Sucralose decreases insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects: a randomized controlled trial

(Todd Allen) #1

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1093/ajcn/nqy152

Results: Individuals assigned to sucralose consumption showed
a significant decrease in insulin sensitivity with a median (IQR)
percentage change of −17.7% (−29.3% to −1.0%) in comparison
to −2.8% (−30.7% to 40.6%) in the control group (P= 0.04). An
increased acute insulin response to glucose from 577 mU · L-1 · min
(350–1040 mU · L-1 · min) to 671 mU · L-1 · min (376–1010 mU · L-1 ·
min) (P = 0.04) was observed in the sucralose group for participants
with adequate adherence.

Conclusions: Sucralose may have effects on glucose metabolism,
and our study complements findings previously reported in other
trials. Further studies are needed to confirm the decrease in insulin
sensitivity and to explore the mechanisms for these metabolic
alterations.

(Karen) #2

Grrr my sweetener of choice.

K

(Todd Allen) #3

On the bright side they were using a LOT of sucralose, 15% of the ADI. The ADI is 5 mg/kg or roughly 165 packets a day, so they were using about 25 packets/day.

(Brian) #4

I have been known to use a packet or two at a restaurant when I have my coffee, but only if I’ve forgotten or didn’t have opportunity to bring along my Truvia. I’d be surprised if I had more than maybe 10 packets over the course of a whole year. It’s not something I use on a regular basis. But I’m not gonna get too worked up over the occasional packet.

#5

I do think that suclarose stalled my weight loss. at a time I was using Diet Pepsi (suclarose version, which now is back to aspartame). not much was moving weight wise despite being in keto.
then I switched to erythritol and stevia based drinks and no problem since then.

(Karen) #6

Whew! I only use for squirts of Splenda zero per day

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #7

Bear in mind also that the results are not that robust, with a p = 0.04 and n = 66 (if I’m reading it right). A much higher number of participants would have helped a great deal. In physics, results with p > 0.001 wouldn’t be considered worth discussing.

Alas! Such are the perils of nutrition research. :bacon:

(Central Florida Bob ) #8

Yeah, this is just about as good as nutrition research gets and it’s an order of magnitude less convincing than “good research” in the hard sciences. If there was 600 subjects instead of 61 and if p was .001, it would be easier to accept. Of course, the effect could be stronger than what showed up but the random effects made it look better. It’s a short test, done in an unusual setting (going to the lab for intravenous testing), so I’ve just got to wonder what it says about long term use of Sucralose.

As usual, we’re left with “half a measurement is better than none”.