Popular sugar substitutes linked to faster brain aging

Daishiman

Self-reported dietary information? Then garbage study.

cure_42

People who consume more artificial sweeteners are more likely to be people who are trying to cut calories, and people trying to cut calories are more likely to be overweight, and people who are overweight are more likely to experience cognitive decline. Until a study is done which properly accounts for this well known correlation, I will remain incredibly skeptical that artificial sweeteners have any of these supposed negative effects.

defensem3ch

no stevia? i avoid all the other ones

DivingForGold

No monkfruit ?

ramy_d

Where is the study? What constitutes a lot? ETA: This press release relates to this study published Sept 3rd 2025 https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000214023 https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-09-11-toxic-artificial-swee... https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/sugar-substitutes-not-s... Adults under 60 who consumed the most artificial sweeteners — averaging 191 milligrams daily — experienced a 62% faster decline in memory and thinking skills compared to low or non-users. 191 milligrams a day would be like two 355ml coke zeros a day according to https://www.coca-cola.com/ca/en/brands/coca-cola/products/co...

faangguyindia

I've never relied on sugar free foods, and I consume plenty of natural sugars and easily cut weight on a regular basis. And often people tell me not to eat "suger" and carbs like "rice". I never listen to them. People find it hard to lose weight and it's not hard to understand why. Nothing beats a calorie deficit for weight loss. Deficit = TDEE (total calorie burn for the day) - calorie intake Most people go wrong when they diet. These are the reasons I see most often: a) They try to eat too little. It works in the short term, but within several weeks, they become miserable and bounce back to binge eating, undoing all their progress. Many people have a TDEE of 2,700 kcal and start eating an 800–1,100 kcal diet for weight loss. Eating 800–1,500 kcal isn't wrong, but it's more suitable for someone who is an experienced dieter. Beginners, more often than not, will fail with this approach. b) They don't know the calorie density of foods. Many believe granola is a low calorie, healthy option based purely on their gut feelings about the food and its appearance. c) Many people are sedentary and have low muscle mass, so their TDEE is quite low. To cut weight, they need to go 400–500 kcal below it, and guess what? They end up miserable because their TDEE is already low, and lowering their intake by 400–500 kcal puts them in a zone with too little food. The solution is Zone 2 cardio not because it burns more fat, but because it's easy on the joints, and most people can sustain it for hours, resulting in a higher cumulative calorie burn with much less stress on the recovery system. To throw a monkey wrench into this scheme, oftentimes when you diet down, your body lowers its metabolism (through metabolic adaptation or increased efficiency in physical activities). Other times, people simply move less when they eat at a deficit because they feel low on energy, lowering their TDEE. Remember, since deficit = TDEE - intake: If TDEE drops too low, calorie intake must go down to maintain the deficit; otherwise, there will be no weight loss. I've been working to solve this problem and we've lots of success with maintenance tracking approach.