria after every research paper.

            What REALLY sucks is that we can no longer rely on the CDC and NIH to make recommendations.

            So you are free to cut sorbitol out of your diet and it may turn out to be a good choice. If that change makes you and others obviously healthier, I am sure this research will be repeated and expanded and soon we will all look back and remember having had your opinion.

            Edited formatting for readability

            • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              …people used to think smoking was good for colds? Was it just menthols and the mint flavor?

              • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 days ago

                I think it was nicotine withdrawal for the people not smoking.

                To be fair I think Doctors testimonies were heavily considered until frighteningly recently.

      • kadu@scribe.disroot.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        Zebrafish are an extremely powerful model for drug development and toxicology.

        Sure. But there’s also a reason we don’t do in silico molecular dynamics, test toxicology on zebrafish, and boom done drug is on the market. Even extremely close organisms, with LCAs much earlier than the zebrafish, can have wildly different reactions to potential drugs and dietary elements.

        There are things you can feed a chimp but not a human.

      • KiwiTB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        Not at all, I’m just aware that this may not have any relevance to people, and right now it’s little more than click bait fodder.

      • KiwiTB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        5 days ago

        No, but I do expect people to assume this is based on humans which it isnt. If this research eventually gets there then we can see what it says, but for now it’s just another click bait article.

  • network_switch@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    5 days ago

    The article doesn’t read as very concerning. Too much of anything usually means bad. Under the right conditions anything can be bad. Figuring out what can be bad and when it can be bad can often take decades. Don’t stress too much on trying to optomize out anything that can do you harm in a diet. You’d have nothing left to eat and even the greatest collective of biologist getting together to make the greatest nutritional shake meal replacement would probably miss something that causes issues decades down the line or people drink too much and overdose

  • Jollyllama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    5 days ago

    Phew! Thank God I’m not a zebra fish, otherwise I’d need to seriously reconsider my diet high on sorbitol.

  • smegger@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 days ago

    Tbh I am betting that it’s gonna come out that they’ve known about the health risks all along, but they tried to ignore/cover it up for profit reasons.

  • gustofwind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 days ago

    I’m not sure why people expected all these sugar substitutes to be harmless

    The entire notion of sugar substitution in the first place should be such an insane concept to everyone but somehow we’ve instead created a diet soda and junk food entitlement

      • gustofwind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 days ago

        Ingesting chemicals to mimic sugar so you can have sweet things with no caloric consequences doesn’t seem insane to you?

          • gustofwind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            5 days ago

            Seems pretty ridiculous on face. Everyone is comfortable acknowledging how evil food and chemical companies are, and that is not new info

            This is the equivalent of believing tobacco companies about cigarettes and then being super surprised down the line that they either lied or didn’t do enough research

              • gustofwind@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                5 days ago

                Ingesting chemicals created by known bad actors in the food and chemical industry for the purpose of having those same bad actors sell you unlimited addictive sweets…

                I mean come on

                • Lumidaub@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  22
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  If your entire argument is “food industry bad”, that’s not very convincing. Do you somehow produce everything you eat yourself? Do you make your own clothes too, from resources you collected yourself? Did you collect the resources to make the device you post on yourself and put them together?

                • Elextra@literature.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  For me, I think there could be room for scientific advancement. I mean look at all we have today that we wouldn’t think possible decades ago. And people are still finding new foods. Food scientists are a thing. While there are bad actors out there sometimes if its really cool and really good, you can have a new product good for the public and profitable.

                  Like the other poster said, I’m no scientist by any means. Its not out of the question for our society to have artificial sweeteners that aren’t bad for us. There’s many out there. Maybe some are bad, maybe some okay for our health.

        • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          i drink chemical called water. i add a bunch of chemicals clumped up in bean form, then roast those beans, and grind them up sometimes and call it coffee. I sprinkle in a chemical, sucrose, we call sugar. It’s all chemicals. I love chemicals. You love chemicals. We are all chemicals. You know why? Because you are made of dna. Guess what DNA is made of? That’s right, chemicals baby. DNA needs more chemicals to make more copies of itself. Without more chemicals, it would have to break the laws of thermodynamics to replicate itself. More chemicals are needed.

          every time you think “they’re feeding us chemicals” as opposed to what? use synthetic or naturally occurring as a distinction or something. I am partial to lab juice.

        • Slotos@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 days ago

          Injecting chemicals just so you can have sweet things power your muscle performance without buildup of acetone doesn’t seem insane to you?

          Sugar is a chemical, you dumb fuck.

      • gustofwind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 days ago

        It is if you don’t eat too much

        But aspartame will literally damage the DNA in your colon because it’s inherently genotoxic to our cells

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          5 days ago

          The DNA damage comes from the formaldehyde that the body produces when metabolizing aspartame, but guess what? The body makes formaldehyde anyway, just from its natural metabolic processes. As long as you don’t consume too much it’s fine.

          The problem is over-consumption, which is the basis of having a consumer economy. If everyone ate less the food industry would collapse. They need us to overeat and if we ever stopped they’d have to reconcile with the fact that they can’t just keep growing their profits infinitely. Plus, when we overeat, they can make even more money by treating the sicknesses it causes. Win/Win!

        • xep@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Don’t consume either. Artificial sweeteners are UPFs and sugar in all its forms have no place in the human diet.

          • TheWeirdestCunt@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            5 days ago

            If you remove sugar in all its forms from your diet then you’d better forget about eating any plants whatsoever. Cellulose is sugar, carbs are sugar. Where do you think we get our energy from?

              • TheWeirdestCunt@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 days ago

                Lipids (fat) also gets converted into glucose before your body can use it. If we’re cutting out sugar in all forms then that counts too.

                • xep@discuss.online
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  That is also my understanding. We needn’t consume any exogenous sugars in any form, since the body is able to make all it needs.

                  If we’re cutting out sugar in all forms then that counts too.

                  That’s nothing near to what I said. To reiterate my statement, there is no requirement for sugar in the human diet.

          • gustofwind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 days ago

            Indeed, we should all be trying to reduce even sugar to 0

            If there is a food Overton window it’s a solar system away from a normal diet

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 days ago

    Give up sugar. Try it, and tell me it isn’t addictive.

    Give up all sweeteners, because keeping them just makes you crave more, making it much harder.

    I gave up sugar, and most fruits except berries. It made staying at my ideal weight MUCH easier. I really don’t need to think about it, I weigh myself every few weeks, and I’m always at my ideal weight. Exercise is the other part of the equation, I think we need to do both.