What’s the news on sucralose?

These past days the press has been abuzz with frightening tales:

• This Common Artificial Sweetener Can Break Down DNA, Scientists Warn
• Sucralose Damages DNA, Linked to Leaky Gut
• Chemical found in common sweetener damages DNA
• Chemical found in widely used sweetener breaks up DNA
• Chemical from Splenda breaks up DNA

How true and/or serious is this?

Firstly, let’s manage expectations. Pineapple juice also breaks down DNA, but is not generally considered a health risk. So let’s keep that in mind, while we look into the science.

Is sucralose as scary as pineapple juice, or is it something actually dangerous?

The new study (that sparked off these headlines)

The much-referenced study is publicly available to read in full—here it is:

Toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate and its parent sucralose: in vitro screening assays

You may notice that this doesn’t have quite the snappy punchiness of some of the headlines, but let’s break this down, if you’ll pardon the turn of phrase:

• Toxicological: pertaining to whether or not it has toxic qualities
• Pharmacokinetic: the science of asking, of chemicals in bodies, “where did it come from; where did it go; what could it do there; what can we know?”
• Sucralose-6-acetate: an impurity that can be found in sucralose. For perspective, the study found that the sucralose in Splenda contained “up to” 0.67% sucralose-6-acetate.
• Sucralose: a modified form of sucrose, that makes it hundreds of times sweeter, and non-caloric because the body cannot break it down so it’s treated as a dietary fiber and just passes through
• In vitro: things are happening in petri dishes, not in animals (human or otherwise), which would be called “in vivo”
• Screening assays: “we set up a very closed-parameters chemical test, to see what happens when we add this to this” ⇽ oversimplification, but this is the basic format of a screening assay

Great, now we understand the title, but what about the study?

Researchers looked primarily at the effects of sucralose-6-acetate and sucralose (together and separately) on epithelial cells (these are very simple cells that are easy to study; conveniently, they are also most of what makes up our intestinal walls). For this, they used a fancy way of replicating human intestinal walls, that’s actually quite fascinating but beyond the scope of today’s newsletter. Suffice it to say: it’s quite good, and/but has its limitations too. They also looked at some in vivo rat studies.

What they found was…

Based on samples from the rat feces (somehow this didn’t make it into the headlines), it appears that sucralose may be acetylated in the intestines. What that means is that we, if we are like the rats (definitely not a given, but a reasonable hypothesis), might convert up to 10% of sucralose into sucralose-6-acetate inside us. Iff we do, the next part of the findings become more serious.

Based on the in vitro simulations, both sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate reduced intestinal barrier integrity at least a little, but sucralose-6-acetate was the kicker when it came to most of the effects—at least, so we (reasonably!) suppose.

Basically, there’s a lot of supposition going on here but the suppositions are reasonable. That’s how science works; there’s usually little we can know for sure from a single study; it’s when more studies roll in that we start to get a more complete picture.

What was sucralose-6-acetate found to do? It increased the expression of genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer (granted those three things generally go together). So that’s a “this probably has this end result” supposition.

More concretely, and which most of the headlines latched onto, it was found (in vitro) to induce cytogenic damage, specifically, of the clastogenic variety (produces DNA strand breaks—so this is different than pineapple’s bromelain and DNA-helicase’s relatively harmless unzipping of genes).

The dose makes the poison

So, how much is too much and is that 0.67% something to worry about?

• Remembering the rat study, it may be more like 10% once our intestines have done their thing. Iff we’re like rats.
• But, even if it’s only 0.67%, this will still be above the “threshold of toxicological concern for genotoxicity”, of 0.15µg/person/day.
• On the other hand, the fact that these were in vitro studies is a serious limitation.
• Sometimes something is very dangerous in vitro, because it’s being put directly onto cells, whereas in vivo we may have mechanisms for dealing with that.

We won’t know for sure until we get in vivo studies in human subjects, and that may not happen any time soon, if ever, depending on the technical limitations and ethical considerations that sometimes preclude doing certain studies in humans.

Bottom line:

• The headlines are written to be scary, but aren’t wrong; their claims are fundamentally true
• What that means for us as actual humans may not be the same, however; we don’t know yet
• For now, it is probably reasonable to avoid sucralose just in case

Hormonal Health: Is It Really A Balancing Act?

Have you ever wondered what “balancing your hormones” actually means?

The popular view is that men’s hormones look like this:

Testosterone (less) ⟷ Testosterone (more)

…And that women’s hormones look more like this:

♀︎ Estrogen ↭ Progesterone ⤵︎

⇣⤷ FSH ⤦ ↴ ☾ ⤹⤷ Luteinizing Hormone ⤦

DHEA ↪︎ Gonadotrophin ⤾

↪︎ Testosterone? ⥅⛢

Clear as mud, right?

But, don’t worry, Supplements McHerbal Inc will sell you something guaranteed to balance your hormones!

How can a supplement (or dietary adjustment) “balance” all that hotly dynamic chaos, and make everything “balanced”?

The truth is, “balanced” in such a nebulous term, and this is why you will not hear endocrinologists using it. It’s used in advertising to mean “in good order”, and “not causing problems”, and “healthy”.

In reality, our hormone levels depend on everything from our diet to our age to our anatomy to our mood to the time of the day to the phase of the moon.

Not that the moon has an influence on our physiology at all—that’s a myth—but you know, 28 day cycle and all. And, yes, half the hormones affect the levels of the others, either directly or indirectly.

Trying to “balance” them would be quite a game of whack-a-mole, and not something that a “cure-all” single “hormone-balancing” supplement could do.

So why aren’t we running this piece on Friday, for our “mythbusting” section? Well, we could have, but the more useful information is yet to come and will take up more of today’s newsletter than the myth-busting!

What, then, can we do to untangle the confusion of these hormones?

Well first, let’s understand what they do, in the most simple terms possible:

• Estrogen—the most general feminizing hormone from puberty onwards, busiest in the beginning of the menstrual cycle, and starts getting things ready for ovulation.
• Progesterone—secondary feminizing hormone, fluffs the pillows for the oncoming fertilized egg to be implanted, increases sex drive, and adjusts metabolism accordingly. Busiest in the second half of the menstrual cycle.
• Testosterone—is also present, contributes to sex drive, is often higher in individuals with PCOS. If menopause is untreated, testosterone will also rise, because there will be less estrogen
  • (testosterone and estrogen “antagonize” each other, which is the colorfully scientific way of saying they work against each other)
  • DHEA—Dehydroepiandrosterone, supports production of testosterone (and estrogen!). Sounds self-balancing, but in practice, too much DHEA can thus cause elevated testosterone levels, and thus hirsutism.
• Gonadotrophin—or more specifically human chorionic gonadotrophin, HcG, is “the pregnancy hormone“, present only during pregnancy, and has specific duties relating to such. This is what’s detected in (most) pregnancy test kits.
• FSH—follicle stimulating hormone, is critical to ovulation, and is thus essential to female fertility. On the other hand, when the ovaries stop working, FSH levels will rise in a vain attempt to encourage the ovulation that isn’t going to happen anymore.
• Luteinizing hormone—says “go” to the new egg and sends it on its merry way to go get fertilized. This is what’s detected by ovulation prediction kits.

Sooooooo…

What, for most women, most often is meant by a “hormonal imbalance” is:

• Low levels of E and/or P
• High levels of DHEA and/or T
• Low or High levels of FSH

In the case of low levels of E and/or P, the most reliable way to increase these is, drumroll please… To take E and/or P. That’s it, that’s the magic bullet.

Bonus Tip: take your E in the morning (this is when your body will normally make more and use more) take your P in the evening (it won’t make you sleepy, but it will improve your sleep quality when you do sleep)

In the case of high levels of DHEA and/or T, then that’s a bit more complex:

• Taking E will antagonize (counteract) the unwanted T.
• Taking T-blockers (such as spironolactone or bicalutamide) will do what it says on the tin, and block T from doing the jobs it’s trying to do, but the side-effects are considered sufficient to not prescribe them to most people.
• Taking spearmint or saw palmetto will lower testosterone’s effects
  • Scientists aren’t sure how or why spearmint works for this
  • Saw palmetto blocks testosterone’s conversion into a more potent form, DHT, and so “detoothes” it a bit. It works similarly to drugs such as finasteride, often prescribed for androgenic alopecia, called “male pattern baldness”, but it affects plenty of women too.

In the case of low levels of FSH, eating leafy greens will help.

In the case of high levels of FSH, see a doctor. HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy) may help. If you’re not of menopausal age, it could be a sign something else is amiss, so it could be worth getting that checked out too.

What can I eat to boost my estrogen levels naturally?

A common question. The simple answer is:

• Flaxseeds and soy contain plant estrogens that the body can’t actually use as such (too incompatible). They’ve lots of high-quality nutrients though, and the polyphenols and isoflavones can help with some of the same jobs when it comes to sexual health.
• Fruit, especially peaches, apricots, blueberries, and strawberries, contain a lot of lignans and also won’t increase your E levels as such, but will support the same functions and reduce your breast cancer risk.
• Nuts, especially almonds (yay!), cashews, and pistachios, contain plant estrogens that again can’t be used as bioidentical estrogen (like you’d get from your ovaries or the pharmacy) but do support heart health.
• Leafy greens and cruciferous vegetables support a lot of bodily functions including good hormonal health generally, in ways that are beyond the scope of this article, but in short: do eat your greens!

Note: because none of these plant-estrogens or otherwise estrogenic nutrients can actually do the job of estradiol (the main form of estrogen in your body), this is why they’re still perfectly healthy for men to eat too, and—contrary to popular “soy boy” social myths—won’t have any feminizing effects whatsoever.

On the contrary, most of the same foods support good testosterone-related health in men.

The bottom line:

• Our hormones are very special, and cannot be replaced with any amount of herbs or foods.
• We can support our body’s natural hormonal functions with good diet, though.
• Our hormones naturally fluctuate, and are broadly self-correcting.
• If something gets seriously out of whack, you need an endocrinologist, not a homeopath or even a dietician.

In case you missed it…

We gave a more general overview of supporting hormonal health (including some hormones that aren’t sex hormones but are really important too), back in February.

Check it out here: Healthy Hormones And How To Hack Them

Want to read more?

Anthea Levi, RD, takes much the same view:

❝For some ‘hormone-balancing’ products, the greatest risk might simply be lost dollars. Others could come at a higher cost.❞

Read: Are Hormone-Balancing Products a Scam?