The Sweetener That Interferes With Hunger/Satiety Signals

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Non-sugar sweeteners came under fire from the World Health Organization a couple of years ago:

The Problem With Sweeteners ← this is mostly about how they prompt cravings of increasingly sweeter foods/drinks, but there are other considerations discussed too

And sucralose (which is technically a sugar, but isn’t processed by the body as sugar, so it “doesn’t count” as such; the body treats it as a dietary fiber instead) got some bad press of its own:

The Sucralose News: Scaremongering Or Serious? ← the answer is both, by the way, but there’s nuance here, so do read the article!

And now, there’s more news about how sucralose specifically interferes with the brain’s hunger/satiety signals:

The study

A medium-sized (n=75) study of adults looked at the brain’s responses to, varyingly,

  • Water
  • Sucralose in water
  • Sucrose in water (matched to be the same sweetness as the sucralose)

…using MRI, focusing on hunger-related regions like the hypothalamus.

Additionally, blood samples were taken to measure glucose, insulin, and satiety hormone (GLP-1) levels.

As for what they found:

  • Sucralose kept hunger signals active in the brain for up to 35 minutes, unlike sucrose, which reduced hunger activity quickly.
  • There was increased hypothalamic blood flow after sucralose intake, which meant heightened hunger signaling.
  • Participants felt hungrier after consuming sucralose compared to sugar
  • Sugar intake increased blood glucose (obviously), suppressing hunger, whereas sucralose had no such effect (again, reasonable, though it was worth checking, because if sucralose had an effect on insulin response, that would indirectly affect blood sugar levels one way or the other, depending on the effect on insulin levels—but that didn’t happen, so for now we may assume sucralose doesn’t affect insulin or insulin signalling).
  • Women exhibited twice the hypothalamic response to sucralose compared to men, reinforcing sex-based differences in appetite control. Specifically, it was most likely hormonal differences that drove this, since the study’s participants were young adults (ages 18–35); it’s possible that if older adults had been included, untreated menopause could have changed these stats. But that latter’s just a hypothesis for now.
  • Sucralose enhanced brain connectivity between the hypothalamus and motivation/reward-processing areas, potentially increasing cravings.

You can read the paper itself here:

Non-caloric sweetener effects on brain appetite regulation in individuals across varying body weights

The practical takeaway? Sucralose interferes with the brain’s “full” signals, keeping you hungrier for longer, which will (all else being equal) incline you to eat more than you would otherwise.

So, it might be worth skipping sucralose, unless you specifically want to increase how much you eat.

Want to learn more?

You might want to check out:

Carbonated Water: For Weight Loss, Satiety, Or Just Gas?

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • No, vitamin A does not prevent measles
  • Mocktails – by Moira Clark
    Sip sober with style: Dive into a fresh, natural ingredients mocktail recipe book, complete with QR video tutorials—perfect prep for summer sipping!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Apple vs Pineapple – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing apple to pineapple, we picked the pineapple.

    Why?

    An apple a day may keep the doctor away, but pineapples are heavier and armored and spiky and generally much more intimidating.

    More seriously, apples are great but we say pineapples have the better nutritional and phytochemical properties overall:

    In terms of macros, actually apples win this first round, albeit marginally; the two fruits are equal on carbs, while apple has a little more fiber and pineapple has a (very) little more protein. This makes the fiber content the deciding factor, so apples do win this one, even if by just 1g/100g difference.

    When it comes to vitamins, however, apples have more of vitamins E and K, while pineapple has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, and choline. The margins of difference are equally generous on both sides, so this is a clear and overwhelming win for pineapple (including 10x more vitamin C than apples, which are themselves considered a good source of vitamin C)

    In the category of minerals, apples have slightly more phosphorus, and pineapple has a lot more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, selenium, and zinc. Another easy win for pineapple.

    Pineapples are not only also higher in polyphenols, but also contain bromelain, a powerful anti-inflammatory group of enzymes that are unique to pineapple—you can read about it in the link below!

    Meanwhile, pineapple wins the day in our head-to-head here, but as ever when it comes to a plurality of healthy things, do enjoy either or both! Diversity is good.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Bromelain vs Inflammation & Much More

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • The Best 4 Pool Exercises to Strengthen Your Core & Tone Up

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    A lot of people don’t love working on their core strength, but exercising in the pool can make it a lot more enjoyable, as well as minimizing risk of injury.

    Dr Alyssa Kuhn, arthritis specialist, also advises “being in the water also helps to control for balance and can offload the joints so they aren’t as painful”:

    The gentlest exercise

    The specific exercises she recommends are:

    Wood Chops

    Stagger your feet, clasp your hands, and submerge them in the water. Now, move your hands diagonally from one side to the other. This engages your core and balance using water resistance. Perform 10–20 reps per side, exhaling on the hardest part.

    Front Kick with Opposite Arm Press

    Kick one leg forward while pushing the opposite arm out or overhead—higher kicks increase difficulty by requiring more balance. If balance isn’t sufficient for you yet, hold onto the pool wall if needed. Either way, engage the core to lift the leg. Do 20–30 reps alternating sides.

    Wall Push-Ups

    Place your hands on the pool wall, shoulder-width apart. Keep feet together and hips slightly tucked for core engagement. Next, move your chest toward the wall and push back while maintaining a straight body—avoid arching your back. Do 10–20 reps.

    Arm Circles

    Stand with your feet wider than shoulder-width. Clasp your hands, extend your arms, and submerge them in the water. Make large circular motions for resistance training. This can be done with straight or bent arms for different difficulty levels. Do 10–20 circles in each direction.

    For more on each of these plus visual demonstrations, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Osteoporosis & Exercises: Which To Do (And Which To Avoid)

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Creamy Zucchini, Edamame, & Asparagus Linguine

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Protein, fiber, and polyphenols are the dish of the day here:

    You will need

    • 1½ cups milk (your choice what kind; we recommend soy for its neutral taste, though hazelnut’s nutty flavor would also work in this recipe)
    • 6 oz wholegrain linguine (or your pasta of choice)
    • 2 zucchini, thinly sliced
    • 5 oz edamame beans (frozen is fine)
    • 5 oz asparagus tips, cut into 2″ lengths
    • ½ bulb garlic, crushed
    • 1 tbsp chia seeds
    • 1 small handful arugula
    • 1 small handful parsley, chopped
    • A few mint leaves, chopped
    • Juice of ½ lemon
    • 2 tsp black pepper, coarse ground
    • ½ tsp MSG or 1 tsp low-sodium salt
    • Extra virgin olive oil

    Method

    (we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)

    1) Heat some oil in a sauté pan or similar, over a low to medium heat. Add the zucchini and cook for 5 minutes until they start to soften.

    2) Add the garlic and continue cooking for 1 minute, stirring gently.

    3) Add the milk, bring to the boil, and add the past, chia seeds (the resistant starch from the pasta will help thicken the sauce, as will the chia seeds), and MSG or salt.

    4) Reduce the heat, cover, and simmer for 8 minutes.

    5) Add the edamame beans and asparagus, and cook for a further 2 minutes, or until the pasta is cooked but still firm to the bite. The sauce should be quite thick now.

    6) Stir in the remaining ingredients and serve, adding a garnish if you wish.

    Enjoy!

    Want to learn more?

    For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • No, vitamin A does not prevent measles
  • Simply The Pits: These Underarm Myths!

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Are We Taking A Risk To Smell Fresh As A Daisy?

    Yesterday, we asked you for your health-related view of underarm deodorants.

    So, what does the science say?

    They can cause (or increase risk of) cancer: True or False?

    False, so far as we know. Obviously it’s very hard to prove a negative, but there is no credible evidence that deodorants cause cancer.

    The belief that they do comes from old in vitro studies applying the deodorant directly to the cells in question, like this one with canine kidney tissues in petri dishes:

    Antiperspirant Induced DNA Damage in Canine Cells by Comet Assay

    Which means that if you’re not a dog and/or if you don’t spray it directly onto your internal organs, this study’s data doesn’t apply to you.

    In contrast, more modern systematic safety reviews have found…

    ❝Neither is there clear evidence to show use of aluminum-containing underarm antiperspirants or cosmetics increases the risk of Alzheimer’s Disease or breast cancer.

    Metallic aluminum, its oxides, and common aluminum salts have not been shown to be either genotoxic or carcinogenic.

    Source: Systematic review of potential health risks posed by pharmaceutical, occupational and consumer exposures to metallic and nanoscale aluminum, aluminum oxides, aluminum hydroxide and its soluble salts

    (however, one safety risk it did find is that we should avoid eating it excessively while pregnant or breastfeeding)

    Alternatives like deodorant rocks have fewer chemicals and thus are safer: True or False?

    True and False, respectively. That is, they do have fewer chemicals, but cannot in scientific terms be qualifiably, let alone quantifiably, described as safer than a product that was already found to be safe.

    Deodorant rocks are usually alum crystals, by the way; that is to say, aluminum salts of various kinds. So if it was aluminum you were hoping to avoid, it’s still there.

    However, if you’re trying to cut down on extra chemicals, then yes, you will get very few in deodorant rocks, compared to the very many in spray-on or roll-on deodorants!

    Soap and water is a safe, simple, and sufficient alternative: True or False?

    True or False, depending on what you want as a result!

    • If you care that your deodorant also functions as an antiperspirant, then no, soap and water will certainly not have an antiperspirant effect.
    • If you care only about washing off bacteria and eliminating odor for the next little while, then yes, soap and water will work just fine.

    Bonus myths:

    There is no difference between men’s and women’s deodorants, apart from the marketing: True or False?

    False! While to judge by the marketing, the only difference is that one smells of “evening lily” and the other smells of “chainsaw barbecue” or something, the real difference is…

    • The “men’s” kind is designed to get past armpit hair and reach the skin without clogging the hair up.
    • The “women’s” kind is designed to apply a light coating to the skin that helps avoid chafing and irritation.

    In other words… If you are a woman with armpit hair or a man without, you might want to ignore the marketing and choose according to your grooming preferences.

    Hopefully you can still find a fragrance that suits!

    Shaving (or otherwise depilating) armpits is better for hygiene: True or False?

    True or False, depending on what you consider “hygiene”.

    Consistent with popular belief, shaving means there is less surface area for bacteria to live. And empirically speaking, that means a reduction in body odor:

    A comparative clinical study of different hair removal procedures and their impact on axillary odor reduction in men

    However, shaving typically causes microabrasions, and while there’s no longer hair for the bacteria to enjoy, they now have access to the inside of your skin, something they didn’t have before. This can cause much more unpleasant problems in the long-run, for example:

    ❝Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic and debilitating skin disease, whose lesions can range from inflammatory nodules to abscesses and fistulas in the armpits, groin, perineum, inframammary region❞

    Read more: Hidradenitis suppurativa: Basic considerations for its approach: A narrative review

    And more: Hidradenitis suppurativa: Epidemiology, clinical presentation, and pathogenesis

    If this seems a bit “damned if you do; damned if you don’t”, this writer’s preferred way of dodging both is to use electric clippers (the buzzy kind, as used for cutting short hair) to trim hers down low, and thus leave just a little soft fuzz.

    What you do with yours is obviously up to you; our job here is just to give the information for everyone to make informed decisions whatever you choose 🙂

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Women Rowing North – by Dr. Mary Pipher

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Ageism is rife, as is misogyny. And those can be internalized too, and compounded as they intersect.

    Clinical psychologist Dr. Mary Pipher, herself 75, writes for us a guidebook of, as the subtitle goes, “navigating life’s currents and flourishing as we age”.

    The book does assume, by the way, that the reader is…

    • a woman, and
    • getting old (if not already old)

    However, the lessons the book imparts are vital for women of any age, and valuable as a matter of insight and perspective for any reader.

    Dr. Pipher takes us on a tour of aging as a woman, and what parts of it we can make our own, do things our way, and take what joy we can from it.

    Nor is the book given to “toxic positivity” though—it also deals with themes of hardship, frustration, and loss.

    When it comes to those elements, the book is… honest, human, and raw. But also, an exhortation to hope, beauty, and a carpe diem attitude.

    Bottom line: this book is highly recommendable to anyone of any age; life is precious and can be short. And be we blessed with many long years, this book serves as a guide to making each one of them count.

    Click here to check out Women Rowing North—it really is worth it

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • What pathogen might spark the next pandemic? How scientists are preparing for ‘disease X’

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Before the COVID pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) had made a list of priority infectious diseases. These were felt to pose a threat to international public health, but where research was still needed to improve their surveillance and diagnosis. In 2018, “disease X” was included, which signified that a pathogen previously not on our radar could cause a pandemic.

    While it’s one thing to acknowledge the limits to our knowledge of the microbial soup we live in, more recent attention has focused on how we might systematically approach future pandemic risks.

    Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously talked about “known knowns” (things we know we know), “known unknowns” (things we know we don’t know), and “unknown unknowns” (the things we don’t know we don’t know).

    Although this may have been controversial in its original context of weapons of mass destruction, it provides a way to think about how we might approach future pandemic threats.

    Anna Shvets/Pexels

    Influenza: a ‘known known’

    Influenza is largely a known entity; we essentially have a minor pandemic every winter with small changes in the virus each year. But more major changes can also occur, resulting in spread through populations with little pre-existing immunity. We saw this most recently in 2009 with the swine flu pandemic.

    However, there’s a lot we don’t understand about what drives influenza mutations, how these interact with population-level immunity, and how best to make predictions about transmission, severity and impact each year.

    The current H5N1 subtype of avian influenza (“bird flu”) has spread widely around the world. It has led to the deaths of many millions of birds and spread to several mammalian species including cows in the United States and marine mammals in South America.

    Human cases have been reported in people who have had close contact with infected animals, but fortunately there’s currently no sustained spread between people.

    While detecting influenza in animals is a huge task in a large country such as Australia, there are systems in place to detect and respond to bird flu in wildlife and production animals.

    Scientists in a lab.
    Scientists are continually monitoring a range of pathogens with pandemic potential. Edward Jenner/Pexels

    It’s inevitable there will be more influenza pandemics in the future. But it isn’t always the one we are worried about.

    Attention had been focused on avian influenza since 1997, when an outbreak in birds in Hong Kong caused severe disease in humans. But the subsequent pandemic in 2009 originated in pigs in central Mexico.

    Coronaviruses: an ‘unknown known’

    Although Rumsfeld didn’t talk about “unknown knowns”, coronaviruses would be appropriate for this category. We knew more about coronaviruses than most people might have thought before the COVID pandemic.

    We’d had experience with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS) causing large outbreaks. Both are caused by viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID. While these might have faded from public consciousness before COVID, coronaviruses were listed in the 2015 WHO list of diseases with pandemic potential.

    Previous research into the earlier coronaviruses proved vital in allowing COVID vaccines to be developed rapidly. For example, the Oxford group’s initial work on a MERS vaccine was key to the development of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine.

    Similarly, previous research into the structure of the spike protein – a protein on the surface of coronaviruses that allows it to attach to our cells – was helpful in developing mRNA vaccines for COVID.

    It would seem likely there will be further coronavirus pandemics in the future. And even if they don’t occur at the scale of COVID, the impacts can be significant. For example, when MERS spread to South Korea in 2015, it only caused 186 cases over two months, but the cost of controlling it was estimated at US$8 billion (A$11.6 billion).

    Coronavirus statistics on a screen.
    COVID could be regarded as an ‘unknown known’. Markus Spiske/Pexels

    The 25 viral families: an approach to ‘known unknowns’

    Attention has now turned to the known unknowns. There are about 120 viruses from 25 families that are known to cause human disease. Members of each viral family share common properties and our immune systems respond to them in similar ways.

    An example is the flavivirus family, of which the best-known members are yellow fever virus and dengue fever virus. This family also includes several other important viruses, such as Zika virus (which can cause birth defects when pregnant women are infected) and West Nile virus (which causes encephalitis, or inflammation of the brain).

    The WHO’s blueprint for epidemics aims to consider threats from different classes of viruses and bacteria. It looks at individual pathogens as examples from each category to expand our understanding systematically.

    The US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has taken this a step further, preparing vaccines and therapies for a list of prototype pathogens from key virus families. The goal is to be able to adapt this knowledge to new vaccines and treatments if a pandemic were to arise from a closely related virus.

    Pathogen X, the ‘unknown unknown’

    There are also the unknown unknowns, or “disease X” – an unknown pathogen with the potential to trigger a severe global epidemic. To prepare for this, we need to adopt new forms of surveillance specifically looking at where new pathogens could emerge.

    In recent years, there’s been an increasing recognition that we need to take a broader view of health beyond only thinking about human health, but also animals and the environment. This concept is known as “One Health” and considers issues such as climate change, intensive agricultural practices, trade in exotic animals, increased human encroachment into wildlife habitats, changing international travel, and urbanisation.

    This has implications not only for where to look for new infectious diseases, but also how we can reduce the risk of “spillover” from animals to humans. This might include targeted testing of animals and people who work closely with animals. Currently, testing is mainly directed towards known viruses, but new technologies can look for as yet unknown viruses in patients with symptoms consistent with new infections.

    We live in a vast world of potential microbiological threats. While influenza and coronaviruses have a track record of causing past pandemics, a longer list of new pathogens could still cause outbreaks with significant consequences.

    Continued surveillance for new pathogens, improving our understanding of important virus families, and developing policies to reduce the risk of spillover will all be important for reducing the risk of future pandemics.

    This article is part of a series on the next pandemic.

    Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Monash University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: