Research from Monash University indicates that consuming just one can of diet soda daily increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by a striking 38%. The findings challenge the common belief that diet drinks are a healthier alternative to sugary beverages. This significant study, which spanned 14 years and tracked 36,608 participants, provides new insights into the potential metabolic risks associated with artificially sweetened beverages.
The study, part of the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study, involved participants aged between 40 and 69 years at the time of recruitment. Researchers categorized the intake of both artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) into groups based on frequency: never or less than once a month, one to three per month, one to six per week, and more than one beverage per day. They then assessed the link between these beverage types and the incidence of type 2 diabetes using modified Poisson regression, adjusting for various lifestyle factors, obesity, and socioeconomic status.
The results revealed that individuals consuming one can of diet soda daily faced a 38% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those who did not consume these drinks. For those who drank the same amount of sugary beverages, the increased risk was notably lower at 23%. As noted by Barbora de Courten, a professor at Monash University and a senior author of the study, “Artificial sweeteners are often recommended to people at risk of diabetes as a healthier alternative, but our results suggest they may pose their own health risks.”
While the risk associated with SSB consumption diminished when adjusted for body mass index (BMI) and waist-to-hip ratio, the risks linked to ASB intake persisted. The statistical association for ASBs remained at 38% even after adjustments, indicating that factors beyond obesity may contribute to the increased risk. Researchers speculate that this could be due to an independent metabolic effect, potentially linked to disruptions in the gut microbiome or alterations in glucose metabolism.
The study did not specify which artificial sweeteners were examined, but common types such as aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin were likely included. These sweeteners vary in how they are processed by the body, with some being poorly absorbed, others metabolized rapidly, and some excreted in urine. Research has shown that certain artificial sweeteners might trigger insulin responses or disrupt gut bacteria, leading to glucose intolerance—a precursor to type 2 diabetes.
Recent studies have echoed these findings, with a 2023 paper linking artificial sweeteners to elevated diabetes risk, while a 2024 meta-analysis highlighted that the relationship remains poorly understood. Earlier research indicated that aspartame could elicit insulin responses similar to those of sugar, while saccharin and sucralose were connected to gut microbiome disruption and impaired glucose tolerance within weeks.
The implications of these findings suggest that the consumption of artificial sweeteners may not be as safe as previously thought. As de Courten emphasized, “We support measures like sugary drink taxes, but our study shows we also need to pay attention to artificially sweetened options. These are often marketed as better for you; yet may carry their own risks.”
The study advocates for a broader public health approach that includes scrutiny of all non-nutritive beverages. It was published in the journal Diabetes & Metabolism, contributing to an ongoing conversation about dietary recommendations and the potential health risks associated with both sugar and artificial sweeteners.
