The Pitfalls of "Zero Calories": Artificial Sweeteners Could Add 1.6 Years to Brain Age? Why the Risk is Higher for Younger People

The Pitfalls of "Zero Calories": Artificial Sweeteners Could Add 1.6 Years to Brain Age? Why the Risk is Higher for Younger People

Is the Cost of "Zero" a "Quiet Deduction" in the Brain?

"Sugar makes you fat. So go for zero calories."—A paper has emerged to pour cold water on this choice that has become common sense over the past decade. A study that tracked about 13,000 people in Brazil for eight years showed a correlation where those with higher intake of artificial and low-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) experienced a faster decline in cognitive functions such as memory and verbal fluency, equivalent to up to 1.6 years of brain aging.CNN.co.jpNeurology Society


What and How Was Tracked: The Foundation of ELSA-Brasil

The subjects were aged 35 to 75, approximately 13,000 people. Dietary habits were recorded at registration, and cognitive tests (verbal fluency, working memory, word recall, processing speed) were conducted three times over an average of eight years. Intake was divided into tertiles, with the average high intake group consuming 191mg per day (about one teaspoon). For reference, a can of diet soda is said to contain about 200-300mg of aspartame. The results showed that the decline in the high intake group was 62% faster than in the lowest group, equivalent to about 1.6 years of aging. Even in the middle group, the decline was 35% faster, equivalent to about 1.3 years.CNN.co.jp


Which Sweeteners Were Considered "Problematic"?

Seven types were evaluated.

  • Associated: Aspartame, Saccharin, Acesulfame K, Erythritol, Xylitol, Sorbitol

  • Not Associated: Tagatose (a type of rare sugar)
    . The association was particularly noticeable with overall cognitive function, especially working memory and verbal fluency.CNN.co.jpPsyPost - Psychology News


Who Is More Susceptible?

Under 60 showed a clear acceleration in decline, and those with diabetes had a stronger correlation. This implies that "midlife dietary habits can influence future brain health." Expert commentary also points out the possibility that "exposure from decades before symptoms appear can have lifelong effects."Medscape


Causation or Correlation—Reading "Observational Studies" Correctly

This study is an observational study, and it cannot definitively state that artificial sweeteners directly "cause brain aging". Confounding factors such as overall diet quality, intake of ultra-processed foods, and existing metabolic risks cannot be completely eliminated. The industry group, the International Sweeteners Association (ISA), counters that "major health organizations have confirmed their safety." Regulatory authorities like the FDA have granted sweeteners, including aspartame, the **GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe)** status. Meanwhile, the WHO added aspartame to its list of "possible carcinogens" in 2023, but the FDA has denied this.Opinions are currently divided.CNN.co.jp


Points Emphasized by International Reports and Specialist Media

The UK Guardian, Medscape, and AAN press releases repeatedly reported the figures of "1.6 years of aging" and "62% faster decline", highlighting the strong correlation in subgroups of those under 60 and with diabetes. The fact that tagatose was an exception also garnered significant news interest.The GuardianAANMedscape


Reactions on Japanese and English-Speaking Social Media?

On social media, discussions were lively around three main points.

  1. "Beware of Confusing Correlation with Causation" Group
    In Reddit's science communities, comments pointing out that "since it's an observational study, it cannot be said to be the cause" and "there's a possibility that health consciousness and processed food intake are confounding factors" ranked high.Reddit

  2. "Focus on Under 60 and Diabetes" Group
    Discussions highlighted that "the younger you are, the greater the impact" is shocking, and "the strong correlation with diabetes is practically important." Similar summaries spread in medical news sharing threads.New Atlas

  3. "Reconsideration of Alternative Sweeteners" Group
    Information spread that "stevia and monk fruit were not included in the seven types evaluated this time" and "tagatose was found to have no correlation." The importance of reading ingredient labels was pointed out.PsyPost - Psychology News


In the Japanese-speaking world, articles were shared on Hatena Bookmark, with mixed reactions ranging from experiential voices like "Should I stop zero cola?" and "Is habitual 'sweetness' dependence the issue?" to calm receptions like "Reconsider the entire highly processed diet."Hatena Bookmark


So, What Should We Change Starting Tomorrow?

1) Develop a Habit of Checking "Which Sweetener"
Identify aspartame/saccharin/acesulfame K/erythritol/xylitol/sorbitol/tagatose in ingredient labels. The only one not shown to be associated was tagatose.PsyPost - Psychology News


2) Start with "Beverages"
Diet sodas and flavored waters are major sources of sweeteners even if they're "zero." Start by switching to water, sparkling water, or unsweetened tea. *Aspartame per can is said to be about 200-300mg.CNN.co.jp


3) Be More Cautious "The Younger You Are"
The correlation is noticeable in those under 60. Consider it an investment in future brain health and review the frequency of intake from midlife.Medscape


4) If You Can't Return to "Zero Sweetness," Consider Alternatives
Reducing the frequency of sweetness itself is the main goal, but if absolutely necessary, temporarily switching to alternatives like stevia or monk fruit, which were not evaluated this time, is a strategy. However, there are many unverified aspects, and they are not a cure-all.The Guardian


5) Review the "Overall Design" of Your Diet
Artificial sweeteners are often included in ultra-processed foods. Shifting towards a diet that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, olive oil, and fish, focusing on less processed foods, is a solid approach for long-term brain health.The Guardian


Discrepancy in Industry and Regulatory Views

Regulatory authorities (FDA) maintain the GRAS framework, and industry groups assert that **"safety is confirmed." Meanwhile, the WHO's IARC classification of aspartame and past studies pointing out thrombosis risks (e.g., erythritol) suggest the possibility that they are "not unconditionally safe." Conclusions have not yet converged, and a **"cautious optimization"** is the realistic solution.CNN.co.jp


Media and Social Media "Reading" Guide

  • **Headline numbers (1.6 years, 62%)** are comparative estimates

Related Articles