If you've ever wondered whether using artificial sweeteners is helping you, hurting you, or just confusing the issue, you are not alone.

The science around sugar substitutes has shifted more than once over the years.

And recently, a large, long-term study added an important new chapter to the story, one that challenges some long-held concerns about the microbiome and weight maintenance.

Hello and welcome to the Nutrition Diva podcast, a show where we take a closer look at nutrition news, research, and trends,

and help you make more informed decisions about what you eat.

I'm your host, Monica Reinagle, and over the 17 or 18 years that I've been doing this podcast,

artificial sweeteners or sugar substitutes have been a topic that we have

talked about many, many times. Our mothers and grandmothers used saccharin, also known as

Sweetenloe, to sweeten their tea and coffee, but saccharin fell out of favor in the 80s, in large part

due to fears about cancer risks that were ultimately debunked.

But by then, my own Generation X had moved on to Splenda and Equal, which we thought tasted

better than Sacrin.

By the time the millennials were looking for ways

to cut calories, the more natural sweeteners, like erythritol, stevia, and monk fruit were on the

scene. So although the color of the little packets kept changing, the underlying premise was

largely the same. By replacing sugar with one of these sugar

substitutes, we could reduce the amount of calories and sugar we consumed. But even as the

sweeteners continued to evolve, questions remained about whether these ingredients were

really helping.

After all, epidemiological studies clearly showed that the people who used these sweeteners

the most were more likely to gain weight or to become obese.

Then again, that could have been a case of reverse causality.

...