Andrew Huberman· PhD
If these people had a preconceived notion that artificial sweeteners were bad for them, it's possible, knowing they're ingesting artificial sweeteners that they could have had a blood glucose response.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
If these people had a preconceived notion that artificial sweeteners were bad for them, it's possible, knowing they're ingesting artificial sweeteners that they could have had a blood glucose response.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So my take-home was the area under the curve, the incremental area under the curve, which is looking at basically the entire glucose response, was not different between the control and the sucralose group.
Post-meal glucose spikes in non-diabetics drive long-term cardiometabolic disease independently of HbA1c.
Wearing a continuous glucose monitor leads to personalized dietary improvements that hold up beyond 12 weeks.
Continuous glucose monitors meaningfully change behavior in non-diabetic adults beyond the first month.
CGM use in metabolically healthy adults induces orthorexic-style dietary anxiety without health benefit.