Note: This article was originally published in 2014 and was updated in 2018 to include the latest research. Several years ago, the evidence was limited, and I was hesitant to make a firm conclusion on the dangers of artificial sweeteners. However, I now believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that artificial sweeteners should not be included in a healthy diet.
Artificial sweeteners continue to be a controversial public health issue, and the research keeps coming. On one hand, many people are adamantly opposed to the use of sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), saccharin, and advantame because of the purported link with increased risk for cancer and other diseases. But on the other hand, they’re becoming increasingly popular as people try to reduce calorie consumption and lose weight.
There’s too much research out there to cover comprehensively in a blog article, but I’ll try to include the basics: Will artificial sweeteners give you cancer or other diseases? Do they actually help with weight loss? And ultimately, should you be eating them?
To learn all about sweeteners—natural and artificial—download this free eBook today.
The research on artificial sweeteners has always been lacking—until now. So, are artificial sweeteners healthy? Find out in this article, updated in 2018 with the latest information. #foodadditives #diabetes #metabolicsyndrome
Will Artificial Sweeteners Give You Cancer?
Artificial sweeteners were first tied to cancer risk in the 1970s after a study showed that a combination of saccharin and cyclamate (another early artificial sweetener) caused bladder cancer in lab rats. The mechanism behind these effects was later found to be specific to rats and not generalizable to other animals or humans (in these rats, comparable doses of vitamin C can also cause bladder cancer), and further studies demonstrated that neither sweetener is carcinogenic. (1, 2)
A later study suggested a link between aspartame consumption and brain tumors. The authors based this hypothesis on the fact that both brain cancer and aspartame consumption had increased since 1980—despite not knowing whether the people getting brain tumors actually consumed artificial sweeteners—and on a rat study where aspartame-supplemented diets led to the formation of brain tumors. (3)
This association has been more or less dismissed by the research community because three case-control studies have found no association between brain tumors and aspartame consumption, and subsequent animal studies haven’t been able to replicate the aspartame-induced brain tumors found in the original rat study. (4)
Artificial sweeteners have also been implicated in the development of lymphoma and leukemia, and one observational study found a weak link between artificial sweetener consumption and development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma in men, but not in women. (5) The study authors concluded that due to the inconsistency in their results, there isn’t likely a causal link, although it can’t be ruled out.
Artificial sweeteners have also been tested for associations with other cancers, including breast, pancreatic, stomach, colon, and endometrium, with no correlations found. (6)
Artificial Sweeteners Can Change Your Metabolic Health
Artificial sweeteners have also been tied to an increased risk for developing metabolic syndrome and related diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Numerous observational studies have attempted to parse out a consistent association with disease risk, but for every study that has linked artificial sweetener consumption with metabolic syndrome, heart disease, or diabetes, there’s another that has found no association. (7, 8, 9)
Fortunately, we have meta-analyses, which serve to pool together similar studies and try to determine the overall effect. In July 2017, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a meta-analysis that picked apart the findings from seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 30 cohort studies on artificial sweeteners. (10) In total, the studies followed more than 400,000 people for about 10 years.
Of course, observational studies cannot confirm causality, but another study, published in the journal Nature, showed that artificial sweeteners altered the gut microbiota and that this was causally linked to glucose tolerance in mice. (11) For the humans included in the study, even just one week of artificial sweetener consumption was enough to reduce glucose tolerance in half of the participants.
For a complete breakdown of how this works, check out my 2016 article “How Artificial Sweeteners Wreak Havoc on Your Gut.”
Pregnant Women: Avoid Artificial Sweeteners, Just to Be Safe
There has been concern in recent years over a potential link between artificial sweetener consumption and pre-term delivery, prompted by two observational studies published in 2010 and 2012. (12, 13)
These studies have significant limitations:
- The associations are small and not linearly dose-dependent;
- Not all artificially sweetened beverages were accounted for; and
- Women who consume more artificially sweetened drinks also tend to smoke more and have higher BMI and lower socioeconomic status. (14)
All told, the risk seems small, but I would advise pregnant women to avoid artificial sweeteners just to be on the safe side.
The Big Question: Do They Help You Lose Weight?
Many observational studies have found a positive association between artificial sweetener intake and obesity, but in this situation, reverse causality is particularly likely. (15, 16, 17, 18) In other words, while it’s possible that artificial sweeteners contributed to weight gain in these studies, it’s also possible that people who are overweight are more likely to choose diet beverages and other artificially sweetened foods in an effort to lose weight. We also have a decent number of clinical trials testing the weight loss effects of artificial sweeteners in humans, although many are too short term to have much practical significance.
In one study, overweight subjects were given supplements of either sucrose or artificial sweeteners for 10 weeks. (19) At the end of the trial period, subjects in the artificial sweetener group had experienced, on average, a reduction in weight, fat mass, and blood pressure, while subjects in the sucrose group gained weight and had increased blood pressure.
A study published in 2014 on weight loss and artificial sweeteners was surprisingly positive: over a 12-week period, participants who were instructed to drink 24 ounces of artificially sweetened beverages every day actually lost more weight than participants who were instructed to drink 24 ounces of water daily. (20) (It’s worth noting that this study was fully funded by the American Beverage Association.) Other trials have also shown successful calorie reduction and weight loss in participants who consumed artificial sweeteners (usually in the form of beverages). (21, 22, 23)
So what do we make of all this? Fortunately, the same meta-analysis I mentioned above of over 400,000 people also looked at weight loss. (24) When they pooled together the seven RCTs, they found no significant effect of artificial sweeteners on body mass index (BMI). On the other hand, when they pooled the cohort studies, consumption of artificial sweeteners was positively associated with increases in weight, waist circumference, and a higher incidence of obesity.
As I mentioned, artificial sweeteners’ ability to disrupt the gut microbiota can lead to weight gain, but that’s not the only mechanism involved here. These sweeteners can actually “confuse” your body and make it harder for you to shed extra pounds.
Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!
How These Sweeteners “Confuse” Your Body
For most of human history, sweeteners were inextricably tied to caloric density. Our sweet taste receptors evolved primarily to help us identify calorie-rich food sources. So imagine the confusing results when our taste receptors are bombarded with sweetness without that expected surge in calories.
Animal models certainly indicate that artificial sweeteners can impair the innate ability to regulate caloric intake. Rats who are fed with artificial sweeteners consistently gain more weight than rats who are fed with glucose or sucrose. (25, 26) Additionally, the rats don’t tend to lose the excess weight, even after their diets are switched back to glucose or sucrose to reestablish the normal connection between a sweet taste and calorie-rich foods.
Interestingly, rats who were given stevia solutions gained significantly more weight than the glucose-fed rats and similar amounts of weight to the saccharin-fed rats. (27) Rats fed with artificial sweeteners also develop an impaired ability to respond to sugar-containing foods. In one study, rats who had been fed artificial sweeteners were unable to compensate for the calorie content of a sugar preload by eating less chow afterwards, while rats who had been fed sugar-containing food compensated almost perfectly for the extra calories in the preload by eating less chow. (28)
Rats that have been conditioned with saccharin also display a reduced thermic effect in response to consumption of a caloric sugar-containing meal, as well as higher blood glucose, compared with rats who had been conditioned with glucose. (29, 30) Additionally, saccharin-fed rats secreted less GLP-1 (which is implicated in satiety and glucose homeostasis) when given a sugar-containing test meal. (31)
Unfortunately, although the animal evidence is fairly robust, evidence in humans is limited. However, two interesting studies that used MRI to measure brain responses to sucrose solutions indicate that artificial sweeteners may alter the brain’s response to sweet tastes in humans. In one study, people who regularly consume artificially sweetened drinks had higher reward responses to both saccharin and sucrose compared with people who don’t consume artificial sweeteners. (32)
Additionally, people who don’t consume artificial sweeteners had different brain responses to the saccharin and sucrose, while those who regularly consume artificial sweeteners responded the same to both sweeteners. Another study found that the amygdala’s response to sucrose consumption was inversely related to artificial sweetener use. (33) (The amygdala is part of the brain that is involved with taste–nutrient conditioning.)
Should You Be Eating Artificial Sweeteners?
To sum up, artificial sweeteners are extremely new to the human diet, and for modern, industrial foods, the operating principle should always be “guilty until proven innocent.” We’ve conducted what are essentially population-wide experiments with the introduction of other industrial foods (such as high-omega-6 vegetable oils) because the initial evidence seemed promising, and we can see how well that worked out.
Increasing evidence from animal studies and human observational studies points to a link between artificial sweeteners and an increased risk for:
- Glucose intolerance
- Weight gain
Observational evidence also suggests a link between artificial sweetener consumption and cardiovascular disease risk.
In case you missed them, be sure to check out parts one and two of this series.
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
Over the course of a year I lost 50 lbs just by switching from regular pop to diet. You could say, “Why not switch to water?”, but at the time I was a pop junkie so I figured I might as well indulge without all the extra sugar.
I don’t drink any soda except for as an occasional treat now, but I have maintained the same healthy weight for thirteen years now.
I don’t think artificial sweeteners are the Boogeyman a lot of people make them out to be. The health organizations of over 90 countries agree with me. It is more cautious to do without, but in the short term it really helped me.
What about Stevia? It is a sweetener but it is not artificial.
I’ve read that real Stevia is good but not Stevia extract which seems to leave the good part behind.
Any opinions about or experience with Stevia?
The white powder is far from being natural. Just look at how much processing goes into extracting it from the plant.
If you use the leaves then it should be ok in my opinion.
As a diabetic, I often use artificial sweeteners instead of sugar. Typically I choose Splenda as it seems to be the most benign of the lot. I was told by a dietician that Splenda was a better choice than Stevia as Stevia can possibly interfere with certain medications.
The 800-pound gorilla in the room is that none of these studies have been done in conjunction with a low-carb or ketogenic diet. In fact, most of the studies have focused on obese and/or sick people which guarantees a distorted picture.
Dr. Atkins mass-promoted a high-protein, low-carb diet in the early 1970’s and suggested that the monitor of success was using keto strips to check for ketones. In 1994, new research got under way on the traditional ketogenic diet (75% fat, 20 protein, 5% carbs). The past 20 years of metabolic studies have shown that a ketogenic diet is the path to avoiding lifestyle diseases ( obesity, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, dementia (Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s).
I went on a ketogenic diet in 1996 for health reasons. I’ve been on a ketogenic diet now for over 20 years. I take nasty drugs every day that are known to damage fat-burning metabolism (mitochondrial poisons).
I’ve learned a lot along the way. I live a reward-oriented lifestyle that I really enjoy, and artificial sweeteners are a vital part of that lifestyle.
I have not found any negative issues for myself using any artificial sweeteners. I’ve looked at the research, and the most common studies are done on obese and/or unhealthy populations.
I’d love to see a study done on a long-term group of ketogenic lifestylers.
See, it works like this.
There are four foundational pillars to great health using a ketogenic lifestyle.
The first pillar is diet. That includes everything you eat, every pharmaceutical or supplement you take; in short, every substance that affects your metabolism.
People on a ketogenic diet find their energy levels improve. As they do, they feel an urge to get more active, which brings us to our second foundational pillar, exercise.
The key to exercise is to do exercise you enjoy. Walk the dog, swim, go to a gym, whatever you can think of that you find most enjoyable. Personally, I go to the gym, and at the age of 68, I get 20-year-olds asking me how I got so ripped. Hey, after 20 years on a ketogenic diet, it just happens.
The third pillar is good sleep. This comes naturally when you physical engine is running on all sixteen cylinders and getting regular exercise.
Now the fourth pillar, stress reduction. I emphasize enjoyable and reward-oriented in the first three pillars because when a diet and exercise regimen are deprivation-oriented and punishing, you’re elevating stress levels (which means your cortisol levels are high).
To implement stress reduction, you have to identify the things in your life that you hate, which are those things where you have a perception of loss of control. It may be anything from a bad relationship to a bad job. Somebody else is driving your life. The key is to figure out a way to change these situations so you’re back in control, even if it means big changes in your life.
I’ve improved my lifestyle for over 20 years. I’ve coached a lot of people. I’ve recommended artificial sweeteners and use them myself. None of the people I’ve coached who follow a ketogenic lifestyle have any metabolic problem with artificial sweeteners. In fact, they are essential for a reward-oriented approach to diet. You can’t make ice cream, mousse, or cheesecake without them. And I couldn’t stay on a ketogenic diet without them. I don’t do well with deprivation lifestyles and neither does anybody else.
It’s definitely been proven that obesity causes cancer. When I drink sugary drinks I gain weight. It’s that simple. I think I’ll continue with my morning diet coke.
Why not just drink a water
Yes, but the author shows that (rat) studies suggest consumption of artificial sweeteners may lead to increased calorie consumption, and therefore obesity. Perhaps the sweetener will save you the 180 calories of a regular soda, but it also might influence you to eat a few more pieces of bread that day, reversing the intended effect.
Saccharin has been used as an artificial sweetener since 1879. If there hasn’t been enough research done to date to prove the safety of artificial sweeteners then there never will be. There is so much unsubstantiated negative information about these sweeteners around that it’s no wonder they makes people feel sick.
I avoid ALL artificial things…
I realise it’s fairly difficult… but I attempt to eat as natural as possible… seasonal, organic in it’s natural state. This seems to yield best results for me.
I see a few of you here have used other things…
can anyone give me good reasons why you do?
Doing some research on artificial sweeteners I seem to see a lot of information on the Web that people don’t know the truth about. Instead of scaring people into your own beliefs with incorrect data, I think you need to read the real history about saccharin.
In 1977, a study published in Science found an association between saccharin and bladder cancer in rats, spurring the FDA to ban saccharin as well.
Subsequent studies in rats continued to show an elevated risk for bladder cancer after the animals consumed very high doses of the sugar substitute, but results in humans showed no clear evidence of an association. In fact, experts soon found that the mechanism that led to cancers in rats was irrelevant in humans. Specifically, when consumed in high doses, researchers discovered that saccharin changes the composition of rat urine, creating a precipitate. The precipitate can damage the cells lining the bladder, which in turn can promote tumor growth when the cells regenerate. This mechanism, however, is unique to rats.
The FDA lifted the ban.
It’s really troubling that people use hysteria on the internet to turn us into a bunch of “Chicken Littles” with stating, “The sky is falling. The sky is falling.”
Yes, your article opens the reality of sweeters. It is perception of taste. The taste of sweetest is going to result in more consumption. Then body growth. The reverse is also true. Less sweetness results in less consumption. It time, less body mass. I have diabetes, less is better. Equal has helped at sweetness without calories. But really I would not had eaten much more sugar. But, after twenty six years, the reality of diabetes treatment is insulin not calorie reduction. Over eating is both the diabetic and non- diabetic down fall in health. Please, do not try to eat all you want then match it with insulin, that will not work. Humans do best on the run. Do not spend so much time or money on food. Spend time and money on activities. Bonus, run around with your spouse and kids. Be active with other humans. It is ok to be hungry. It is ok not to have all you want to eat. Living into your nineties is very possible.
Please don’t overlook the fact that aspartame is a neurotoxin which stimulates brain cells to death. Terrible for children. Linked to short term memory loss. Also, splenda or sucrolose kills the good bacteria in your “gut.”
Where is your proof? Have you done scientific research or, are you just parroting the same old bullshit as the rest of the wackos on the internet?