Talk:Sucralose

Undue weight given to possible weight gain

This is something that's been barely studied, and it was a sexy headline in the popular press. This is not something that has to do with sucralose specifically, yet an unduly large portion of this article is dedicated to it. That content might merit a mention here, but I don't think it belongs in the lead. Any mention should lead to the sugar substitute article, which itself mentions "a possible association of routine consumption with weight gain and risk of heart disease," referring to the same source given in this sucralose article. One meta-analysis suggesting a possible association is not worthy of an encyclopedia. It is fear-mongering, and we should not support that.

The gold-standard studies (randomized control trials, RCTs) did not show an effect, only the cohort studies did, and the average BMI difference was 0.77. This is not a matter of obesity. This is a matter of a clinically meaningless amount of body fat that was not likely added because of the artificial sweeteners. It was more likely because of the lifestyles of people who are most likely to use them, or some other factor that was not measured. Or it's just a statistical blip. Here's a telltale quote from the source: "Overall, there was limited evidence for the effect of nonnutritive sweeteners on BMI, with 3 long-term cohort studies suggesting a modest increase in BMI that was not confirmed in 2 RCTs." If the RCTs don't confirm the data, it's probably no good. It reads like that through the article's weight section as well, though only statistical significances are given, not actual weight differences or anything clinically meaningful. Remember, statistical significance is not clinical difference. Remember also that correlation is not causation.

The biggest factor in the discussion of removing this information from this article is that neither sucralose nor Splenda is mentioned in the source as a nonnutritive sweetener used in any of the studies analyzed. The source does not establish relevance to this article. Dcs002 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

After nine days with no comment or response, I made the changes to the article so the information given is in line wit the source. Given the tenuous nature of the evidence and that the magnitude of the effect, if real, is very small, I removed it from the lead as well. It gives weak evidence undue weight. It doesn't belong there. Dcs002 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why this "though not mentioning sucralose specifically" was added. Source specifically mention sucralose three times[1] What source says a BMI increase of 0.77 is "meaningless"

Meta analysis are high quality sources. Not sure why one would not mention it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The result of the meta-analysis was inconclusive. That is why it is of limted value, and it certainly should not be in the lead. Not based on the source given. The text, as you reverted it, also assumes that people generally consume sucralose in an effort to lose weight. What is that based on? This text argues against something that has not been established as relevant. (I use it to enjoy sweet snacks and beverages while controlling my diabetes. I have no interest in losing weight, nor would a BMI change of 0.77 bother me.)

Sucralose was mentioned as an example of a nonnutrtive sweetener (not zero-calorie sweetener), not as a specific sweetener used in any particular study regarding weght. That makes it even less relevant as a source for a comment on its potential effect on weight.

A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies under analysis. "Garbage in, garbage out" is a sayng among researchers. In this case, ambiguous in, ambguous out. The conclusion was ambiguous, and that means nothing scentfically. It means "not significant."

I did not wrte in the article that a BMI change of 0.77 was meaningless, so I didn't source that statement. Since you asked, here's my rationale: The dfference between obesity and "healthy weight" is a BMI of 5.0. Calle et all (N Engl J Med. 1999 Oct 7;341(15):1097-105.) showed mortality figures based on BMI, and 0.77 was just over half the distance between any two data points they measured. They had nearly a mllion subjects in that study. A change of 0.77 mght or might not be enough to move into a different cohort, but the difference is slight. Data have shown a meaningful benefit of a 10% change, but 0.77 doesn't get you there. I am not just using amateur logic here either. I am well-educated in the field, and I have reviewed (and published) many papers like this. That is of course meaningless regarding the article's content, but you asked about why I said it was clinically meaningless in this discussion. I was an obesty researcher for 8 years with a PhD in nutrition, though I left obesity research some time ago.

This article should not be a forum for fearmongering. Interpreting this meta-analysis as anything but an unanswered question is unwarranted (as the authors assert), and it can spread fear of sucralose. That is not founded in the source, or anywhere else. Dcs002 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Use of sucralose for weight management

Regarding the revert of my addition, I'm not clear on what the problem is. While reading the article, I found that the reference was seriously out of context. My addition was an attempt to give some perspective. The revert seems to have been done based on a quick read of the title. I have a PhD from Mayo Clinic in biochemistry and I have a lot of experience with the scientific literature. I'm really not clear on the editor's objections. Unless there's a good reason, I want to put this text back in the article.

19:10, 12 February 2018‎ Neffk (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,556 bytes) (+2,641)‎ . . (→‎Body weight: added information about how non-nutritive sweeteners should be useful for weight management, regardless of the validity of the dietary-fat or anti-sugar hypothesis. Added notes on the cited review.) (undo)

neffk (talk)

This is unreferenced "In the USA, public health goals can be summarized as decreasing caloric intake and increasing caloric expenditures, especially exercise that increases heart rate. In light of these goals, sucralose and other non-nutritive sweeteners are widely considered health aid."

What would you consider a reasonable source for the public health goals (as they relate to diet) from the last 70 years? Seems obvious and non-controversial. Do you personally know of anyone who claims that the US public health goals (as they relate to diet) differ from my claim? neffk (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is also unreferenced "The cause of obesity is thought to be related to diet. In the USA, it was assumed that fat intake was the primary cause of cardiovascular disease and obesity."

I agree, it's not referenced. However, the cause of obesity is, in fact, thought to be diet. Many academic papers indicate that it is an assumption of scientists who are studying this issue. For example, in the study cited in this section (Azad, 2017), the first sentence of the introduction is "Obesity is a major public health challenge that contributes to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Evidence that sugar consumption is fueling this epidemic has stimulated the increasing popularity of nonnutritive sweeteners, including aspartame, sucralose and stevioside" The idea that diet (whether composition or volume) is not related to obesity is... well, it's hard to imagine. Having studied the issue at some length, I am not aware of any research that indicated that obesity is unrelated to diet.

For the point about dietary fat intake, what source would you accept? The Nurse's Health Study? neffk (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Both of these are also someone off topic and use specific. The later is overly simplifed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Brief, not oversimplified. Obviously there are many decades regarding the chemistry and composition of dietary fats and how they effect health. But the point here is to show that there are 2 camps and to show how sucralose (and other non-nutritive sweeteners) play a role in either.

Non-nutritive sweeteners are, to my knowledge, used by diabetics and those wishing to reduce their energy intake. The latter is a very large category, especially in the USA. Body weight is an important issue and one of the driving forces behind the introduction of this weird chemical into the food supply (including my own). A few words about the history of the main scientific dietary theories is important because it frames sucralose as a way to reduce energy intake and reduce sugar intake. Also, I don't know what you mean by "use specific". neffk (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"A 2017 review found that zero-calorie sweeteners such as sucralose may be associated with an increase rather than a decrease in weight."

"May be associated" is hardly hyping the conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

From the paper "consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners is not consistently associated with decreases in body weight, BMI or waist circumference". I'd take that over "may be associated". Look, there's an idea out there that a non-caloric food in very low concentrations is CAUSING people to get fatter. It's hard to imagine that this is true and there is little in the way of conclusive evidence to support the idea. I don't think we should write "may be associated" because the association found was weak and not consistent. From the paper, " Overall, there was limited evidence for the effect of nonnutritive sweeteners on BMI, with 3 long-term cohort studies suggesting a modest increase in BMI that was not confirmed in 2 RCTs". "May be associated" with is weasling, for sure. neffk (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)