I’ve become particularly interested in artificial sweeteners such as Equal, Sweet’N Low and Splenda packets that you may find to add to your morning coffee. While I always listened to my dad warning me that the artificial sweeteners “caused cancer” and were so much worse for my health than tale sugar (mostly to avoid any pointless disagreement), I began to think it was something worth looking into. These products are available on the shelves of almost any general store, so why would the FDA allow that if they were really so bad as to cause cancer?

So I first began digging into studies and the correlation of artificial sweeteners and cancer. But there wasn’t a correlation. In this study, 3 Italian hospitals accumulated a total of 230 patients with stomach cancer and 547 corresponding cases, 326 cases of pancreatic cancer and 652 controls, and 454 endometrial cancer and 908 corresponding cases for a large sample size of 3,117. This will allow for an assumed randomized control trial. The cases and controls were interviewed and given the same questionnaires regarding lifestyle habits and diet. The study used odds ratio and a corresponding 95% confidence interval to classify data. The results can be seen on a table in the link provided above, and it is instantly clear that this is a case of the Texas Sharp Shooter problem. The article also describes on page 2 how “analyses across strata of selected covariates (i.e., sex, age, education, BMI, total energy intake, history of diabetes, smoking status, and hot beverages) were also conducted.” With that many factors to measure, there is an increased chance to find a correlation which may not actually be a correlation. However, the results do not provide much correlation at all. After adjusting for confounding variables, the data seems to have no conclusive evidence to support a risk of gastric, pancreatic or endometrial cancer for users or nonusers. This conclusion is actually consistent with numerous other studies and researches by other scientists. This is simply one of numerous examples of scientists challenging and searching to prove or disprove other scientific work, whether it is accepted knowledge or not.

However, another study provides data to help disprove this conclusion. It is thought in this specific study that certain factors “disrupt or degrade” the ability humans and animals possess to predict consequences of caloric intake, ultimately leading to an imprecise intake and add to weight gain. The article outlines possible degrading factors to be tested as sweet substances that are calorie free and low-viscosity foods and beverages, often high in calories. This hypothesis is also consistent with a societal increase in consumed sweet substances and low-viscosity beverages as well as the obvious weight gain throughout the country.

Two separate studies were conducted on rats, the first study including two groups of  rats per group. Overnight, the rats were given access to ml of a cherry or grape flavored solution with lab chow. One of these groups, categorized as “Group Consistent,” was assigned one solution 10% sucrose sweetened and one solution 10% glucose sweetened. The other group, categorized as “Group Inconsistent,” had sweetened and flavored solutions of noncaloric 0.3% saccharin and 10% glucose. This process ensured that only Group Consistent had sweet taste as a factor of calories. Rats of both groups were then given one day with only lab chow before testing. The next day, after a food deprived night, a pre-meal was offered containing 4 grams of a sweet and high-calorie chocolate flavor. After the pre-meal, the rats were given the lab chow for the next hour. As expected, the mean pre-meal intake (open bars) did not differ between groups, but Group Consistent ate an average of significantly less lab chow (striped bars), as shown below and on the left. This is consistent with the hypothesis that “Group Consistent was better able than Group Inconsistent  to anticipate the caloric consequences of eating the sweet pre-meal and thus was better able to compensate for the calories contained in that meal by reducing subsequent intake of lab chow.”

The second study included two groups of 8 rats each. The rats were given 15 grams of a relatively low calorie supplement along with lab chow daily. One of the groups was categorized as “Group Low” and had 3% water added to lower the viscosity, creating more of a milk fluidity. The second group, known as “Group High,” included 3% nonmetabolizable guar for a viscosity with the thickness of pudding. Over 30 days, the above right graph displays how Group Low gained significantly more weight than Group High as time continued, a little over 5 grams. According to the article, this data suggests there may be evidence of sweet tastes and viscosity influencing weight gain, though there is much more research to be conducted.

And so with all of this information in mind, it is time to ask yourself whether you believe a study with less than 40 rats should affect your health decisions? There is an obvious relation…. in rats. My personal belief is that while this is definitely an interesting study that may deserve more follow up studies (preferably with humans), and there is definitely a relation between high calorie beverages and sweet substances and weight gain, this information does not directly affect me and my lifestyle at the time since I don’t indulge in many substances that would fall under the tested categories. Besides the previous complaints, I thought the study was very well thought out and executed and should be further researched.