Diet soda impact on blood glucose

#1

OK, I know most of you think Diet sodas are terrible but I drink my share (and yours). Today I got a large DDP from Sonic that tasted a bit more “cherry” than normal and when I did my blood sugar an hour later it was 140 compared my usual somewhere in the 90s. I am guessing some teenage idiot gave me the regular stuff but can diet sodas shoot up your blood sugars? I just dont think they should be able to… I am planning on writing this off to bad luck.

(Robin) #2

Sounds like someone gave you the real deal or almost gave you a cherry coke. who knows.

(Joey) #3

Yeah, aside from getting the leaded when you asked for unleaded, there’s the potential for something else to happen when you drink sugar-free “sweet” drinks…

There’s a brain connection with taste buds, too. Many of us have brains (okay, all of us do), but more seriously, many of our brains trigger an insulin response to the taste sensation associated with sweet.

As a result, you might get a mini insulin spike even without any carbs in your digestive system. Ironically, this would actually tend to lower your blood glucose level (to the extent you’re not completely insulin resistant).

But one of the primary objectives of cutting out the carbs is to tame the insulin cycle and regain greater insulin sensitivity. If you’re one of those people whose insulin responds to certain artificial sweeteners, you’re not letting that readjustment happen.

One approach you might consider is to do a little test I did on myself some time ago… Drink a highly concentrated shot of a particular artificial sweetener and test your glucose level immediately before, and then regularly (e.g., every 30 minutes) thereafter for a few hours. See if your glucose drops markedly. If so, one might infer it’s due to an isolated insulin reaction to the sweetness sensation (because it couldn’t have been a carbohydrate issue if you didn’t ingest carbs, right?).

Onward!

#4

I never touched a diet soda until I started Keto. Now, I have one with dinner a couple of times a week. I never really concerned myself with an insulin spike since I am having it with my meal.

#5

The diet ones won’t, but if a real soda and it having extra cherry only bumped you from somewhere in the 90’s to 140 I’d say you’re pretty insulin sensitive, congrats!

#6

Especially since it was a route 44

(Robin) #7

You’re good with words, Joey. Not only do I usually “get” you and learn something, but I enjoy the read.
Do with that what you will.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #8

By law in the U.S., artificial sweeteners may not be sold if they raise serum glucose. Manufacturers are required to produce data to prove that they do not raise serum glucose before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will permit the product to be sold.

So whatever caused your glucose to rise, it wasn’t the aspartame in your “diet” soda. You probably got the real thing, because they were out of syrup for the diet, or the waiter didn’t pay attention.

You might speak to the manager to remind him or her about the seriousness of this kind of carelessness. I once was given a cup of real coffee instead of decaf after a meal, served by a young man who couldn’t be bothered to get it right. As I told the restaurant manager the following day, the only problem for me was not getting to sleep until three a.m., but that cup of real coffee would have put my mother in the hospital. (She had a very serious heart arrythmia from drinking caffeinated beverages.)

As Joey pointed out in his post, we do have anecdotal evidence to suggest that any given artificial sweetener might have an effect on any given person’s insulin (not glucose), but it’s manifested by a drop in serum glucose without a preceding rise. The FDA does not care a whit for insulin in the diabetic, so it doesn’t demand test data from manufacturers, who of course therefore refuse to pay for it.

(Joey) #9

Perhaps the US authorities (such as they are) should prohibit artificial sweeteners that lower serum glucose?

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #10

There don’t appear to be any that do so reliably. What the testimony of various forum members suggests is that there are a few people who have an insulin response to one or another of the artificial sweeteners, but they don’t appear to respond that way to any of the others. And many, many people have no discernible response to any of the sweeteners they’ve tried.

If any artificial sweetener had a reliable insulin-stimulating effect, that would have been picked up in the glucose trial data that manufacturers are required to submit to the USFDA before the product can legally be marketed. The FDA doesn’t want such sweeteners raising the glucose of diabetics, but it also doesn’t want a product on the market that causes hypoglycaemia in the people who use it.

(Joey) #11

@PaulL My semi-snarky comment was tongue-in-cheek, but your points are all well-taken.

Some time ago, I’d posted the results of my own time series serum glucose reaction to a heavy dose of 100% pure stevia extract on an empty stomach. It happened to have been zilch, nada. YGMV*

( * - Your Glucose May Vary)

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #12

Sorry, I’ve been sick and my snark-ometer seems to be broken at the moment. :grin:

And yeah, I vaguely remember you doing some tests and admiring you for your dedication to the data.

But to reiterate for the sake other people coming across this thread, just because someone didn’t have a problem with stevia doesn’t mean they wouldn’t with erythritol, aspartame, or sodium cyclamate. Nor does it mean they would, either, of course.

(Joey) #13

No worries … hope it’s nothing serious and that you’re feeling better soon. And once again able to smell the snark in the air.

(Joey) #14

I do wonder: If one’s glucose shot from the 90s to 140, how would this signify insulin sensitivity? I would’ve assumed this kind of response would more likely be a sign of some degree of insulin resistance.

If one’s muscles and organs were highly insulin sensitive, wouldn’t one’s blood serum glucose levels (i.e., glucose in the bloodstream not being absorbed through muscles and organs) be much more moderated?

I have no data under my belt on this, but I would have assumed that jumping from 90 to 140 illustrates a less-than-ideal ability to moderate serum glucose… a sign of insulin resistance, not sensitivity.

(Marianne) #15

WHat happened when you did that? I am curious as I usually drink one diet pop a day.

(Marianne) #16

How do you know all this stuff!?

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #17

I don’t think it means either insulin-sensitivity or -resistance. It’s a response to ingested sugar.

Remember, sucrose is half glucose, so a hit of sugar will of necessity elevate serum glucose. How the insulin responds to that hit is the indicator of resistance or sensitivity. If a low, proportionate insulin response is sufficient to lower the serum glucose, that is an indication of insulin-sensitivity. If a disproportionately high insulin response is required to achieve the same effect, that is an indication of insulin-resistance.

The problem is that testing one’s insulin level requires a radioimmunoassay that cannot be done at home, so we are basically in the dark, here. The best test of insulin response is an oral glucose tolerance test, which measures the insulin level at baseline, and at intervals over a few hours. The pattern of insulin levels is what reveals sensitivity or resistance.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #18

I have a knack for remembering useless facts.

(Joey) #19

If one took a glucose tolerance test and serum glucose shot from 90 to 140, wouldn’t that be consistent with insulin resistance?

I appreciate that serum glucose levels are a shadow cast by insulin levels (and sensitivity vs resistance thereof). But I’m still struggling to see how such a large swing in glucose would be consistent with a finding of insulin sensitivity. Am I still missing something?

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #20

Well, I may be missing your point, but I don’t see how a rise in serum glucose indicates insulin-resistance.

When we eat sugar (or even other carbohydrates), there is inevitably an increase in our serum glucose, right?

And then there is the insulin response that is intended to bring it back down, right?

My understanding is that “insulin-resistance” refers to how much insulin the pancreas needs to release in response to a rise in serum glucose. If all tissues are insulin-sensitive, then a smaller amount of insulin will lower the serum glucose. If tissues are insulin-resistant, it will require a larger amount of insulin to do the job. That’s my understanding of how insulin-resistance works.

So I’m not seeing how the initial rise in serum glucose says anything at all about insulin-resistance. But it appears I am missing something in what you are saying.