faster

Little by little it is already becoming a daily gesture among many people: change sugar for a sweetener to avoid calorie consumption in excess. Whether in the morning coffee, in a yogurt or in a refreshing drink, sweeteners are attractive to respect the sweet taste and ‘be healthy’. However, a new and forceful study Posted in the prestigious medical magazine Neurology He puts this idea in check, suggesting that this substitution could have a long -term hidden cost for our cognitive health. A direct effect to thought. Research, which has established itself as one of the broadest and most prolonged to date on the subject, cooks that people with high consumption of sweeteners such as the aspartamosaccharin or sorbitol They experience a deterioration of their thinking and memory capabilities 62% faster than those people who consume. To put it in perspective, the researchers calculate that this accelerated decline is equivalent to aging 1.6 years suddenly. The details of the study. It is not a PSAJERA survey or a small -scale experiment. Scientists have been based on the Brazilian Longitudinal Health Study data of the adult (Elsa-Brazil), a mass and long-distance research project. They analyzed a cohort of 12,772 public officials with an average age of 52 years, which were followed for eight years, and with analysis at three different moments: 2008-2010, 2012-2014 and 2017-2019. Detailed questionnaires. Using food frequency questionnaires, the team quantified the combined and individual consumption of seven specific sweeteners: artificial ones such as aspartamo, saccharin and acesulfamo K, and sugar alcohols such as erythritol, xylitol and sorbitol, in addition to the tagatose. In parallel, the cognitive performance of patients with a six -test battery that focused on memory, verbal fluidity and global cognition was measured. The results. The consumption of sweeteners, both individually and combined, was associated with accelerated cognitive loss. The ‘suspect’ list includes some of the most common names we find on the labels of ‘Light’ products or ‘zero’: aspartamo, saccharin, acesulfamo k, erythritol, sorbitol and xylitol. Interestingly, the trend was more pronounced and statistically significant in participants under 60 years. This suggests, according to the authors, that median age is a critical window where the products that are chosen consumer may have direct consequences in brain health decades later. The researchers They point that until now the sweeteners without calories often “are seen as a healthy alternative to sugar.” But now it has been seen that great consumption of these has “negative effects on brain health over time.” There are limitations. The researchers themselves suggest that dietary data are based on self -reports, which can be inaccurate, and that, despite statistical adjustments, the “residual confusion” cannot be completely ruled out where other nutritional behaviors that may be interfering are not measured. Correlation is not causality. As expected, this study can generate a great debate, and the industry and the scientific community have called for prudence, remembering that correlation does not imply causality. Gavin Partington, general director of the British refreshing drinks association, and the International Association of sweeteners (ISA) They have pointed out that this is an observational study. That is, it finds a statistical association between two variables (consumption of sweeteners and cognitive impairment), but cannot demonstrate that one is the direct cause of the other. In Spain, experts such as neurologist Guillermo García Ribas, from the Ramón y Cajal hospital, They are cautious. He criticizes that it is difficult to isolate the effect of the sweetener of the rest of the diet. Often, a high consumption of these products goes hand in hand with a diet rich in ultraprocessed foods, which have already been linked in numerous studies to a worse cognitive aging. The defense of researchers. Anticipating this criticism, the Suemoto team offers two solid arguments. First, they observed that the association was also maintained for individual sweeteners, those that a person adds on their own to coffee or yogurt, and not only for the compounds used by the industry in the ultra -processed. Second, and perhaps more important, there is what scientists call “biological plausibility.” Previous studies carried out in animal models (mainly mice) have already shown that artificial sweeteners can trigger neuroinflammation processes and alter the crucial intestine-cerebro axis, mechanisms that could negatively affect brain function. The global context. This study does not arise in a vacuum. It adds to a growing wave of skepticism on the long -term benefits of sweeteners. In fact, in 2023, The World Health Organization (WHO) itself advised the use of these products to control the weight or reduce the risk of chronic diseases, arguing the lack of evidence on its long -term benefits and the existence of possible unwanted effects that had not yet been completed. The underlying problem remains the same: excessive sugar consumption. In countries like Spain, the maximum daily amount recommended by WHO is tripling. The sweeteners emerged as an apparent solution, but studies like this force us to ask ourselves if we are simply changing one problem for another. As Suemoto himself summarizes, his work “adds solid evidence that these compounds may not be harmless, especially when consumed frequently from the median age.” The conclusion is not that we should return to sugar, but that we must examine much more critically with what we are replacing it Images | Towfiqui Barbhuiya In Xataka | 9 questions and answers about Estevia, the fashion sweetener