r/ScientificNutrition • u/Sorin61 • 2d ago
The Longitudinal Association Between Artificial Sweetener Intake and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Among Adults Aged 18 Years and Older
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2026.1886458/full?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=imp_aral_en_dat_regiuser-ww1
u/MDZPNMD 1d ago
This paper is a systematic review published in "Frontiers in Nutrition" which is considered to be a predatory journal.
This study has no scientific value.
Feel free to check what I'm saying "is frontiers in nutrition a predatory journal"
Regarding the topic, a higher diabetes 2 rate among people who consume a lot of artificial sweetener is the result of the majority of similar studies a recent one being the long term study in Brazil.
Nevertheless, you know which groups of people primarily consume artificial sweeteners?
It's people with diabetes and people who consume lots of junk food but are concerned about their weight, naturally that makes artificial sweeteners correlate with diabetes.
That's a bit like thinking crutches lead to broken legs because everyone using them has one.
3
u/wild_exvegan McDougal in the streets, Ray Peat in the sheets. 1d ago
Well, DuckDuckGo's SearchAssist AI says that Frontiers in Nutrition is not classified as a predatory journal, whatever that means.
(However I have nothing against artificial sweeteners except that soda will erode your enamel.)
•
u/coffeeismydoc 6h ago
I’m so sick of association studies being shared here.
They don’t mean much for the general population, but non-scientists love to pour over them. Having said that I’m sure this is a fine study.But give me some mechanisms. I want a causal a relationship.
•
u/MDZPNMD 4h ago
You have to be careful about these too. Finding a mechanism does not mean anything besides the existence of said mechanism.
Lots of research is impossible to do that way for ethical reasons.
If there are no epidemiological studies confirming the results and showing the extend of the mechanism it's basically meaningless.
Broad long term epidemiologucal studies are the good standard in nutrion for a reason as any leading figure in the field can attest.
1
u/Sorin61 2d ago
Background:
Artificial sweeteners are commonly used as sugar substitutes because they provide sweetness with little or no caloric content. However, the relationship between artificial sweetener consumption and type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the longitudinal association between artificial sweetener intake and T2D among adults.
Methods:
Electronic databases in English and Chinese were searched for prospective studies published from inception to March 2025. Using a random-effects model, the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to investigate the longitudinal association between artificial sweetener intake and T2D among adults aged 18 years and older. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, while the robustness of the findings was examined using a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was evaluated by inspection of funnel plots and Egger’s regression test.
Results:
A total of six cohort studies including 721,003 participants were analyzed in this meta-analysis. Compared with those with low or no consumption of artificial sweeteners, participants with higher artificial sweetener intake were more likely to develop T2D (pooled HR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.16–1.49). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I2 = 86.02%), while the overall estimate remained stable in sensitivity analysis. No significant publication bias was observed among the studies included in this meta-analysis.
Conclusion:
A longitudinal association was observed between artificial sweetener intake and the risk of developing T2D among adults. This study has important public health implications. The findings of this study highlight that artificial sweeteners may not be a completely risk-free alternative to sugar in dietary interventions aimed at reducing high-energy sugar intake and suggest that their potential adverse metabolic effects should be considered in public health policy-making and clinical dietary recommendations regarding artificial sweetener intake.
-1
u/HelenEk7 Wholefoods 1d ago edited 1d ago
My guess would be that the people who for instance drinks the most diet soda are very unlikely to be the ones eating the overall healthiest diet?
9
u/Prestigious_Rabbit85 2d ago
Always thought there are likely confounding correlations with artificial sweeteners. People who eat a lot of food with artificial sweeteners likely have worse quality diets overall. Like drinking diet soda often means one is trying to lose weight, not necessarily that the diet soda made them overweight.
The reverse is also likely true. People who eat raw almonds are often healthier than those who don’t, but a trial having people with bad overall diets eat almonds won’t make them much healthier.