Artificial and natural sweeteners and cellulite

We are pleased to share our experience in cellulite and skin tightening, from our clinic in London with everyone in the world. Check all our articles here. And if you do live in London, feel free to book an assessment, consultation or treatment with us here.

• To reduce/prevent cellulite, get rid of the sweet stuff altogether

• But what about sweeteners, artificial or natural? Do they affect weight/fat levels and - consequently - cellulite?

• Stevia, glucose, insulin, appetite and cellulite

• How about xylitol and sorbitol?

• The latest batch: erythritol and monk fruit

• Detoxify from the sweet taste and bin natural and artificial sweeteners together with sugar

• Is the Use of Artificial Sweeteners Beneficial for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus? The Advantages and Disadvantages of Artificial Sweeteners

• Acute responses of stevia and d-tagatose intake on metabolic parameters and appetite/satiety in insulin resistance

• Check our professional consultancy, for a masterclass in radiofrequency, ultrasound cavitation, cellulite and skin tightening

To prevent and reduce cellulite, get rid of the sweet stuff altogether

Sugar consumption today is one of the most important causes of cellulite - as well as diabetes and obesity.

Therefore reducing or eliminating sugar:

• in all its forms (including honey, brown sugar, maple syrup, agave syrup and other sweeteners erroneously thought to be “good sugars”)

• and everything made with it (cakes, ice-cream, cookies etc)

…is the number one priority for cellulite prevention and reduction, as well as weight maintenance.

But what about sweeteners, artificial or natural? Do they affect weight/fat levels and, consequently, cellulite?

The fact is that most artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame and sucralose have been implicated into various adverse health effects - and even weight gain, rather than weight loss. But most importantly, they definitely do not help with weight loss.

This means that, although sweeteners offer a calorie-free substitute to sugar, they eventually fail in reducing (or even maintaining) overall calorie intake and consequently body weight.

As this study, referenced at the end of this article, puts it:

“Human meta-analyses have reported that artificial sweeteners have no effect on body weight or glycemic control. However, recent studies have shown that artificial sweeteners affect glucose absorption in the intestinal tract as well as insulin and incretin secretion in humans and animals. Moreover, artificial sweeteners alter the composition of the microbiota and worsen the glycemic control owing to changes in the gut microbiota. The early intake of ACE K was also shown to suppress the taste response to sugar. Furthermore, a large cohort study showed that high artificial sweetener intake was associated with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular risk, coronary artery disease risk, cerebrovascular risk, and cancer risk.”

Not very good news at all.

Stevia, glucose, insulin, appetite and cellulite

Furthermore, natural sweeteners, such as stevia, also affect glucose, insulin and appetite and are not as innocent as many people think.

One study (referenced at the end of this article) has shown that stevia:

• Increases glucose after consumption

• Increases insulin by 50%

• And decreases appetite 60 minutes after consumption and then significantly increases it one hour later

Not good news at all either.

Personally I tried stevia a couple of decades ago for a few years and have realised that on top of the horrible metallic aftertaste (and how do you get rid of that artificial sweetener aftertaste?), it always gave me hypoglycaemia and then increased hunger, exactly as research has shown.

Anything that plays havoc with your glucose and insulin levels, making them to fluctuate too high or too low, is just not a good, long term, viable, healthy option.

Stevia was the next big thing 20 years ago but now it’s dead as a viable healthy sweetening option.

How about xylitol and sorbitol?

Xylitol and sorbitol are not viable alternatives either as they taste metallic and cause intestinal upset in most people, including diarrhoea.

Given those two attributes, it doesn’t matter if they are innocent or not. The whole idea is to provide a pleasant, sweet taste. If a sweetener fails to do that and makes your tummy upset, what’s the point of it not having other adverse effects?

Xylitol and sorbitol are dead too, as viable sweeteners.

erythritol

Erythritol has been recently found to increase platelet activity and therefore making blood stickier - a very bad thing indeed for cardiovascular health.

As it is not worth reducing your cellulite - a bit - and increase your risk of heart disease - even a bit - erythritol is unfortunately now out of the question.

monk fruit

Monkfruit (Siraitia grosvenorii / Lo Han Guo) seems to be innocuous, at least according to current knowledge, and not cause any serious glucose/insulin fluctuations or GI disturbances (insulin and glucose fluctuations are detrimental to cellulite, as they stimulate the uptake of fat in cellulite fat cells).

After erythritol been found to increase platelet activity, lo han guo is the only natural sweetener* left to use, IN LIMITED AMOUNTS, and as long as it is not proven detrimental in the future too.

(* Lo han guo is not authorised as a sweetener in Europe)

Detoxify from the sweet taste and bin natural and artificial sweeteners together with sugar

However, as with “vegan bacon” and vegan “chik’n”, which keep perpetuating in your mind the idea of real bacon and real chicken whilst you try so hard to be vegan, sweeteners keep you addicted to the sweet taste and inevitably to sugar itself, when you try so hard to be free from the sweet taste.

A much better approach is to bin sugar and sweeteners altogether or at least use them very, very occasionally.

That would be the best thing for overall body health and firm, cellulite-free thighs too.

Is the Use of Artificial Sweeteners Beneficial for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus? The Advantages and Disadvantages of Artificial Sweeteners

• Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9655943/

• Research paper abstract: Artificial sweeteners have been developed as substitutes for sugar. Sucralose, akesulfame K (ACE K), aspartame, and saccharin are artificial sweeteners. Previously, artificial sweeteners were thought to be effective in treating obesity and diabetes. Human meta-analyses have reported that artificial sweeteners have no effect on body weight or glycemic control. However, recent studies have shown that artificial sweeteners affect glucose absorption in the intestinal tract as well as insulin and incretin secretion in humans and animals. Moreover, artificial sweeteners alter the composition of the microbiota and worsen the glycemic control owing to changes in the gut microbiota. The early intake of ACE K was also shown to suppress the taste response to sugar. Furthermore, a large cohort study showed that high artificial sweetener intake was associated with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular risk, coronary artery disease risk, cerebrovascular risk, and cancer risk. The role of artificial sweeteners in the treatment of diabetes and obesity should be reconsidered, and the replacement of sugar with artificial sweeteners in patients will require the long-term tracking of not only intake but also changes in blood glucose and weight as well as future guidance based on gut bacteria data. To utilise the beneficial properties of artificial sweeteners in treatment, further studies are needed.

Acute responses of stevia and d-tagatose intake on metabolic parameters and appetite/satiety in insulin resistance

• Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35623816/

• Research paper abstract: Objective: To examine the effects of d-tagatose or stevia preloads on carbohydrate metabolism markers after an oral glucose load, as well as subjective and objective appetite in women with insulin resistance (IR). Research design and methods: Randomized controlled crossover study. Women with IR without T2DM (n = 33; aged 23.4 ± 3.8; BMI 28.1 ± 3.4 kg × m-2) underwent three oral glucose loads (3 h each) on three different days. Ten min before oral glucose load, volunteers consumed a preload of 60 mL water (control), 60 mL water with stevia (15.3 mg), or d-tagatose (5000 mg). Serum glucose and C-peptide were evaluated at -10, 30-, 60-, 90-, 120-, and 180-min. Subjective appetite was determined with a visual analog scale. Food intake was measured at ad libitum buffet after 180 min. Results: C-peptide iAUC was significantly higher for stevia (median (IQR): 1033 (711-1293) ng × min × L-1) vs. d-tagatose (794 (366-1134) ng × min × L-1; P = 0.001) or control (730 (516-1078) ng × min × L-1; P = 0.012). At 30- and 60-min serum glucose was higher for stevia vs other conditions (P < 0.01). Volunteers reported greater satiety for stevia and d-tagatose vs. control at 60 min and greater desire to eat for stevia vs. control at 120- min (all P < 0.05). Objective appetite did not vary by condition (P = 0.06). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that these NNS are not inert. Stevia intake produced an acute response on C-peptide release while increased serum glucose at earlier times. It is possible that NNS affects subjective but not objective appetite.

Check our professional consultancy, for a masterclass in radiofrequency, ultrasound cavitation, cellulite and skin tightening

Do you want to deeply understand radiofrequency, ultrasound cavitation, cellulite and skin tightening? Attend a half-day, 1-day or 2-day or 3-day professional consultancy / one-to-one training and confidently offer your clients the safest, strongest and most effective treatment possible. Service available via Zoom or at our central London practice.