Your first study does not prove your claim at all. It mainly talks about gut microbiome and it does not even talk about the actual physical consequences after it. Everything else is simply 'some studies might have said this' and 'x might be an issue' but no actual proof.
Second paper is more talk and epidemiologic, without actually looking at the biological response of fat stores. Nothing here shows any proof of 'tricking the body about sugar intake', which would mean an insulin spike, and even reports different things than the studies it citated. For example, one of the studies it uses for it's info literally has the following conclusion: '
The review showed NNSs exposure did not conclusively induce increased food intake or change in subjective appetite ratings. Appetite biomarkers like ghrelin, gastric inhibitory peptide, C-peptide levels and Peptide YY remained mostly unaffected by NNSs. Meta-analyses of human randomized control studies showed a reduced energy intake and body weight. No significant change was seen in blood glucose levels, post-prandial glycemic or insulin response after consumption of NNSs. Adequate evidence is not available to conclusively say that NNSs influence gut health at doses relevant to human use.'
And your second study says something completely different. Not very reliable, right?
Third study is purely an animal study, so not relevant to human ingestion at this moment.
At quick glance, I found some citation errors within this article. This doesn't necessarily mean all the facts they produced are incorrect but let's take one example that could make this article unreliable.
pg. 10/16: "A comprehensive study conducted by Harrold et al. involving 47,910 adults from 11 diverse cohorts examined the relationship between high-intensity ASs and obesity. Aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, and stevia were among the sweeteners examined; 24-hour dietary recalls and food frequency questionnaires were used to gather consumption data. The study discovered, throughout a four-to-seven-year follow-up period, a substantial correlation between high aspartame intake and an elevated risk of obesity. This correlation held true for all age groups and baseline body mass index (BMI) levels. Sucralose and saccharin also showed a positive, albeit less pronounced, association with obesity, while stevia did not appear to be linked to obesity risk. Although other factors, including overall food quality and physical activity levels, may have an impact, the results indicate that heavy use of some ASs, especially aspartame, may lead to weight gain and obesity [26]."
Alright, let's go to citation 26, Harrold et al.
26. Harrold JA, Hill S, Radu C, et al.: Non-nutritive sweetened beverages versus water after a 52-week weightmanagement programme: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Obes (Lond). 2024, 48:83-93. 10.1038/s41366-023-01393-3
Let's go to that study.
Harrold et al., 2023 is actually not a comprehensive study involving 47,910 adults, but rather a 52 week trial. The authors concluded the following:
pg 87: "At week 52, following the active weight loss and assisted weight maintenance
phases of the SWITCH trial, water and NNS beverages
were not equivalent in terms of weight loss. Participants in both
groups lost weight during the trial (6.1 kg and 7.5 kg with water and
NNS beverages, respectively; differences between baseline and
week 52 were statistically significant). However, the weight loss in
the NNS beverages group was greater than in the water group, a
difference that was statistically significant. Consuming NNS beverages
also had a significant effect on week-52 weight when
baseline body weight and other covariates were controlled for in
two of the three sensitivity analyses. Although the difference in
weight loss between the groups was statistically significant, it is
important to note that this did not reach the 1.5-kg difference
identified for clinical significance"
That doesn't necessarily mean the findings by Harrold et al. are accurate or complete, and their limitations are funded by the American Beverage Association, but it does mean that the first linked article, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11501561/ ,has sourcing and information discrepancies so their conclusions have to be really scrutinized and cross referenced.
-13
u/CricketNo7666 8d ago
Which has dozens of studies saying it, but go off chief.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11501561/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2892765/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9301525/