[jakewins]

> on't have any effect on your blood glucose and really are completely different

Source for this? My understanding is that the link between non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) and diabetes is growing increasingly clear. For instance:

NAS linked to glucose intolerance (pre-diabetic hyperglacemia): https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13793

NAS unlikely to be healthy alternative to sugar for prevention of type 2 diabetes: http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3576.full

[beggi]

First one: an interesting study - but it only applies to mice. Currently we just don't know if this applies to humans.

Second one: I haven't read the whole study but they categorize fruit juice which is chock full of sugar along side artificially sweetened drinks - which is a red flag to me. Also, I don't think people who swap sugary drinks for diet drinks and changes no other aspect of their diet will have a better outcome in regards to type 2 diabetes. It doesn't mean that diet sodas contribute or cause type 2 diabetes.

[exelius]

They’re not all one category; some artificial sweeteners cause an insulin response and some do not. This would make sense as to why it can lead to diabetes; your body is constantly getting signals to release insulin to break down sugar, but then there’s no sugar. Eventually your body “learns” to not produce as much insulin in the presence of all sweeteners, and that’s diabetes in a nutshell.

I’d be interested to see if these studies hold with sweeteners like Stevia that don’t produce an insulin response.

[jakewins]

Stevia does produce an insulin response - but, it appears, in the "right" direction. There are apparently several labs exploring stevia as a treatment in diabetes models, for instance: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/1...