infoplease: OMG I am having an epiphany, thanks to the article you provided. Until reading that someone is looking at the issue, I've tried to fit my experience in to what I know about sugar vs sucralose. Ironically I never had much of a sweet tooth until coming off IP. It wasn't really IP but the Muscle Milk ultra-sweet shakes I relied on to get enough calories in P4 while on the run at work. Well, that and the IP vanilla shake in my coffee (NEVER drank sweetened coffee before IP).

On P1, thanks to Mio, I always had a mild, pleasantly sweet aftertaste that tricked me into subliminally thinking I had just eaten something sweet. I've also noticed something lately--although I'm still fitting my small clothes quite well and holding the line with weight goal, there is a little fat deposition on my abdomen, maybe linked to insulin? My typical diet is under 50g carbs, so I would not expect to see that. Sucralose?? Yaaaahhh! :yikes:

I've been holding off on going sucralose-free until spring--mood issues. From this article and the gut effects you mentioned, it's time. :kickbutt: (So glad I returned the Cytosport Whey powder 6 lb bag back to Costco this a.m.).

This is a long ramble but I hope there's something helpful for others re sucralose possibly fueling a sweet tooth.

Thanks again infoplease!

My natural Heath providers have told me for years that Splenda destroys gut bacteria. My own gut has told me, as well.

I remember you posting about that, and added Bubbie's pickles & sauerkraut. This sounds like the kind of thing where everything seems to be working fine--until it isn't. I wonder what sucralose withdrawal will be like, lol.

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008;71(21):1415-29. doi: 10.1080/15287390802328630.
Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal p-glycoprotein and cytochrome p-450 in male rats.
Abou-Donia MB1, El-Masry EM, Abdel-Rahman AA, McLendon RE, Schiffman SS.
Author information

Abstract
Splenda is comprised of the high-potency artificial sweetener sucralose (1.1%) and the fillers maltodextrin and glucose. Splenda was administered by oral gavage at 100, 300, 500, or 1000 mg/kg to male Sprague-Dawley rats for 12-wk, during which fecal samples were collected weekly for bacterial analysis and measurement of fecal pH. After 12-wk, half of the animals from each treatment group were sacrificed to determine the intestinal expression of the membrane efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and the cytochrome P-450 (CYP) metabolism system by Western blot. The remaining animals were allowed to recover for an additional 12-wk, and further assessments of fecal microflora, fecal pH, and expression of P-gp and CYP were determined. At the end of the 12-wk treatment period, the numbers of total anaerobes, bifidobacteria, lactobacilli, Bacteroides, clostridia, and total aerobic bacteria were significantly decreased; however, there was no significant treatment effect on enterobacteria. Splenda also increased fecal pH and enhanced the expression of P-gp by 2.43-fold, CYP3A4 by 2.51-fold, and CYP2D1 by 3.49-fold. Following the 12-wk recovery period, only the total anaerobes and bifidobacteria remained significantly depressed, whereas pH values, P-gp, and CYP3A4 and CYP2D1 remained elevated. These changes occurred at Splenda dosages that contained sucralose at 1.1-11 mg/kg (the US FDA Acceptable Daily Intake for sucralose is 5 mg/kg). Evidence indicates that a 12-wk administration of Splenda exerted numerous adverse effects, including (1) reduction in beneficial fecal microflora, (2) increased fecal pH, and (3) enhanced expression levels of P-gp, CYP3A4, and CYP2D1, which are known to limit the bioavailability of orally administered drugs.

Looking around the web, I found criticism of this study, the most significant being that it was funded by the sugar industry. The 2nd that it used Splenda rather than pure sucralose, so it isn't clear which additive is responsible. Third, there was no control group. I read too that bacteria in the outer world are also being affected by sucralose as it show up in the environment.

Mars funny you bring this up. I too have a fat deposition on my lower abdomen that I never noticed prior to ip even when I was at my thinest several years ago. In all fairness I was younger so perhaps that's it. Something to think about for sure.

Perhaps Lisa will be amused that the study took place at a certain Washington University in St Louis...
Here is another take on the quoted study, plus other info. This is from this link:
http://suppversity.blogspot.de/2013/...conds-pro.html
(This is a favorite site of mine plus also a "like" on facebook. He is a German man with a huge interest in researching diet & exercise stuff and interprets the studies with charts and graphs. English is his second language so just ignore the occasional wrong word)
If we take another look at the study outcomes, it is obvious that this increase in the transport of glucose across the intestinal border would in fact be the most likely mechanism to cause the (in this case appropriate) increase insulin response (more on that in the chapter on whether this is a good or bad thing). Previous studies in rodents also suggest that aside from the acute increase in GLUT-2 receptor expression, the chronic use of artificial sweetener has the ability to upregulate the expression of the "regular" Na-dependent glucose transporter and will thus have a persistent negative effect on what you could call the GI of everything you eat. Accordingly, the scientists speculate
"[...] that regular users of NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] would have a higher glycemic response after an oral glucose tolerance test on the control day than irregular users and that the acute effects of sucralose intake would be blunted because differences between water and sucralose conditions would be smaller in regular than in irregular users of NNS." (Pepino. 2013)
In other words, chronic users won't be experiencing the effects that were observed in the study, but they will necessarily have a slightly increased insulin response to everything they eat (as long as they are healthy and not yet insulin resistance) irrespective of whether they consume it with or without non-nutritive (not just artificial) sweeteners.
Bottom line: ...The evidence simply is not there or as Renwick et al. put it in their review, there is "no consistent evidence that low-energy sweeteners increase appetite or subsequent food intake, cause insulin release or affect blood pressure in normal subjects." (Renwick. 2010).

Mars735 you might want to read the whole thing (it is multipart entries). I think the key is "in normal subjects." Is formerly obese a "normal subject"?

As for backing off, well, if you quit cold turkey you will keep wanting something sweet, I suspect. I think I would try backing off the Mio first, either by reducing the number of drops you are using or by say, 7 cups a day with Mio, one without for a few days, then 6 cups a day/2 without, etc. Also, look at new food combos to replace your sweetened foods (I'm assuming bars or shakes). Since you keep carbs at nearly ketosis levels, I'm not real clear on how to do it. For me, I can substitute 1/2 cup strawberries and 1/2 cup greek yogurt (sometimes 1c/1c) for strawberry wafers and honestly, I'm fine, plus it is just sweet enough. Another thought would be to go with fat (nuts, nutbutter) to replace an occasional sweet. That sometimes works for me for "lunch dessert". I also drink this sweet and spicy tea that often works, too.

Actually my fat has crept on since P4. I really had a contoured body after phasing off, well, overlooking some loose skin of course! In my case, it may also be lack of exercise. I've read that insulin spikes can cause abdominal fat deposition, so it's worth looking at spacing out the carbs if you aren't doing the official P4 separation of fats and carbs.

I'm reluctantly parting with the last of the Mio (how many times have I vowed to do this). Already tossed the lurid red WF ketchup and am trying to part with a half-finished bottle of BBQ sauce, Balsamic, and Apple Butter--no IP mock apple pie for me. BTW, I just took a taste and it's delicious! Guess I don't have to feel guilty about throwing away food since none of this has any nutrients, lol!

There are a few items made with stevia and also there could be homemade items made with xylitol

Infoplease: Wow this is great stuff. Are you sure you aren't a coach--you certainly would be a great one. Thank-you so much for the wonderful substitution suggestions, too. I think I'll try your advice re phasing off rather than cold turkey. I don't think I'll miss it all that much in time. I gotta laugh at myself, formerly such a purist about avoiding artificial anything and now hooked. My signature should be Better living through chemistry!

Thanks, Lisa!

I think some things with stevia or xylitol would be ok, but the study interpretation hints that stevia could also be a problem depending on amount:
"Being ~300x sweeter than sucrose stevia would by the way be somewhere between acesulfame K and saccharin Na and there is no reason to assume it would not have the same effects, only because it is "natural". I fact the observation Anton et al. made in a 2010 study, where the preingestion of stevia yielded a greater initial glucose spike and a correspondingly higher increase in 30min post-prandial insulin levels than aspartame (~37%) (Anton. 2010). These results clearly suggest that stevia is probably no exception to the rule (it could yet also be that aspartame is an exception to the rule, cf. "Aspartame's Anti-Insulinogenic Effects During a Workout"; read more) - unfortunately the differences in the study design don't allow for a direct comparison of the Anton and the Pepino study."

Thank you!
Better living thru chemistry! That one takes me back to college in the mid 70s. This kid in class had this shirt he would wear to math class. I kept taking it literally -- like better living thru that Chem 101 class than ending it all by jumping off the Math building. Well, it was actually an ad for some drug (I don't exactly recall which one, but definitely one being abused at the time). When you wrote that, I thought of the little round pill guy, smiling and waving (kind of like the speedy alka-seltzer guy).

I think I have maybe 3 chocolate drink mix packets left and I'm done. They've changed the formula and they taste gross -- chemically and not very chocolatey, plus they give me a stomach ache.

So I am looking forward to being off the sucralose, too.

I'm in the middle of Lustig's Fat Chance in which he describes the anatomical regions of the reward center in the brain. I wonder if real time brain imaging could shed light on the effects of these sweeteners, maybe with sugar as a control. Really interesting stuff to wrap our minds around, if technical.

Back to sucralose: I don't find that the individual Splenda packets to be that sweet, not compared to IP Strawberry wafers & fruit drinks, Mio, and especially compared to Muscle Milk. Maybe it's dose related or there are other sweeteners adding to the effect. Time to re-read labels. Addiction to sweetness....wow.

That's too funny! Congratulations on getting to the end of your packets. That's a milestone.

N=1
Stevia & xylitol don't tear up my gut. As far as cravings, I think they can still contribute