How Much Does A Vegan Diet Affect Biological Aging?
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.
Slow Your Aging, One Meal At A Time
This one’s a straightforward one today, and the ““life hack” can be summed up:
Enjoy a vegan diet to enjoy younger biological age.
First, what is biological age?
Biological age is not one number, but a collection of numbers, as per different biomarkers of aging, including:
- Visual markers of aging (e.g. wrinkles, graying hair)
- Performative markers of aging (e.g. mobility tests)
- Internal functional markers of aging (e.g. tests for cognitive decline, eyesight, hearing, etc)
- Cellular markers of aging (e.g. telomere length)
We wrote more about this here:
Age & Aging: What Can (And Can’t) We Do About It?
A vegan diet may well impact multiple of those categories of aging, but today we’re highlighting a study (hot off the press; published only a few days ago!) that looks at its effect on that last category: cellular markers of aging.
There’s an interesting paradox here, because this category is:
- the most easily ignorable; because we all feel it if our knees are giving out or our skin is losing elasticity, but who notices if telomeres’ T/S ratio changed by 0.0407? ← the researchers, that’s who, as this difference is very significant
- the most far-reaching in its impact, because cellular aging in turn has an effect on all the other markers of aging
Second, how much difference does it make, and how do we know?
The study was an eight-week interventional identical twin study. This means several things, to start with:
- Eight weeks is a rather short period of time to accumulate cellular aging, let alone for an intervention to accumulate a significant difference in cellular aging—but it did. So, just imagine what difference it might make in a year or ten!
- Doing an interventional study with identical twin pairs already controlled for a lot of factors, that are usually confounding variables in population / cohort / longitudinal / observational studies.
Factors that weren’t controlled for by default by using identical twins, were controlled for in the experiment design. For example, twin pairs were rejected if one or more twin in a given pair already had medical conditions that could affect the outcome:
❝Inclusion criteria involved participants aged ≥18, part of a willing twin pair, with BMI <40, and LDL-C <190 mg/dL. Exclusions included uncontrolled hypertension, metabolic disease, diabetes, cancer, heart/renal/liver disease, pregnancy, lactation, and medication use affecting body weight or energy.
Eligibility was determined via online screening, followed by an orientation meeting and in-person clinic visit. Randomization occurred only after completing baseline visits, dietary recalls, and questionnaires for both twins❞
~ Dr. Varun Dwaraka et al. ← there’s a lot of “et al.” to this one; the paper had 16 collaborating authors!
As to the difference it made over the course of the 8 weeks…
❝Various measures of epigenetic age acceleration (PC GrimAge, PC PhenoAge, DunedinPACE) were assessed, along with system-specific effects (Inflammation, Heart, Hormone, Liver, and Metabolic).
Distinct responses were observed, with the vegan cohort exhibiting significant decreases in overall epigenetic age acceleration, aligning with anti-aging effects of plant-based diets. Diet-specific shifts were noted in the analysis of methylation surrogates, demonstrating the influence of diet on complex trait prediction through DNA methylation markers.❞
~ Ibid.
You can read the whole paper here (it goes into a lot more detail than we have room to here, and also gives infographics, charts, numbers, the works):
Were they just eating more healthily, though?
Well, arguably yes, as the results show, but to be clear:
The omnivorous diet compared to the vegan diet in this study was also controlled; both groups were given a healthy meal plan for their respective diet. So this wasn’t a case of “any omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”, but rather “healthy omnivorous diet vs healthy vegan diet”.
Again, the paper itself has the full details—a short version is that it involved a healthy meal kit delivery service, followed by ongoing dietician involvement in an equal and carefully-controlled fashion.
So, aside from that one group had an omnivorous meal plan and the other vegan, both groups received the same level of “healthy eating” support, guidance, and oversight.
But isn’t [insert your preferred animal product here] healthy?
Quite possibly! For general health, general scientific consensus is that eating at least mostly plants is best, red meat is bad, poultry is neutral in moderation, fish is good in moderation, dairy is good in moderation if fermented, eggs are good in moderation if not fried.
This study looked at the various biomarkers of aging that we listed, and not every possible aspect of health—there’s more science yet to be done, and the researchers themselves are calling for it.
It also bears mentioning that for some (relatively few, but not insignificantly few) people, extant health conditions may make a vegan diet unhealthy or otherwise untenable. Do speak with your own doctor and/or dietician if unsure.
See also: Do We Need Animal Products To Be Healthy?
We would hypothesize, by the way, that the anti-aging benefits of a vegan diet are probably proportional to abstention from animal products—meaning that even if you simply have some “vegan days”, while still consuming animal products other days, you’ll still get benefit for the days you abstained. That’s just our hypothesis though.
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Superfood Kale & Dill Pâté
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.
Most of us could do with eating more greens a lot of the time, but it’s not always easy to include them. This kale and dill pâté brings a healthy dose of green in luxurious style, along with abundant phytochemicals and more!
You will need
- 2 handfuls kale, stalks removed
- 1 cup soft cheese (you can use our Healthy Plant-Based Cream Cheese recipe if you like)
- 2 tbsp fresh dill, chopped
- 1 tsp capers
- 1 tsp black pepper, coarse ground
- ½ tsp MSG, or 1 tsp low-sodium salt
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) Steam the kale for about 5 minutes or until wilted and soft. Run under cold water to halt the cooking process.
2) Combine all the ingredients, including the kale you just blanched, in a food processor and blitz to make a smooth pâté.
3) Serve with oatcakes or vegetable sticks, or keep in the fridge to enjoy it later:
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
-
From Dr. Oz to Heart Valves: A Tiny Device Charted a Contentious Path Through the FDA
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.
In 2013, the FDA approved an implantable device to treat leaky heart valves. Among its inventors was Mehmet Oz, the former television personality and former U.S. Senate candidate widely known as “Dr. Oz.”
In online videos, Oz has called the process that brought the MitraClip device to market an example of American medicine firing “on all cylinders,” and he has compared it to “landing a man on the moon.”
MitraClip was designed to spare patients from open-heart surgery by snaking hardware into the heart through a major vein. Its manufacturer, Abbott, said it offered new hope for people severely ill with a condition called mitral regurgitation and too frail to undergo surgery.
“It changed the face of cardiac medicine,” Oz said in a video.
But since MitraClip won FDA approval, versions of the device have been the subject of thousands of reports to the agency about malfunctions or patient injuries, as well as more than 1,100 reports of patient deaths, FDA records show. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three recalls. A former employee has alleged in a federal lawsuit that Abbott promoted the device through illegal inducements to doctors and hospitals. The case is pending, and Abbott has denied illegally marketing the device.
The MitraClip story is, in many ways, a cautionary tale about the science, business, and regulation of medical devices.
Manufacturer-sponsored research on the device has long been questioned. In 2013, an outside adviser to the FDA compared some of the data marshaled in support of its approval to “poop.”
The FDA expanded its approval of MitraClip to a wider set of patients in 2019, based on a clinical trial in which Abbott was deeply involved and despite conflicting findings from another study.
In the three recalls, the first of which warned of potentially deadly consequences, neither the manufacturer nor the FDA withdrew inventory from the market. The company told doctors it was OK for them to continue using the recalled products.
In response to questions for this article, both Abbott and the FDA described MitraClip as safe and effective.
“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” Abbott spokesperson Brent Tippen said. “Patients suffering from mitral regurgitation have severely limited quality of life. MitraClip can significantly improve survival, freedom for hospitalization and quality of life via a minimally invasive, now common procedure.”
An FDA spokesperson, Audra Harrison, said patient safety “is the FDA’s highest priority and at the forefront of our work in medical device regulation.”
She said reports to the FDA about malfunctions, injuries, and deaths that the device may have caused or contributed to are “consistent” with study results the FDA reviewed for its 2013 and 2019 approvals.
In other words: They were expected.
Inspiration in Italy
When a person has mitral regurgitation, blood flows backward through the mitral valve. Severe cases can lead to heart failure.
With MitraClip, flaps of the valve — known as “leaflets” — are clipped together at one or more points to achieve a tighter seal when they close. The clips are deployed via a catheter threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin. The procedure offers an alternative to connecting the patient to a heart-lung machine and repairing or replacing the mitral valve in open-heart surgery.
Oz has said in online videos that he got the idea after hearing a doctor describe a surgical technique for the mitral valve at a conference in Italy. “And on the way home that night, on a plane heading back to Columbia University, where I was on the faculty, I wrote the patent,” he told KFF Health News.
A patent obtained by Columbia in 2001, one of several associated with MitraClip, lists Oz first among the inventors.
But a Silicon Valley-based startup, Evalve, would develop the device. Evalve was later acquired by Abbott for about $400 million.
“I think the engineers and people at Evalve always cringe a little bit when they see Mehmet taking a lot of, you know, basically claiming responsibility for what was a really extraordinary team effort, and he was a small to almost no player in that team,” one of the company’s founders, cardiologist Fred St. Goar, told KFF Health News.
Oz did not respond to a request for comment on that statement.
As of 2019, the MitraClip device cost $30,000 per procedure, according to an article in a medical journal. According to the Abbott website, more than 200,000 people around the world have been treated with MitraClip.
Oz filed a financial disclosure during his unsuccessful run for the U.S. Senate in 2022 that showed him receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual MitraClip royalties.
Abbott recently received FDA approval for TriClip, a variation of the MitraClip system for the heart’s tricuspid valve.
Endorsed ‘With Trepidation’
Before the FDA said yes to MitraClip in 2013, agency staffers pushed back.
Abbott had originally wanted the device approved for “patients with significant mitral regurgitation,” a relatively broad term. After the FDA objected, the company narrowed its proposal to patients at too-high risk for open-heart surgery.
Even then, in an analysis, the FDA identified “fundamental” flaws in Abbott’s data.
One example: The data compared MitraClip patients with patients who underwent open-heart surgery for valve repair — but the comparison might have been biased by differences in the expertise of doctors treating the two groups, the FDA analysis said. While MitraClip was implanted by a highly select, experienced group of interventional cardiologists, many of the doctors doing the open-heart surgeries had performed only a “very low volume” of such operations.
FDA “approval is not appropriate at this time as major questions of safety and effectiveness, as well as the overall benefit-risk profile for this device, remain unanswered,” the FDA said in a review prepared for a March 2013 meeting of a committee of outside advisers to the agency.
Some committee members expressed misgivings. “If your right shoe goes into horse poop and your left shoe goes into dog poop, it’s still poop,” cardiothoracic surgeon Craig Selzman said, according to a transcript.
The committee voted 5-4 against MitraClip on the question of whether it proved effective. But members voted 8-0 that they considered the device safe and 5-3 that the benefits of the device outweighed its risks.
Selzman voted yes on the last question “with trepidation,” he said at the time.
In October 2013, the FDA approved the MitraClip Clip Delivery System for a narrower group of patients: those with a particular type of mitral regurgitation who were considered a surgery risk.
“The reality is, there is no perfect procedure,” said Jason Rogers, an interventional cardiologist and University of California-Davis professor who is an Abbott consultant. The company referred KFF Health News to Rogers as an authority on MitraClip. He called MitraClip “extremely safe” and said some patients treated with it are “on death’s door to begin with.”
“At least you’re trying to do something for them,” he said.
Conflicting Studies
In 2019, the FDA expanded its approval of MitraClip to a wider set of patients.
The agency based that decision on a clinical trial in the United States and Canada that Abbott not only sponsored but also helped design and manage. It participated in site selection and data analysis, according to a September 2018 New England Journal of Medicine paper reporting the trial results. Some of the authors received consulting fees from Abbott, the paper disclosed.
A separate study in France reached a different conclusion. It found that, for some patients who fit the expanded profile, the device did not significantly reduce deaths or hospitalizations for heart failure over a year.
The French study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in August 2018, was funded by the government of France and Abbott. As with the North American study, some of the researchers disclosed they had received money from Abbott. However, the write-up in the journal said Abbott played no role in the design of the French trial, the selection of sites, or in data analysis.
Gregg Stone, one of the leaders of the North American study, said there were differences between patients enrolled in the two studies and how they were medicated. In addition, outcomes were better in the North American study in part because doctors in the U.S. and Canada had more MitraClip experience than their counterparts in France, Stone said.
Stone, a clinical trial specialist with a background in interventional cardiology, acknowledged skepticism toward studies sponsored by manufacturers.
“There are some people who say, ‘Oh, well, you know, these results may have been manipulated,’” he said. “But I can guarantee you that’s not the truth.”
‘Nationwide Scheme’
A former Abbott employee alleges in a lawsuit that after MitraClip won approval, the company promoted the device to doctors and hospitals using inducements such as free marketing support, the chance to participate in Abbott clinical trials, and payments for participating in “sham speaker programs.”
The former employee alleges that she was instructed to tell referring physicians that if they observed mitral regurgitation in their patients to “just send it” for a MitraClip procedure because “everything can be clipped.” She also alleges that, using a script, she was told to promote the device to hospital administrators based on financial advantages such as “growth opportunities through profitable procedures, ancillary tests, and referral streams.”
The inducements were part of a “nationwide scheme” of illegal kickbacks that defrauded government health insurance programs including Medicare and Medicaid, the lawsuit claims.
The company denied doing anything illegal and said in a court filing that “to help its groundbreaking therapy reach patients, Abbott needed to educate cardiologists and other healthcare providers.”
Those efforts are “not only routine, they are laudable — as physicians cannot use, or refer a patient to another doctor who can use, a device that they do not understand or in some cases even know about,” the company said in the filing.
Under federal law, the person who filed the suit can receive a share of any money the government recoups from Abbott. The suit was filed by a company associated with a former employee in Abbott’s Structural Heart Division, Lisa Knott. An attorney for the company declined to comment and said Knott had no comment.
Reports to the FDA
As doctors started using MitraClip, the FDA began receiving reports about malfunctions and cases in which the product might have caused or contributed to a death or an injury.
According to some reports, clips detached from valve flaps. Flaps became damaged. Procedures were aborted. Mitral leakage worsened. Doctors struggled to control the device. Clips became “entangled in chordae” — cord-like structures also known as heartstrings that connect the valve flaps to the heart muscle. Patients treated with MitraClip underwent corrective operations.
As of March 2024, the FDA had received more than 17,000 reports documenting more than 22,000 “events” involving mitral valve repair devices, FDA data shows. All but about 200 of those reports mention one iteration of MitraClip or another, a KFF Health News review of FDA data found.
Almost all the reports came from Abbott. The FDA requires manufacturers to submit reports when they learn of mishaps potentially related to their devices.
The reports are not proof that devices caused problems, and the same event might be reported multiple times. Other events may go unreported.
Despite the reports’ limitations, the FDA provides an analysis of them for the public on its website.
MitraClip’s risks weren’t a surprise.
Like the rapid-fire fine print in television ads for prescription drugs, the original product label for the device listed more than 60 types of potential complications.
Indeed, during clinical research on the device, about 6% of patients implanted with MitraClip died within 30 days, according to the label. Almost 1 in 4 — 23.6% – were dead within a year.
The FDA spokesperson, Harrison, pointed to a study originally published in 2021 in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, based on a central registry of mitral valve procedures, that found lower rates of death after MitraClip went on the market.
“These data confirmed that the MitraClip device remains safe and effective in the real-world setting,” Harrison said.
But the study’s authors, several of whom disclosed financial or other connections to Abbott, said data was missing for more than a quarter of patients one year after the procedure.
A major measure of success would be the proportion of MitraClip patients who are alive “with an acceptable quality of life” a year after undergoing the procedure, the study said. Because such information was available for fewer than half of the living patients, “we have omitted those outcomes from this report,” the authors wrote.
If you’ve had an experience with MitraClip or another medical device and would like to tell KFF Health News about it, click here to share your story with us.
KFF Health News audience engagement producer Tarena Lofton contributed to this report.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
Share This Post
-
Aspirin, CVD Risk, & Potential Counter-Risks
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.
Aspirin Pros & Cons
In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked your health-related opinion of aspirin, and got the above-depicted, below-described set of responses:
- About 42% said “Most people can benefit from low-dose daily use to lower CVD risk”
- About 31% said “It’s safe for occasional use as a mild analgesic, but that’s all”
- About 28% said “We should avoid aspirin; it can cause liver and/or kidney damage”
So, what does the science say?
Most people can benefit from low-dose daily aspirin use to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease: True or False?
True or False depending on what we mean by “benefit from”. You see, it works by inhibiting platelet function, which means it simultaneously:
- decreases the risk of atherothrombosis
- increases the risk of bleeding, especially in the gastrointestinal tract
When it comes to balancing these things and deciding whether the benefit merits the risk, you might be asking yourself: “which am I most likely to die from?” and the answer is: neither
While aspirin is associated with a significant improvement in cardiovascular disease outcomes in total, it is not significantly associated with reductions in cardiovascular disease mortality or all-cause mortality.
In other words: speaking in statistical generalizations of course, it may improve your recovery from minor cardiac events but is unlikely to help against fatal ones
The current prevailing professional (amongst cardiologists) consensus is that it may be recommended for secondary prevention of ASCVD (i.e. if you have a history of CVD), but not for primary prevention (i.e. if you have no history of CVD). Note: this means personal history, not family history.
In the words of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology:
❝Low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg orally daily) might be considered for the primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40 to 70 years of age who are at higher ASCVD risk but not at increased bleeding risk (S4.6-1–S4.6-8).
Low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg orally daily) should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of ASCVD among adults >70 years of age (S4.6-9).
Low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg orally daily) should not be administered for the primary prevention of ASCVD among adults of any age who are at increased risk of bleeding (S4.6-10).❞
~ Dr. Donna Arnett et al. (those section references are where you can find this information in the document)
Read in full: Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology
Or if you’d prefer a more pop-science presentation:
Many older adults still use aspirin for CVD prevention, contrary to clinical guidance
Aspirin can cause liver and/or kidney damage: True or False?
True, but that doesn’t mean we must necessarily abstain, so much as exercise caution.
Aspirin is (at recommended doses) not usually hepatotoxic (toxic to the liver), but there is a strong association between aspirin use in children and the development of Reye’s syndrome, a disease involving encephalopathy and a fatty liver. For this reason, most places have an official recommendation that aspirin not be used by children (cut-off age varies from place to place, for example 12 in the US and 16 in the UK, but the key idea is: it’s potentially dangerous for those who are not fully grown).
Aspirin is well-established as nephrotoxic (toxic to the kidneys), however, the toxicity is sufficiently low that this is not expected to be a problem to otherwise healthy adults taking it at no more than the recommended dose.
For numbers, symptoms, and treatment, see this very clear and helpful resource:
An evidence based flowchart to guide the management of acute salicylate (aspirin) overdose
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Is Marine Collagen Worth Taking?
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.
Questions and Answers at 10almonds
Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
This newsletter has been growing a lot lately, and so have the questions/requests, and we love that! In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
I wanted to ask if you think marine collagen is decent to take. I’ve heard a lot of bad press about it
We don’t know what you’ve heard, but generally speaking it’s been found to be very beneficial to bones, joints, and skin! We wrote about it quite recently on a “Research Review Monday”:
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:
-
Does Your Butt…Wink?
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.
What is a Butt Wink?
A “butt wink” is a common issue that occurs during squatting exercises.
Now, we’ve talked about the benefits of squatting countless times (see here or here for just a few examples). As with all exercises, using the correct technique is imperative, helping to both reduce injury and maximize gain.
Given butt winks are a common issue when squatting, we thought it natural to devote an article to it.
So, a butt wink happens when, at the bottom of your squat position, your pelvis tucks rotates backward (otherwise known as a “posterior pelvic tilt”) and the lower back rounds. This motion looks like a slight ‘wink’, hence the name.
How to Avoid Butt Winking
When the pelvis tucks under and the spine rounds, it can put undue pressure on the lumbar discs. This is especially risky when squatting with weights, as it can exacerbate the stress on the spine.
To avoid a butt wink, it’s important to maintain a neutral spine throughout the squat and to work on flexibility and strength in the hips, glutes, and hamstrings. Adjusting the stance width or foot angle during squats can also help in maintaining proper form.
A visual representation would likely work better than our attempt at describing what to do, so without further ado, here’s today’s video:
How was the video? If you’ve discovered any great videos yourself that you’d like to share with fellow 10almonds readers, then please do email them to us!
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:
-
Cheeky diet soft drink getting you through the work day? Here’s what that may mean for your health
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.
Many people are drinking less sugary soft drink than in the past. This is a great win for public health, given the recognised risks of diets high in sugar-sweetened drinks.
But over time, intake of diet soft drinks has grown. In fact, it’s so high that these products are now regularly detected in wastewater.
So what does the research say about how your health is affected in the long term if you drink them often?
Breakingpic/Pexels What makes diet soft drinks sweet?
The World Health Organization (WHO) advises people “reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (six teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.”
But most regular soft drinks contain a lot of sugar. A regular 335 millilitre can of original Coca-Cola contains at least seven teaspoons of added sugar.
Diet soft drinks are designed to taste similar to regular soft drinks but without the sugar. Instead of sugar, diet soft drinks contain artificial or natural sweeteners. The artificial sweeteners include aspartame, saccharin and sucralose. The natural sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extract, which come from plant sources.
Many artificial sweeteners are much sweeter than sugar so less is needed to provide the same burst of sweetness.
Diet soft drinks are marketed as healthier alternatives to regular soft drinks, particularly for people who want to reduce their sugar intake or manage their weight.
But while surveys of Australian adults and adolescents show most people understand the benefits of reducing their sugar intake, they often aren’t as aware about how diet drinks may affect health more broadly.
Diet soft drinks contain artificial or natural sweeteners. Vintage Tone/Shutterstock What does the research say about aspartame?
The artificial sweeteners in soft drinks are considered safe for consumption by food authorities, including in the US and Australia. However, some researchers have raised concern about the long-term risks of consumption.
People who drink diet soft drinks regularly and often are more likely to develop certain metabolic conditions (such as diabetes and heart disease) than those who don’t drink diet soft drinks.
The link was found even after accounting for other dietary and lifestyle factors (such as physical activity).
In 2023, the WHO announced reports had found aspartame – the main sweetener used in diet soft drinks – was “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (carcinogenic means cancer-causing).
Importantly though, the report noted there is not enough current scientific evidence to be truly confident aspartame may increase the risk of cancer and emphasised it’s safe to consume occasionally.
Will diet soft drinks help manage weight?
Despite the word “diet” in the name, diet soft drinks are not strongly linked with weight management.
In 2022, the WHO conducted a systematic review (where researchers look at all available evidence on a topic) on whether the use of artificial sweeteners is beneficial for weight management.
Overall, the randomised controlled trials they looked at suggested slightly more weight loss in people who used artificial sweeteners.
But the observational studies (where no intervention occurs and participants are monitored over time) found people who consume high amounts of artificial sweeteners tended to have an increased risk of higher body mass index and a 76% increased likelihood of having obesity.
In other words, artificial sweeteners may not directly help manage weight over the long term. This resulted in the WHO advising artificial sweeteners should not be used to manage weight.
Studies in animals have suggested consuming high levels of artificial sweeteners can signal to the brain it is being starved of fuel, which can lead to more eating. However, the evidence for this happening in humans is still unproven.
You can’t go wrong with water. hurricanehank/Shutterstock What about inflammation and dental issues?
There is some early evidence artificial sweeteners may irritate the lining of the digestive system, causing inflammation and increasing the likelihood of diarrhoea, constipation, bloating and other symptoms often associated with irritable bowel syndrome. However, this study noted more research is needed.
High amounts of diet soft drinks have also been linked with liver disease, which is based on inflammation.
The consumption of diet soft drinks is also associated with dental erosion.
Many soft drinks contain phosphoric and citric acid, which can damage your tooth enamel and contribute to dental erosion.
Moderation is key
As with many aspects of nutrition, moderation is key with diet soft drinks.
Drinking diet soft drinks occasionally is unlikely to harm your health, but frequent or excessive intake may increase health risks in the longer term.
Plain water, infused water, sparkling water, herbal teas or milks remain the best options for hydration.
Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, Southern Cross 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: