This is news to me. I was under the impression that: 1) artificial sweeteners were a safe substitute for sugar for people with diabetes and 2) diabetes came from excess sugar consumption which wasn't a problem with artificial sweeteners.
[1] https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-...
All these studies just show an association, but can not prove the direction of causality. For whatever reason, the idea that diabetic and overweight people deliberately seek out zero sugar sweeteners so that they can enjoy sweetness without making their situation worse just doesn't seem like a plausible explanation to them.
Personally, if you can't definitively prove something is bad for you after 45+ years of research, I just don't care anymore. People can occasionally drink Coke regular without issue, I wouldn't be worried. Most of the time, diabetes is not caused by merely occasional consumption of sugars.
If a sweetener behaves like sugar as far as taste is concerned, that is it fools one part of your body into reacting as though it is sugar, it seems plausible that it might also fool other parts of the system.
Zero calorie sweeteners by definition cannot cause insulin responses.
I can easily verify this by using my families blood glucose monitors before and after I’ve had a diet soda. I’ve done this several times and I have zero increase in blood glucose levels from a Diet Coke. It actually goes down since time passes between me starting the drink and finishing it.
The obsession from even purportedly good doctors with trying to find reasons to vilify anything that might taste good while not spiking glycemic loads is horrifying to witness.
I’m extremely upset, especially as someone with two diabetic parents and a history of diabetes. Both parents are diabetic because they’re fat as hell.
That is what you expect if you raise your insulin, insulin reduce blood glucose, so if the sweetener increased insulin without adding sugar then it reduces blood glucose.
> goes down since time passes between me starting the drink and finishing it.
Blood sugar levels are stable unless you eat sugar, they don't go down over time, unless you do something to add insulin to make it go down or add sugar to make it go up. Here it sounds like you adding insulin when drinking that and thus making it go down.
If the insulin index is 0 then per definition it doesn't increase insulin, yes, but the glycemic index being 0 doesn't say it about insulin, as your post suggest, so your post was definitely wrong. I was not wrong pointing out that your post was wrong.
It has been shown for decades that this association exists, it's establishing cause, and causal direction that's hard. Does consuming artificial sweeteners cause diabetes? Or does having diabetes cause the consuming of artificial sweeteners?
Not all diabetes is from sugar.
This is a common misconception. Type 1 diabetes cases are more often acquired with no family history, there are some genetic associations but it is actually less strong than Type 2 (insulin resistance/diet related diabetes) where family history is a substantial risk factor. Pregnancy (gestational) diabetes isn’t just pregnancy related either as it is more likely in those with metabolic syndrome/obesity and is associated with type 2 as well, so it is also partially diet related.
> Not all diabetes is from sugar.
I would go further and just say no diabetes is “from sugar”, it’s just a completely uselessly simplistic way of looking at it (I know this was in response to GP comment). It’s not like low carb diets even prevent some people from getting type 2.
Type 2 diabetes is a disease of acquired insulin resistance for which excessive consumption of high glycemic index food (eg processed food with high sugar content) is a major risk factor, but not the only one.
I see that, but I have not made a study
Your body always has some glucose metabolism going, even if you’re in ketosis, etc there’s always “sugar metabolism” - your blood glucose doesn’t drop to 0 unless you’re dead. It’s simply not a useful abstraction to link sugar consumption to diabetes as implied by the GP. And ultimately diabetes is defined as a condition of dysregulation of sugar in the blood.
In fact, these days most well cared for people with controlled diabetes don’t have sugar in the pee unless they’re taking a medication specifically to put it there.
Also if you want your mind blown and why you can’t diagnose based on etymology alone (at least not without a sense of humor) - lookup “diabetes insipidus”. Literally means “sweet pee that isn’t sweet”. The historic reason is that excessive urination is common to both.