Sweeteners Can Harm Cognitive Health Equivalent To 1.6 Years of Aging, Study Finds
- Reference: 0178998474
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/09/03/230240/sweeteners-can-harm-cognitive-health-equivalent-to-16-years-of-aging-study-finds
- Source link:
> Sweeteners' association with cognitive decline is of such concern that consumers should instead use either tagatose, a natural sweetener, or alternatives such as honey or maple syrup, the researchers said. They looked at the impact of seven sweeteners on the health of the study's participants -- 12,772 civil servants in Brazil, with an average age of 52 -- who were followed up for on average eight years. Participants completed questionnaires detailing their food and drink intake over the previous year, and later underwent tests of their cognitive skills such as verbal fluency and word recall.
>
> People who consumed the most sweeteners experienced declines in their thinking and memory skills 62% faster than those with the lowest intake, the researchers found. This was "the equivalent of about 1.6 years of aging," the researchers said. Consumption of combined and individual LNCs, particularly aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame K, erythritol, sorbitol and xylitol, was associated with cognitive loss. "Daily consumption of LNCs was associated with accelerated decline in memory, verbal fluency and global cognition," the authors say in their paper, [2]published in the American medical journal Neurology . However, the trend was only observed in participants under the age of 60. That shows that middle-aged adults need to be encouraged to use fewer sweeteners, they added.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/food/2025/sep/03/sweeteners-can-harm-cognitive-health-equivalent-to-16-years-of-ageing-study-finds
[2] https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000214023
Methods and Controls (Score:5, Informative)
The methodology is a bit sketchy. It was a self-reporting questionnaire, which the researchers used for a calculation.
No control group is mentioned, so -by default- sugar, corn sugar (HFCS), and "natural" sweeteners are given a pass.
Re:Methods and Controls (Score:5, Insightful)
The research was done on 12,000 Brazilian civil servants. Some used artificial sweeteners, and some didn't. Those who didn't are the control.
It isn't a perfect "gold standard" double-blind experiment, but a 62% difference in cognitive decline between the two groups is hard to hand-wave away by nitpicking about methodology.
Re: (Score:2)
> It isn't a perfect "gold standard" double-blind experiment, but a 62% difference in cognitive decline between the two groups is hard to hand-wave away by nitpicking about methodology.
There's been several similar studies and they all suffer from the same failing - they don't take into account that people who have a preference for sweet foods probably don't have the best diet in the first place.
Sugar substitutes are something of a rare victory in humanity's attempt to cheat our biology. Most low calorie ingredients either have taste issues or, as was the case with Olestra, some rather nasty side effects. So, because we don't have "diet cheeseburgers" that taste mostly like the real thin
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a question of mind over matter, or will power.
I have a friend (overweight) who has sometimes shard some of his favourite snacks, some sort of caramel sandwiched between waffles dusted with extra sugar. I literally couldn't eat it because it was so sweet and he found them addictively delicious.
I like fried food a lot but I do also max out after a few meals in a row and crave green veg.
A lot of people like to claim they are especially awesome with willpower of iron and that's why they are fine and ev
Sweet is addictive (Score:2)
Sugar and sweet things are straight up addictive [1]https://www.uclahealth.org/new... [uclahealth.org] . Not metaphorically, literally. This is why people talk about willpower and sweets, you likely just never had the habit. I know just looking at my own personal anecdote I used to crave sweets when I was young and broke the habit by going mostly without sweeteners entirely. Fast forward to today and while I do eat sweet stuff a bit I haven't had a sweets craving in years.
[1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/kicking-your-sugar-addiction-will-lead-to-better-health
Re: (Score:2)
> sugar, corn sugar (HFCS), and "natural" sweeteners are given a pass.
didn't rtfa, but the point i would make is that our body doesn't need sweeteners at all. any sweetener is bad for you considering the highly concentrated doses we run today. even an excess of natural orange juice is bad.
how bad is bad? well, my body doesn't need weed either, and it is bad for me, but my brain might compromise now & then.
just callibrate "now&then" sensibly and you'll be fine. everyone dies.
Re: (Score:2)
> The methodology is a bit sketchy. It was a self-reporting questionnaire, which the researchers used for a calculation.
> No control group is mentioned, so -by default- sugar, corn sugar (HFCS), and "natural" sweeteners are given a pass.
I think pretty much everyone is aware by now that even "natural" sugar in its various forms ruins health, so I'm not sure I agree that it's being given a pass here. The more important take is that people who are trying to avoid the perils of sugar by using substitutes may be doing more damage to themselves than they would by sticking with the stuff our parents and grandparents used. Also, with regard to the self-reporting, see the important caveat in bold below.
The things I've been reading in the last few m
Again with the sugar alcohols (Score:2)
Sugar alcohols are rightfully demonized for the extreme gastrointestinal unpleasantness they can sometimes cause, and when you're on the toilet praying to whichever deity you believe in for the pain to go away, you might be inclined to imagine that only mankind could come up with something so awful - but the truth is that sugar alcohols are actually naturally occurring.
My second gripe with this study is that when you've got such a wide range of sweeteners of vasty different chemical makeup resulting in the
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: Erythritol doesn't cause that same level of stomach upset as other. It's not a perfect 1:1 substitute for sugar, but it's much less of a trigger for bathroom issues.
Re: (Score:2)
> FYI: Erythritol doesn't cause that same level of stomach upset as other. It's not a perfect 1:1 substitute for sugar, but it's much less of a trigger for bathroom issues.
Sadly - as per my earlier post - erythritol is a big health risk. It has been found in clinical studies to significantly increase blood clotting ability - thereby increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke - for up to three days after consumption.
That utterly sucks, because erythritol with added stevia is very much like sugar, and you can even bake with it. IIRC, I even made creme brulee with it once. But everything I've been reading lately tells me it's a health disaster - and as a heart attack survivo
Re: (Score:2)
> the truth is that sugar alcohols are actually naturally occurring.
So are amatoxins and cyanide. That doesn't mean it's okay to extract them and put them in your food.
Re: (Score:2)
I consume xylitol and trehalose every day, no gastrointestinal issues. If you have issues, might want to look into butyrate, probiotics like reuteri, prebiotics like sugar beet root powder, adding navy beans (increases Akkermansia muciniphila), and other plant based supplements like curcumin.
Re: (Score:2)
> I consume xylitol and trehalose every day, no gastrointestinal issues.
Not to sound like a broken record, but I feel this is important: sugar alcohols have been found in clinical trials to significantly enhance blood clotting, and therefore increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. Here's one corroborating link: [1]https://health.clevelandclinic... [clevelandclinic.org]
I used to use erythritol with stevia added, and found it to be VERY close in taste and sweetness to regular sugar. But I've stopped using it because of the dangers, which are even higher for me as a heart attack survivor.
[1] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-sugar-alcohols
Spurious (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, what is more likely? That sweeteners harm your brain, but stop doing it after 60, or that maybe working age people with the very highest levels of sweetener consumption have some other characteristic in common which might influence it?
So many health studies of the British newspaper variety don't even try to make a causal argument.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly! Another case of correlation != causation.
1.6 years per what? (Score:2)
I hate it when people say "my computer used a kilowatt of energy". Same here. 1.6 years per what ? I believe it's per 8 years of the study. So annualized that's an acceleration of (9.6/8)^(1/8) = 2.3%/year. Now, in real life it's probably not cumulative like that. Their study group was middle-aged. It's quite possible that consumption brings cognitive capacity down to a lower baseline and stays there. But the 2.3% number gives you a flavor of the acceleration rate.
Re: (Score:1)
1.21 Jiggawatts - the surge of power to jump start a time machine from a lightning bolt in a vehicle traveling 88miles/hour.
Which, do the math, is coincidentally the potential surging through Lorraine's lady parts threatening to create a time paradox of her son being his own father. And if your weren't high-fiving that possibility, did you really understand the oedipal nature of the screenplay from Lea Thompson's perspective?
It would make much more sense to measure Jiggajoules, kWh is a silly unit - it has
Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
> that artificial sweeteners like aspartame, saccharin, and sugar alcohols
What, all of them? All the different classes? With very different chemical compositions and mechanisms?
Even if the correlation were valid - and I'm dubious - that doesn't make any sense. You have to have a mechanism, not just some correlation.
That the use of very different sweeteners had some correlation suggests some confounding factor - something else these people are doing, or some characteristic of them - not some biochemical action caused by these very different sweeteners.
Re: (Score:2)
Offhand I can imagine that a sweet taste kicks off metabolic activities in the gut that, absent actual sugar they were anticipating, have odd downstream effects. I vaguely recall hearing some of them can trigger an insulin release. I agree that you'd expect to see some differences in ones that aren't metabolized at all and ones that just can't become fat.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree, this whole study sounds very strange.
It is also very strange that it is SPECIFICALLY recommending a strange new sweetener that is very uncommon.
Funded by either that sweetener, or the sugar industry, most likely.
Re:Um, what? (Score:4, Interesting)
> You have to have a mechanism, not just some correlation
Yes, and correlational studies are the first step in getting there. When scientists were developing germ theory, they had good evidence for how germs operated, grew, and were transmitted, but since they were so small they'd never seen one and lacked details on the mechanism. But they at least knew where to focus their attention. With artificial sweeteners, and given their high rate of consumption, there's probably something worth investigating but this study by itself is certainly not enough to remove those products from the market or to say you should never eat any of them, ever. Looking at the study, it's overpowered (like many nutrition studies), meaning that this makes them more likely to find an affect when one isn't really present in the data. And many of their 95% confidence intervals are close to zero, again suggesting to me that some of their findings are perhaps due to chance rather than a real difference in the groups they are studying. There's also a goofy confounding effect of diabetes in the study:
> diabetes modified the association between LCNS intake and cognitive decline. Stratified analyses showed that the association between consumption of combined LNCSs and cognitive decline was stronger in participants with diabetes than in participants without diabetes. Although consumption of aspartame, saccharin, and acesulfame k was associated with a faster decline in memory and global cognition in participants with diabetes, it was not associated with cognitive decline in participants without diabetes. On the contrary, consumption of erythritol and sorbitol was associated with faster cognitive decline in participants without diabetes but not in participants with diabetes.
So, in other words, if you don't have diabetes you can drink all the aspartame that you want, but avoid erythritol and sorbitol; but if you do have diabetes, aspartame is bad but erythritol and sorbitol are okay...? But they also noted other studies that found an association between artificial sweeteners and becoming diabetic...but this is also true of sugar consumption, (which they did not study in this particular study), so it is not clear if it is better to switch to sugar for your sweeteners (probably not), or just not eat anything that is sweetened with anything at all (FWIW, the study suggests using "applesauce, honey, maple syrup, or coconut sugar" for your sweeteners)?
Re: Daily dose of fear mongering... (Score:2)
Yes. Look up antioxidants.
I consume lots of sweetened drinks (Score:3)
I wanted to write something about it but forgot what it was.
Bad recommendations (Score:2)
Honey is no better than sugar, what terrible advice
We know that refined sugar in whatever form is bad for our health, particularly causing diabetes and contributing to heart disease. It doesn't matter what form the sugar takes, corn syrup, cane sugar or honey, just because it is 'natural' does not make it any better, instead of being refined by humans in a factory, honey is sugar that is refined by bees.
So if sweeteners really do cause a decline in cognitive ability (rather than simply being a correlation)
Re: (Score:2)
> Honey is no better than sugar, what terrible advice
You definitely do not want to give it to children. Lots of hormones in bee puke.
> The trouble is things that are bad for us are generally enjoyable, and nobody likes being told what they should be doing, especially when they know full well that their choices are harmful. If people could be convinced with the facts people wouldn't drink alcohol, smoke or take recreational drugs, all things that are far worse than sugar, but still very popular among people
> There is no easy fix, it takes people to want to make these lifestyle choices.
The overarching question becomes if you do everything "right" - which is surprisingly different depending on what different experts on the matter consider right, life has the same outcome.
Long ago, I decided the only way to live was moderation in all things. I'll have the occasional shot of bourbon - like one shot twice a year - eat veggie burgers once in a while, and enjoy some ice cream. The rest of the time, I try to eat
Re: (Score:1)
I came to the same conclusion years ago. American culture especially glorifies extreme behavior in literally all things. Anything you do, you must take it to a crazy extreme, or else you're not *really* an American, right? "What do you mean you can only eat a 32 ounce steak?!?!?" Or, "hey YouTube, today I'm going to tell you that eating meat every day for every meal is the most healthy diet out there! Don't for get to smash that like button and subscribe! And by the way when I don't want my data compromised
Re: (Score:2)
> The outbreak of refined sugars has really been the downfall of our health and well being. People can't seem to make the right decision here not to consume a quarter pound of sugar every day. If artificial sweeteners accelerate cognitive decline by 1.6 years, that is probably a better outcome than dying of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, and the myriad of other diseases that come from over-consumption of sugar.
Which reminds me of the effect that money has on the so called food pyramid. We had a food pyramid that somehow diminished sugar and promoted fat as unhealthy. [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org].
IMO, it also promoted carbohydrates at the expense of protein.
My parents, who had a very high intake of protein and fat, should have been dead long before I was born, but there they were - low cholesterol, normal blood pressure, were not obese or even overweight, and lived good long lives. It isn't a big sample,
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
Re: (Score:2)
>> Honey is no better than sugar, what terrible advice
> You definitely do not want to give it to children. Lots of hormones in bee puke.
It's not due to hormones. Honey can contain Clostridium bacteria spores, which if they become active in a child's gut, can give them botulism poisoning. It's realy only infants less than a year old though, or two years if you want to be really cautious.
What about COVID? (Score:2)
So if it is an eight-year study, that means it was also spans COVID-19.
One of the know side effects can be "brain fog."
I didn't see that in the preview, and IMHO would be a giant glaring mistake. I'd love to know who got it, what strain (the O.G. was definitely much more malicious), and how hard it hit them.
Fuzzy Head (Score:2)
All I know is whenever I drink artificial sweeteners I get a fuzzy head. Probably nothing to do with this and probably no long term effects, I just don't like it so I avoid them.
Re: (Score:2)
> All I know is whenever I drink artificial sweeteners I get a fuzzy head. Probably nothing to do with this and probably no long term effects, I just don't like it so I avoid them.
Is aspartame the worst for you? Some people have bad reactions to it.
Why sugar itself isn't included? (Score:2)
So what is the effect of eating as much sugar instead with similar/equivalent sweetness? That could actually provide useful information to people choosing to use or not use artificial sweeteners.
Well, maybe take a look at who pays for this study may give some hints...
Re: (Score:2)
> So what is the effect of eating as much sugar instead with similar/equivalent sweetness? That could actually provide useful information to people choosing to use or not use artificial sweeteners.
Eating too much sugar is just as bad and can cause problems as well. Try looking at the nutrition labels on packages... compare a "fat free" version of a product to its regular counterpart. Fats bring a lot of flavor to food... so making it "fat free" means they make it bland. The only way to bring flavor back is to add sugar, so that nutrition and ingredients label will reflect that sugar was added. Sugar is addictive too. I refuse to drink "diet" or "no sugar" drinks. I'd rather get 100% fruit juice
Re: (Score:2)
Sugar is addictive too.
Oh really? I can quit any time I want, I just choose not to!
You doctors go into a room and decide for me pleas (Score:1)
Can't use sugar or honey because it causes diabetes. Can't use sweeteners because they duck you up. For Christ's sake.
Sweeteners make you a bit dumber faster (Score:2)
Sugar make you fat, diabetic and shorten your life by many years.
I'll take sweeteners any day.
The problem with self-reporting studies (Score:2)
I once agreed to participate in a medical study after undergoing a routine medical procedure. I was quite surprised at what I was asked, and how I was asked it.
It wasn't just a matter of self-reporting my information, but also that the survey designers presupposed that I would have a reliable memory of things I had done or eaten going back 6 months to several years, and could provide a meaningful average value. Some questions were asked repeatedly in slightly different ways, perhaps to see if my reponses
One thing seems to be left off of the list (Score:1)
Splenda/sucralose. But I'm not going to waste $39 for 24H access to the article.
Swapping (Score:2)
All fakes sweeteners do is continue a person's sweets addiction by swapping one thing humans didnt evolve to eat lots of (sugar) and replace it with something even more foreign to our diet (fake sweeteners).It shouldn't surprise anyone problems are found with this.
Coke in Brazil (Score:2)
The problem the study identified isn't sweeteners, it's the fact that so many of the participants drink Coke.
I would like to see the cognitive increase from those that drink Mt Dew instead. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
> The problem the study identified isn't sweeteners, it's the fact that so many of the participants drink Coke.
> I would like to see the cognitive increase from those that drink Mt Dew instead. :-)
Come on mods, get this ranked higher!