Immunology and Nutrition Science on Artificial Sweeteners

Various Splenda packets; a common artificial sweetener.

Jennifer struggled with weight loss. Her weight stayed the same for months, regardless of what she did. Nothing got better until she joined a new program and learned new things about weight loss (“My Weight Loss Story”). Many struggling with weight loss face this issue; they follow inefficient advice, or get buried in misinformation. One trending topic in the weight loss scene is the use of artificial sweeteners, which has received its fair share of gossip. As a result, different academic disciplines attempt to resolve these issues. The article “Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota,” by Suez et al., shows the viewpoint of immunologists on artificial sweeteners, while the article, “The effects of aspartame as part of a multi-disciplinary weight-control program on short- and long-term control on body weight,” by Blackburn et al., shows a viewpoint from nutrition scientists. Some prefer sources that provide in-depth details on the processes, while others prefer sources that clearly show the information’s relevance. But, a combination provides a solid picture of the topic by both actively connecting the information with the reader's life, and by explaining why these results are that way. Only exposing one's self to one approach limits one's ability to effectively reach one’s goals, due to an incomplete understanding. Even though the two aforementioned disciplines present similar research, Suez et al. employ in-depth explanations on processes, specific scientific language, occasional use of first-person, and abundant data tables to appeal to readers who prefer detailed explanations. Conversely, Blackburn et al. present simple language, a third-person point of view, and relatable experiment information to present data that immediately shows its real-life applications. For an adequately reinforced approach to artificial sweeteners and weight loss, people must acknowledge these approaches' differences and not just expose themselves to one perspective.

Representation of artificial sweeteners and sugar.

Even though their approaches are different, both articles establish solid credibility for their positions by using concrete and descriptive language. This gives the reader a reason to trust what the authors are actually discussing, and shows that the articles' approaches can relate with each other. When Suez et al. discusses the main reason for why consuming artificial sweeteners could lead to health risks (like a lower tolerance for glucose) with the line, “Both Gram-positive and Gram-negative taxa contributed to the NAS-induced phenotype and were enriched for glycan degradation pathways, previously linked to enhanced energy harvest” (Suez), the authors on the immunology side build their credibility through a specific use of terminology that can easily be reviewed. Even though it may be difficult for the average reader to understand, he or she can look up the definition of the terms and derive the discussion’s meaning. Suez et al. continue to reinforce this claim by explaining how the study, “suggests that elaborate inter-species microbial cooperation may functionally orchestrate the gut ecosystem and contribute to vital community activities in diverging environmental conditions” (Suez) by choosing to elaborate on what their previous claim implied. Even if the reader does not understand what Suez et al. discusses, due to the heavy scientific terminology use, further explanation and implication analysis inspire confidence in the reader. These claims can easily be reviewed because of their descriptive and straight-forward language. Blackburn et al. follows this trend by using very concrete and descriptive language. Blackburn et al. successfully review the results of their experiment, and discuss the implications of their results in great detail. Overall, Blackburn et al. construct these sections in a very logical and descriptive manner. This reinforces the reader’s trust in the authors by showing that they understand their experiment and the implications of their results. By approaching a popular topic riddled with misinformation in an attempt to dispel these misconceptions, authors of both academic disciplines must distinguish themselves and establish a credible and logical foundation. Authors of both sides succeed in doing this by promoting confidence in the reader through descriptive and straight-forward word choices.

However, this major rhetorical similarity ends there, as both articles differ in their language choices. This difference ultimately decides the audiences that each article will appeal to. As mentioned, Suez et al. employ a heavy use of scientific terminology. Suez et al. explains that, “to determine the effects of NAS on glucose homeostasis, we added commercial formulations of saccharin, sucralose or aspartame to the drinking water of lean 10-week-old C57Bl/6 mice” (Suez). For readers outside of a biology field, they will have a very difficult time understanding this sentence because of the scientific terminology. Suez et al. clearly aimed this article at others in a biology field. Though, this article’s approach doesn’t only appeal to scientists. It appeals to anyone hoping to know why a process works the way it does, and to reinforce his or her knowledge about the topic so he or she could possibly distinguish accurate information from misinformation. Using several scientific terms ensures accuracy and makes discussion about the topic much easier. However, not everyone prefers this approach, and not everyone likes researching scientific terms. Attempting to comprehend this article and relating it with real life may also lead to frustration. Blackburn et al. cater to this issue with a simpler approach.

While Suez et al. use difficult terminology, Blackburn et al. attempt to establish an immediate connection with the reader by using accessible language. The nutrition science article strives to relate with the audience as much as possible, so this idea of establishing a connection fits the article very well. Blackburn et al. explain that, “the more interesting result of this study, however, relate to the effect of aspartame on long-term control of body weight” (Blackburn 415). They give a very concise analysis of their data with straight-forward language. The only instance of potentially complicated terminology is “aspartame,” which Blackburn et al. explain early in the article that it’s basically artificial sweeteners. Blackburn et al. relate their findings with the reader as much as possible, and make the information immediately relevant for the reader by sparing the technical details. They explain that, “the results of this study … suggest that aspartame may facilitate the control of body weight” (Blackburn 415). However, this lack of terminology costs the reader a deeper look into the reasons behind the article’s findings. If one exposes oneself to only this side, one might spawn misconceptions from drawing incorrect or premature relations, like using artificial sweeteners will always lead to weight loss, for example. This shows a need for a balance of both sides if the reader wishes to effectively integrate information from these articles into his/her life.

Comparison of artificial sweeteners and sugar.

Another rhetorical difference between the articles’ styles is their points of view. Suez et al. occasionally use first-person, which helps present the information in a relatable way for the reader. For example, Suez et al. explain that, “we identify NAS-altered microbial metabolic pathways that are linked to host susceptibility to metabolic disease, and demonstrate similar NAS-induced dysbiosis and glucose intolerance in healthy human subjects” (Suez). The authors use first-person when transitioning, introducing major sections of the article, and when discussing their results, which helps the reader relate with the article, despite the scientific jargon. This is important because if Suez et al. wish to appeal to those interested in their detailed approach with the article, and not just scientists, Suez et al. must have points where they can connect what they’re talking about with the world around them. Blackburn et al. don’t need to do this, as their approach and language already resonate with the reader. Instead, Blackburn et al. choose to use only third-person. By doing so, they establish a sense of objectivity. This is very important because of how relatable their article is with the reader, and how little explanation they provide for the processes behind their results. They also maintain credibility by avoiding first-person, because their article thoroughly covers the real-world implications of their findings. Using first-person in this context implies possible bias, or even confuses their findings with personal interpretations.

In addition to their language, the authors of both articles use the organization rhetorical device to illustrate their point. Suez et al. follow the standard scientific report format with an abstract, introduction, methods section, results section, and discussion section. They add, though, several sections of data analysis outside of the discussion section, and provide many data tables. Combined with the specific terminology and consistent elaboration, this organizational approach ensures that the reader can conveniently see the details of their findings, staying true to this article’s thorough explanation style. Suez et al. also reference several secondary sources throughout the introduction, discussion, and data analysis sections. This adequately provides essential information and reinforces their credibility. Consequently, the authors leave little room for real-world implications or commentary, even in the discussion section, despite their employment of a first-person point of view.
The only sentence where Suez et al. relates possible implications for the future with their results is where they explain how, “Similarly, we believe that other individualized nutritional responses may be driven by personalized functional differences in the microbiome” (Suez). Despite the thorough explanations and data tables, the reader might have trouble finding the article’s content relevant. The reader needs the accessible language and clear real-world connections that Blackburn et al. provide to fully utilize the information.

Blackburn et al. employ the same scientific report structure that Suez et al. used, but Blackburn et al. place heavy emphasis on the introduction and discussion sections. This firmly relates the study with real life. Blackburn et al. also regularly reference secondary sources, but unlike the other article, this article makes references throughout all sections. These secondary sources reinforce the authors’ credibility while staying relevant to their approach of relating information. An example of this is where Blackburn et al. mention how, “currently, 33% of all adults in the United States aged greater than or equal to twenty years are overweight” (Blackburn 409). They consistently relate their information with the reader and the reader’s life, but do not explain details for the processes behind the results. Seeing this perspective with a lack of technical understanding could lead to misunderstandings and a very frustrating time losing weight, which is why familiarizing one’s self with both approaches is crucial for success.

Although “Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota,” by Suez et al., and “The effect of aspartame as part of a multidisciplinary weight-control program on short – and long – term control of body weight,” by Blackburn et al. address the same topic, both articles present information from different disciplines, which are immunology and nutrition science. Suez et al. use in-depth explanations, complicated scientific terminology, first-person, and strategic organization to provide a thorough explanation on the processes behind their experiment, and to appeal to those who value in-depth explanations. Conversely, Blackburn et al. use simple language, an objective third-person, frequent references to real-life implications, and a unique organization to present another view. This approach appeals to those looking for a simpler article that clearly relates the information with their lives. To effectively address issues, people must familiarize themselves with both approaches. Only focusing on one of these perspectives leads to an underdeveloped view. In an age where information is so abundant, successfully identifying these different viewpoints is more important than ever if we want to prevent potential misinformation, especially since so many struggle with weight loss. These two academic disciplines approach artificial sweeteners and weight loss in unique ways, so we can address our issues more efficiently.



Works Cited

"My Weight Loss Story." Peanut Butter and Peppers. 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. <http://www.peanutbutterandpeppers.com/my-weight-loss-story/>.

Suez, Jotham, Tal Korem, David Zeevi, Gili Zilberman-Schapira, Christopher Thaiss, Ori Maza, David Israeli, Niv Zmora, Shlomit Gilad, Aldina Weinburger, Yael Kuperman, Alon Harmelin, Llana Kolodkin-Ga, Hagit Shapiro, Eran Segal, and Eran Elinav. "Artificial Sweeteners Induce Glucose Intolerance by Altering the Gut Microbiota." Nature 514.7521 (2014): 181-86. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html#chronic-nas-consumption-exacerbates-glucose-intolerance>.

Blackburn, George, Beatrice Kanders, Philip Lavin, Susan Keller, and Janet Whatley. "The Effects of Aspartame as Part of a Multidisciplinary Weight-control Program on a Short-and Long-term Control of Body Weight." Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/2/409.full.pdf>.



http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/01/12/why-your-grandma-steals-sugar-packets/
http://www.deardoctor.com/articles/artificial-sweeteners/page3.php
http://www.atms.com.au/artificial-sweeteners-implicated-in-glucose-intolerance/#.VT4qhJMYG20