Latest news with #BrighamYoungUniversity
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Perspective: I'm a Harvard professor. Here's why publicly funded scientific research matters
Drastic budget cuts at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies have put federally funded university research into the spotlight. As a professor at Harvard, I've recently been asked why the U.S. government funds university research and why universities with endowments, like Harvard, don't fund their own research through their endowments. After two decades of being a professor and part-time entrepreneur, I understand why people ask this question, and it's a fair one. Today, more than ever, we as a nation need to work toward open respectful dialogue that cross-cuts political ideologies. To that end, I'm always happy to share my perspective, which is that federally funded research is a public good with proven benefits. While Harvard is in the spotlight right now, such research goes on across the country, from Brigham Young University to the University of Minnesota to Kent State. You have personally benefited from it, in fact, if you take one of today's popular weight-loss drugs, or wear a seat belt in your car. First, some background on how this collaboration began: During World War II, the federal government began providing funding for university scientists to do research related to the war effort. The benefits soon became clear. Universities were more nimble and cost-effective than federal labs that would need thousands of staff scientists and dedicated facilities. And universities already employed scientists across a diversity of fields who could collaborate on projects as needed. As such, to maintain U.S. intellectual leadership, the government established many of the funding agencies that exist today. The process is designed for efficiency, in multiple ways. Scientists compete for federal research dollars. The government issues requests for proposals on topics that reflect federal and societal priorities, and scientists submit proposals to compete for these grants. It often takes scientists months to develop a robust research plan and a federally compliant budget, and universities largely bear the associated costs. The proposals are critically reviewed by program officers and by a panel of peers. 'Peers' in this context are colleagues who are knowledgeable in the field and can judge the quality of the proposals. Peers with conflicts of interest are disqualified. The competition for funds, which are usually insufficient to award all meritorious proposals, is so fierce that, success rates at many agencies range from 8% to 30%. The amount of financial support awarded also varies by field. Biomedical research, engineering, computer science and chemistry programs typically have access to higher levels of funding to support the higher costs of this work. In contrast, support for scientific fields such as zoology and anthropology is far more modest. Federal research grants, by design, include direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are funds to be spent solely on the approved specific activities. These can include research supplies, graduate student stipends and economy-class travel to field sites and professional conferences. Indirect costs are meant to offset the cost of building maintenance, safety officers, and administrators who ensure that scholars are spending federal tax dollars appropriately. Indirect costs, while controversial, can save taxpayer dollars. For example, indirect-cost funding can be used to acquire shared equipment such as DNA sequencers that can be used by the entire research community, alleviating the need for each scientist to purchase their own equipment. It's important to know that indirect costs are not blank checks to universities. They are not slush funds; they cannot be used to build fancy gymnasiums or host lavish parties. They are, however, a means of incentivizing universities to maintain state-of-the-art facilities that serve the public good. Indirect cost rates are set every few years by the government, which bases the rate on a variety of factors such as the scope of the research at each institution. A liberal arts college might have a 10% rate, meaning the award will include the direct costs plus an additional 10% to offset the administrative and infrastructure needs. A world-leading research university might be given 65% to maintain or operate state-of-the-art facilities such as MRIs or particle accelerators. All institutions receiving such funds must adhere to a strict set of accounting requirements or risk severe penalties. Today, increases in material costs and a complex state/federal regulatory landscape put financial and administrative pressure on universities, and the indirect supplement can easily exceed the actual cost of the research, leaving universities to scramble to find additional funds to cover those costs. Most notably, endowments and gifts cannot replace federal research funds. Endowments are financial gifts meant to provide long-term support for a specific activity, such as paying a professorial salary line or maintaining a building named for the donor. Many endowments support priceless collections, such as the Harvard University library, which holds 400 million manuscripts, 10 million photographs and 1 million maps. These holdings are part of our collective national heritage, and their curation and maintenance come at little or no cost to the taxpayer. Though it is tempting to think that philanthropy can assume the role of federal funding, that idea is impractical. Very few people make unrestricted donations to a university, and fewer yet make donations large enough to replace federal research support. Put simply, endowments cannot fully support university research in the long term, and even AI won't end the need for such research, which leads to innovation and economic opportunity. Federally funded research serves the public good; it is done for the people, by the people. It leads to new technologies, from medical treatments to artificial intelligence. For example, research on Gila monster venom (North America's only venomous lizard) contributed to the development of the popular GLP-1 weight loss drugs. Seat belts were invented with help from research at the University of Minnesota; the LCD display, via Kent State; organ transplants, via Harvard; and Parkinson's disease diagnostics via Brigham Young University. And, of course, universities also provide training opportunities for the next generation of scientists and engineers, most of whom enter the private sector. The U.S. spends less than 3.5% of its GDP on research. Reducing or eliminating federal research will not lead to a significant reduction in our national debt. It will, however, stifle the technological developments that lead to economic growth. It will make us more vulnerable to threats from other nations who will relish the opportunity to gain any technological and economic advantage. Federally funded research is a great deal for the American public. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. As with all large, complex enterprises, there are factors that hinder progress and waste resources, and these do need to be addressed. But publicly funded research is one of our country's engines of innovation, and emptying the proverbial fuel tank ensures that we will not be going anywhere anytime soon. Peter Girguis is a professor of marine science and technology at Harvard University. He studies how microbes and animals survive in the deep sea. He founded an ocean fuel cell company and serves as an advisor for several ocean philanthropies.
Medical News Today
17 hours ago
- Health
- Medical News Today
Type 2 diabetes: Sugary drinks may significantly raise risk
A new study finds a link between sugar-containing drinks and the risk of type 2 diabetes. Stockah/Getty Images When it comes to managing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, there is no safe level of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, according to a new study. At the same time, the study finds that moderate consumption of sugars contained in solid foods or eaten with them may actually lower the risk of developing diabetes. The study supports a beneficial role of sugar in a balanced, healthy diet, as long as it does not include sweetened liquids such as soft drinks or fruit drinks. Although a sweet tooth is often associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a new meta-study shows that the link between sugar and the condition is more nuanced than one might think. While sugars consumed in sweetened beverages significantly increase one's risk of developing type 2 diabetes, sugars eaten in foods do not. In fact, they may even have a slight protective effect against developing the condition, a new study indicates. This new, large meta-study is the work of researchers at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, in collaboration with colleagues at Paderborn University and the University of Freiburg in Germany. The researchers included in their analysis the findings of 29 studies conducted in Europe, the United States, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The study is published in the journal Advances in Nutrition . This study confirmed previous research, finding that the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks, such as soft drinks, sports drinks, and energy drinks, was closely linked to the development of type 2 diabetes. The meta-study found that for each 12-ounce daily serving of a sugar-sweetened drink, the risk of diabetes increased by 25% relative to their existing level of risk. Fruit juice is considered by many to be a healthy alternative to such drinks and may contain fewer potentially harmful additives. However, it still contains a significant amount of sugar. With each serving of fruit juice, the risk of diabetes increased by 5%, in the meta-study. Some may be surprised by the study's finding regarding the connection, or relative lack thereof, between sugar consumed in or with foods and the risk of developing diabetes. The researchers found that an intake of 20 grams of sugars per day had an inverse relationship to the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. This suggests eating sugar may actually make a person less likely to develop diabetes. We were not surprised by the meta-study's findings, said lead author Karen Della Corte, PhD, Assistant Professor of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Food Science at Brigham Young University. 'Our hypothesis was shaped by emerging research on glycemic response, liver metabolism, and the concept of the food matrix. [It] was based on the idea that sugar's impact depends on how it's delivered — not just how much you eat, but what else comes with it,' she said. No 'safe' lower limit 'What did surprise us was how consistently the harmful associations with sugary drinks showed up across so many diverse populations — and that this increased risk was evident even with just one serving per day. That suggests there's really no safe lower limit when it comes to sugary beverages.' — Karen Della Corte, PhD Della Corte also reported her team was intrigued by the extent to which the moderate intake of sugars in solid foods was not only not associated with harm, but may even be beneficial in terms of diabetes risk. 'That challenged the popular narrative that all sugar is inherently harmful, and it highlighted the importance of food context — including fiber, protein, and other nutrients — in how the body processes sugar,' Della Corte said. When we consume sugars in drinks, they enter our bodies in a much different manner than they do when they're ingested with food. Della Corte explained, 'When sugar is dissolved in liquid, it floods the system fast — and this rapid delivery overwhelms the body's ability to process it in a healthy way.' 'One key reason,' she said, 'is that sugary drinks deliver large amounts of sugar quickly and without any of the components that normally slow down digestion, like fiber, protein, or fat.' These nutrients, on the other hand, do typically accompany sugars when they are eaten. 'Liquid sugars are absorbed quickly, leading to sharp blood sugar spikes and insulin responses,' added Michelle Routhenstein, MS RD CDCES CDN, Preventive Cardiology Dietitian and Heart Health Expert at who was not involved in the study. As our system is overwhelmed by liquid sugars, particularly fructose common in sugary drinks, a pathway to T2D is easy to imagine. How sugary drinks heighten diabetes risk 'When the liver is hit with a sudden, high dose of fructose, it can't keep up. When overwhelmed, it diverts more of the excess fructose into fat production, a process known as 'de novo lipogenesis.' This buildup of fat in the liver can interfere with insulin signaling and contribute to metabolic dysfunction, leading to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.' — Karen Della Corte, PhD When sugars are consumed as an ingredient in foods, or eaten with foods, it is absorbed more slowly and readily by the body. Routhenstein pointed out that sugars in beverages 'also don't make us feel full, so people tend to consume more overall calories.' The meta-study clearly shows that avoiding sugar-sweetened drinks is a sensible precaution to take to avoid type 2 diabetes. It also clearly supports the idea that sugar has a place in a healthy diet. 'One point I'd like to emphasize is that this study challenges the idea that 'all sugar is bad' in a blanket sense. Our results show that the health effects of sugar depend heavily on how it's consumed. That opens the door to more nuanced nutrition guidance that focuses on carbohydrate quality, not just quantity.' — Karen Della Corte, PhD 'This study reinforces the idea that carbohydrates, including sugars, are an important part of the diet, and how we consume them really matters.' 'I don't support very low-carb diets because research shows they are often linked to high LDL and apoB levels, and can cause fast progression of plaque formation in the arteries,' she noted. 'Instead,' Routhenstein concluded, 'I focus on helping patients choose carbs wisely — pairing them with fiber, protein, and healthy fats to slow sugar absorption and support overall health. It's about balance and quality, not simply cutting out sugar completely.' Diabetes Type 2 Nutrition / Diet
NDTV
20 hours ago
- Health
- NDTV
Fruit Juices Can Increase Your Type-2 Diabetes Risk; Here's Why
Fruit juices are a popular choice for breakfast, often hailed as a refreshing and nutritious start to the day. Fruit juices are well-packed with essential nutrients and can offer a quick boost of energy. However, they might be as healthy as you think. Contrary to popular belief, drinking fruit juices is associated with some health hazards. A recent study suggests that this 'healthy drink' may increase the risk of type-2 diabetes. No doubt juices are nutritionally rich, however, they are deprived of fibre. Additionally, they are high in natural sugars. Researchers from Brigham Young University (BYU) and German institutions have examined data from more than 500,000 individuals across different countries. The findings revealed that every additional 230ml serving of fruit juice per day increased the risk of developing type-2 diabetes by 5%. It also stated that sugar-sweetened beverages like soda raised the risk by 25% per 350ml serving. On the other hand, natural sugars consumed via whole fruits and dairy were linked with lower diabetes risk. It was concluded that liquid sugar is the main culprit which can increase diabetes risk. Fruits over juices: Here's why Fruit juices have high sugar content. Even 100% fruit juice is loaded with natural sugars, which can lead to spikes in blood sugar levels. Consuming too much sugar not only increases diabetes risk but also contributes to weight gain which can further increase the risk of several chronic diseases. Additionally, packed fruit juices contain added sugars and preservatives, further diminishing their health benefits. They lack fibre Fibre is an important component of fruits and vegetables. It helps with digestion, keeps you full for longer and promotes a healthy gut. While juicing, most of the fibre is lost, meaning that the satiating effects of the fruit are reduced. This can lead to overeating later in the day. Rapid increase in blood sugar Liquid sugar rushes into the bloodstream quickly, triggering blood sugar spikes. This can trigger diabetes risk by disrupting insulin sensitivity. On the other hand, whole fruits contain fibre, vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients which promote stable blood sugar levels and prevent sudden spikes. Fruit juices can be tasty and convenient, offering some health benefits. However, it's crucial to consume them in moderation and be mindful of their sugar content and lack of fibre. Opt for whole foods for maximum benefits and make them a part of your well-balanced diet.
CNET
20 hours ago
- Lifestyle
- CNET
Is the '137 Club' the Best Way to Cook Steak? Reddit Says Yes, So I Tried It
If there's one thing I use my sous vide immersion circulator for most, it's steak -- and I'm always looking for new ways to level up my skills. Often, this means trying new cooking strategies I find on the r/sousvide Reddit community. One curious phenomenon has commenters proclaiming that 137 degrees Fahrenheit is the best temperature for cooking steak sous vide. The cooking hack allegedly yields the best flavor and texture. Ribeye is the most common cut in many discussions, but I've seen recommendations on cheaper cuts of beef like chuck steak and New York strip. A Reddit search reveals over 125 threads on the aptly named "137 Club." So I dug deeper to look at the science behind this cooking trend and, of course, tried it for myself. The science of cooking the perfect steak I seasoned every steak identically with salt, granulated garlic powder and cracked black pepper. John Carlsen/CNET Ahead of my test, I hit the books. My first instinct was to consult Modernist Cuisine by Nathan Myhrvold, Chris Young and Maxine Bilet, which is one of the most comprehensive resources on the science of cooking. With a list price that usually tops $500, over 2,400 pages across six volumes and no digital version, this is easier said than done. Fortunately, I found a copy of the more compact Modernist Cuisine at Home in Brigham Young University's collection near my home. ("More compact" is a relative term since it's also huge.) Thankfully, Modernist Cuisine at Home has an entire section about cooking steak, including the sous vide method. Vacuum sealing the steaks overnight allowed the seasoning to work as a marinade. John Carlsen/CNET The book groups cuts of steak into two categories: tender (filet, tenderloin, New York strip, ribeye, T-bone and so on) and tough cuts (chuck, skirt, hanger, flat iron, flank and so on). Tender cuts typically cook at lower temperatures, with the authors and their lab generally preferring a medium rare doneness around 133 F in most cases. In contrast, the recommendations for tough cuts hover around 144 F to 149 F, which the book implies is a more traditional roast-like result: think tender and flaky rather than extra juicy. Douglas Baldwin's masterclass A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking, cites multiple scientific papers that suggest the best tenderness results with beef lie somewhere between 120 F and 150 F, with specific mention of 131 F to 140 F for cheaper, tougher cuts of beef. This appears to be the sweet spot for converting tough collagen into smooth, flavorful gelatin. Additionally, Modernist Cuisine at Home suggests that ribeye, a tender cut of meat, turns out best after three hours at 133 F. There are small differences between the resources, but both seem to validate the 137 Club as a catchall method for steak. The steaks barely fit in the container I use for my sous vide bath, but I made it work with some strategic spacers and weights. John Carlsen/CNET While I wasn't able to track down the founding member of the 137 Club, I know that the term started gaining steam in April 2020, at least on Reddit. If I had to guess why 137 F became the magic number, it probably comes down to preference for the first person who tried it -- they might have liked it more medium than medium rare. After all, 137 degrees falls in the aforementioned temperature range, with a margin of error in case the temperature of the sous vide bath fluctuates during cooking. In this case, the temperature could vary by 3 degrees either way without affecting the results too heavily. My research ends here, but I doubt I'll be the last person wondering where it all came from. The experiment We all tried three samples with a simple survey asking about the texture, flavor and anything else that stood out. John Carlsen/CNET Now that we know that there's some science behind the 137 Club, it's time to test. I originally intended to test it with ribeye, which frequently comes up in 137 Club threads. It has a great balance of fatty tissue that supposedly renders better at a higher temperature. Instead, I found tender 1-inch T-bones on sale, which will work just fine. The main purpose was to see if there were any noticeable differences in the cooking. There were five taste testers: myself and four others who I'll refer to as Annette, Lauren, Hank and Nora. None of us had tasted the 137 F method before. Steak A: Grilled This was also the fastest cook because it required practically no additional prep beyond seasoning. John Carlsen/CNET I grilled Steak A in the traditional style, using a timer and a meat thermometer to reach an internal temperature of 131 F. (I aimed for 129 F, but grills are fickle things.) It took about 7 minutes. All of us agreed the traditional grilled steak was the least tender of the three steaks. As expected, the inside of the steak wasn't as consistent as with the sous vide steaks. However, it was juicy and the outside seared perfectly because I didn't have to worry as much about ruining the sous vide steaks. Nora even said it was her favorite: "Most flavor, I can taste each seasoning." Steak B: Sous vide at 129 F for 60 minutes I learned to sous vide steak at 129 F, so it was a good comparison point. John Carlsen/CNET I cooked Steak B with my normal sous vide method of 129 F for 60 minutes. (Note: I usually do 120 minutes, but shortened it due to time constraints.) Crucially, this steak lies outside the temperature range mentioned earlier. Since the experiment was at a family member's house, I chose to sear the sous vide steaks on the grill, which isn't as precise or powerful as my trusty blowtorch. Also, searing multiple T-bones with my small blowtorch would've taken an eternity. Likewise, I could've done a better job by not searing all three sous vide steaks at the same time. I bought four steaks in total, so there were two Steak Bs, with the thinner one turning out slightly more medium after searing. John Carlsen/CNET As a result, Steak B's crust was uneven and the flavor wasn't as pronounced as the grilled steak. The fat also didn't render as well as the other steaks. Everyone liked how soft this steak was, with one tester saying it fell apart in her mouth. Still, Steak B was the favorite option of three tasters: Annette, Lauren and me. However, it was the lowest-ranked steak for the other two respondents. Hank said it was "a little too different for my liking but still enjoyable." Meanwhile, Nora simply liked it but wrote "would not order again." I'll try not to take it personally. Steak C: Sous vide at 137 F for 60 minutes (also known as the 137 Club) In my case, I feel like it was a toss-up between Steak B (middle) and Steak C (left). John Carlsen/CNET I cooked Steak C at 137 F for an hour before keeping it warm in the 129 F bath with Steak B for another hour. Yes, the extra time affected the final result on Steak C, but seeing that many 137 Club threads suggest cooking for at least 120 minutes, I was fine adding a little more time. The sear turned out a little better than with Steak B. We all noticed that it wasn't as moist as the other sous vide steak, but it was extremely juicy. However, Steak C was flakier, more tender and seemed to have a deeper flavor because the fat had more time to render out and interact with the meat. Juiciness was the deciding factor for the tasters who preferred the other sous vide steak. But Steak C certainly had fans and was very good, with Hank saying it was "the best of the three in my opinion." What's the verdict on the 137 Club? Despite juggling cooking times and completing three steak methods simultaneously, it's always so rewarding to share good food with family. John Carlsen/CNET I learned two things from this experiment. First, sous vide steaks cooked at 137 F are just as delicious as other methods. It also seems to render fat more effectively than lower sous vide temperatures with a slightly higher level of doneness. It's ideal when you have a few hours to let the water bath work its magic. This helps balance out some of the confirmation bias of the many positive sentiments on Reddit. Secondly, whether anyone likes the final result ultimately reflects their personal preferences and that's fine. While medium rare is very popular for a lot of people, there are individuals -- my wife included -- who prefer medium-well and well-done steaks. (In case you're wondering, she says well-done sous vide steaks are delicious and much more forgiving than on the grill.) A final bonus lesson is something I've experienced many times -- it's a blast to experiment when you find something interesting that's within your skills. Trying one thing doesn't mean giving up a treasured cooking method or a favorite meal, but it can open up your possibilities and help you find new ways to make great food.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why sugary drinks are worse than sugary foods for health: BYU study
Eating your sugar is better for your health than drinking it. Brigham Young University researchers call sugar in beverages a 'major culprit' in the growth of type 2 diabetes cases. Not all sugars are equally risky, according to a new study they conducted that was just published in the journal Advances in Nutrition. BYU researchers including a pair of students teamed up with researchers at two Germany-based institutions for what's being called the 'largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis of its kind.' Their key finding is that the kind of sugar one consumes and its source are more important than previously thought and not all sugars carry the same degree of risk for diabetes. Sugar in drinks — think sodas and fruit juice — are 'consistently linked' to greater risk of type 2 diabetes, the study found. Other sugar sources showed no such link and, in some cases, might even be associated with reduced risk. Sugar itself is not inherently harmful, said lead author and nutritional sciences professor Karen Della Corte. The form and amount consumed make the difference. The research included analysis of more than 20 cohort studies from different regions of the world, including Europe, the United States, Asia, Australia and Latin America. They involved a half-million people. The researchers adjusted for body mass index, excess energy intake and several lifestyle factors, according to a BYU news release. The new study found: Each additional 12-ounce serving of sugar-sweetened beverages raised the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 25%. The risk, per the researchers, began with the first daily serving. They found no minimum threshold below which drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage was safe. With each added 8-ounce serving of fruit juice each day, risk of developing type 2 diabetes was smaller, but still increased by 5%. The risks are relative, according to the BYU research team. In the example of someone with a baseline 10% risk of developing type 2 diabetes, for instance, 'four sodas a day could raise that to roughly 20%, not 100%.' And individuals have their own baseline risks, depending on personal factors like genetics. The study found the surprising indication that 20g/day of table sugar and total sugar — which is the sum of all naturally occurring and added sugars in the diet — hinted at a protective relationship. How could that be? The researchers suggest that eating sugar and drinking it have different metabolic effects that may account for the difference in risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Sugar-sweetened drinks provide isolated sugars that kick off greater glycemic impact. That can overwhelm the liver's metabolic process and cause fatty liver and insulin resistance. Dietary sugars, though, when consumed in or added to nutrient-dense foods like fruit, dairy products and whole grains, don't overwhelm the liver. 'These embedded sugars elicit slower blood glucose responses due to accompanying fiber, fats, proteins and other beneficial nutrients,' per the research. So sugars eaten with whole foods are much less harmful than those consumed in liquid form, Della Corte said. She noted that the human body is not accustomed to processing and metabolizing the very high amounts of sugars found in sugar-sweetened beverages. 'Sugar has always been a part of the human diet. But in the modern age we're consuming it differently; we're consuming it in isolated amounts and not in the context of whole foods.' Della Corte said sugar is not a 'nutritional villain' on its own. What matters is how much you consume and in what form, as well as whether you're consuming it alongside macronutrients that can slow down its digestion. 'The body can metabolize small amounts of fructose without harm, but when consumed in excess — especially from sugar-sweetened beverages — the liver becomes overwhelmed. Unlike glucose, fructose is primarily metabolized in the liver, where it can be converted into fat through a process called de novo lipogenesis. This buildup of liver fat contributes to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which is associated with insulin resistance. Over time, this can increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes,' Della Corte said. It's an unhealthy cycle. Della Corte said the study was unique in what it examined. Many other studies have looked at the impact of sugary sodas and other beverages, but not whether different types of sugar have different effects. It also examined the impact of sugar on different populations. Fruit juice is not as good for you as whole fruits. Whole fruits provide fiber, which benefits blood glucose regulation. Fruit juices have too much sugar without the nutritional benefits like fiber that can reduce the risk, Della Corte said. She said juices have nearly the same level of sugar as sodas have. It's somewhat less harmful because of the phytonutrients, but not enough to overcome all the potential harms. 'It's a poor substitute for whole fruits,' she said. She added that high glycemic index foods directly raise the risk of type 2 diabetes, while dietary sugar does not except in liquid form. 'This study underscores the need for even more stringent recommendations for liquid sugars such as those in sugar-sweetened beverages and fruit juice, as they appear to harmfully associate with metabolic health,' said Della Corte. 'Rather than condemning all added sugars, future dietary guidelines might consider the differential effects of sugar based on its source and form.' Type 2 diabetes was the sole health indicator used in the study. And the study didn't look at the impact of artificial sweeteners, such as those found in diet sodas. Della Corte did note that the people who consume artificial sweeteners often do so because they already have a higher risk of health issues like type 2 diabetes, which could further complicate interpreting a study of the impact of artificial sweeteners. BYU professors James LeCheminant and Dennis Della Corte, as well as students Tyler Bosler and Cole McClure were also co-authors on the study, along with German researchers Anette E. Buyken of Paderborn University and Lukas Schwingshackl of the University of Freiburg.
