Artificial Sweeteners and Brain Aging: What We Know So Far

[Arnold]

Artificial Sweeteners and Brain Aging: What We Know So Far

Artificial Sweeteners and Brain Aging: What We Know So Far

 

[Arnold]

I only use Splenda personally.

 

[NextThursday]

Artificial Sweeteners and Brain Aging: What We Know So Far

Artificial Sweeteners and Brain Aging: What We Know So Far

The article mentions that the cohort that drank lots of artificial sweeteners experienced "62% faster" mental decline over time, which it equates to roughly "1.6 years additional aging". The study followed the 12,000 participants for 8 years. This math doesn't add up. Either they're saying the group that drank very little sweetener only aged 2.58 years over the course of an 8 year study, or the additional 1.6 years isn't a 62% faster decline. 162% of 8 years would be 12.96 years of aging total (an increase of 4.96 over the baseline of 8). An increase of 1.6 years (to 9.6 total) over an 8 year baseline would be an increase of 20%.

The other, very real, possibility is that I've simply misunderstood what I read (if so, let me know).

Additionally, in a large, distant observational study like this it's very difficult to control for other, correlated lifestyle and health variables (noise from unrelated variables hopefully wash out in a sample size this large, but correlated behaviors will still show up in the data). How likely was the artificial sweetener group to be drinking energy drinks? What impact does that have on sleep and neurological aging? What other health focused choices are likely being made by the people making the considerable effort to avoid artificial sweeteners? How do those choices affect them positively. None of this is to knock the researchers, of course. it's a difficult question to design and conduct a study for.

 

[Arnold]

IDK bro, the article was written by Matt Weik.

 

[NextThursday]

IDK bro, the article was written by Matt Weik.

Gotcha. I was moreso asking rhetorically to illustrate some of the questions you would have to answer about the confounding variables before you can draw any solid conclusions from that data.

Thank you for sharing the article

 

[McPriimate]

Bit of this, bit of that. The 62% (by my read anyway) was that the 1.6 years aging happened from a 62% faster decline than the non-sweetener folks (so like a year decline vs 1.6 years - making those number up but the rate is what was 62% great not the absolute number of years).

The confound with these types of studies is typically also that a portion of the population has a shit diet/lifestyle and drinks diet soda alongside it to try to compensate (good on them I suppose). It does affect things like gut microbiome composition and to a lesser extent insulin secretion in the cephalic phase (the insulin you get from something tasting sweet rather than from signals from sugar in your diet/blood). So, lots of confounds but still some statistically significant if pretty minor effects even after controlling for what they can (diet, exercise, etc. - but numerical controlling only goes so far)

Not medical advice, but my overall take is that there isn’t a smoking gun here and if you have your other shit sorted some Diet Coke is juuuuuust fine. As long as your not ordering it with your big boy burger and large ass fries

But it could be that all that diet soda I drink is impairing my cognitive abilities, so caveat emptor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NextThursday]

That makes sense, they’re aging 1.6 years to every year the other group ages. The numbers work like that. Good call.

 

[macromaster]

These observational studies always ignore that people drink diet soda with garbage.

 

[Meetketchup]

Observational study - pointless

Need controlled and randomized.

 

[Vexor]

Bit of this, bit of that. The 62% (by my read anyway) was that the 1.6 years aging happened from a 62% faster decline than the non-sweetener folks (so like a year decline vs 1.6 years - making those number up but the rate is what was 62% great not the absolute number of years).

The confound with these types of studies is typically also that a portion of the population has a shit diet/lifestyle and drinks diet soda alongside it to try to compensate (good on them I suppose). It does affect things like gut microbiome composition and to a lesser extent insulin secretion in the cephalic phase (the insulin you get from something tasting sweet rather than from signals from sugar in your diet/blood). So, lots of confounds but still some statistically significant if pretty minor effects even after controlling for what they can (diet, exercise, etc. - but numerical controlling only goes so far)

Not medical advice, but my overall take is that there isn’t a smoking gun here and if you have your other shit sorted some Diet Coke is juuuuuust fine. As long as your not ordering it with your big boy burger and large ass fries

But it could be that all that diet soda I drink is impairing my cognitive abilities, so caveat emptor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree, the 62% is a rate difference, not years lost, and that gets mixed up a lot. The confounds are the big caveat, since controlling for diet only goes so far. Diet Coke with a decent lifestyle seems fine to me too, haha.

 

[McPriimate]

All in, I’m betting it’s easier on the body and mind than, say, tren (I know that’s not the comparison - just a joke y’all)

For real though, prolly even more benign than the modest, very well controlled/monitored cycle I’m on now. Guessing it’s just noise compared to the big neuro/longevity/health levers most people don’t think too hard on. Sleep, overall diet, alcohol/weed/other use, exercise (and, although I hate to say it, supraphysiologic hormones are prolly in this bucket)

I like to live on the edge - I have a long drive today and I’m taking a Diet Coke with me and I’m even gonna speed (although not more than 9 mph over or you’ll get a ticket in these parts)