Test Tube Tango: Why In Vitro Studies Can't Always be Trusted

Welcome back to the Daily Dumbbell, where we are now a Nikola Jokic stan Newsletter. Anytime you can be the best player in the NBA and treat it like you’re just clocking in and out of your union job… you have our undying love.

Guys are sobbing on the court, having realized their lifelong dream and Jokic is mingling and shaking hands, clearly thinking about his horses back home

This is us at the holiday party. Making sure everybody sees that we made an appearance. Right before we sneak out at 10:30pm to go to bed.

When asked what it feels like to finally be an NBA Champion he responded:

“It’s good, it’s good. The job is done, we can go home now.”

What a legend.

Today we have an exciting deep dive into an aspect of nutritional science that is often overlooked and misunderstood.

Let’s dive in!

Feature:
In Vitro Studies

Title: Test Tube Tango: Why In Vitro Studies Often Don't Cut the Mustard

Last week a study was released that reverberated around social media echo chambers like a Liberace concert. Scientists finally struck down Sucralose, showing it was toxic to our cells and our DNA.

In reality, as we briefly discussed last week, it showed no such thing.

So how does this happen? How do studies get misinterpreted so badly? One of the biggest culprits happens to be in vitro studies. Yeah, we know - Latin and science in one phrase.

But hang in there, this won’t be as sleep-inducing as high school chemistry.

In vitro - Latin for “in glass” (We told you there would be Latin) - essentially means stuff that happens in a test tube, petri dish, or some mad scientist’s flask. And here’s the rub: in vitro is not the same as in vivo, which means experiments done in living things (like humans or animals).

Here's why that matters:

1. Cells Behaving Badly: 

In a test tube, cells don’t have the decency to act like they would in a complex organism. It’s like the difference between your behavior at a family dinner and at a Vegas bachelor party. Context matters.

Like Vegas, what happens in a test tube, stays in a test tube. Or it should at least. But somehow it always ends up in the news. Despite meaning nothing for us 99% of the time.

In this case though, it’s the scientists behaving badly. The experiment exposed human blood cells to about 125mg of Sucralose. Seems reasonable right? Someone could reasonably ingest that much.

And you could be forgiven for thinking that ingesting 125mg of Splenda means you’re exposing your cells to 125mg of Splenda. But that isn’t how it works. These compounds are broken down in our body and very small amounts actually get into our blood and in turn, our cells.

So for this to matter, we need to know how much Sucralose actually gets into the blood after digestion.

How much? 

Glad you asked. According to a 2016 study that was actually done in humans:

A Nanogram is 1/1000th of a Microgram…

2. Dosage Dilemma: 

In these studies, the doses are often juiced to the gills.

Seriously, the difference between the dose that scientists administered directly to cells in this lab study and a single can of diet soda, is literally the difference in height between Serena Williams and Mt. Everest. 

(a 5,000x difference)

But wait, there’s more:

Sucralose 6-Acetate, the chemical they used isn’t what we use in our food supply. This version is a metabolic byproduct of Sucralose. Scientists believe up to 10% of the Sucralose we metabolize could end up as Sucralose 6-Acetate.

• They used this number because they found up to 10% of Sucralose 6-Acetate in rat feces after giving them Sucralose.

Here’s where we remind you; we are not rats. Well… not all of us.

Why is this important? 

It alters our math. Turns out you’d actually need 50,000 cans of diet soda. And you’d have to do it in under 2 hours. Because our bodies are actually very efficient at clearing it from the bloodstream.

3. It’s a Small (Simplified) World After All: 

In vitro studies are the studio apartments of science: cramped and stripped down to basics. They don’t capture the intricate environments inside actual living beings.

It’s like trying to understand New York City by looking at a Lego model.

Should we panic because the entire city could come toppling down if an unsupervised toddler gets loose? We’d argue no.

But the authors of this study might disagree. They exposed blood cells to an amount of Sucralose 6-Acetate that would require 1 MILLION packets of Splenda. All of this in order to show slightly elevated levels of inflammation and carcinogenic activity.

Then used that result to say Sucralose is Genotoxic. It’s honestly malpractice.

4. The Absent Crew: 

Inside our bodies, there's a whole ensemble cast - organs, blood, immune system, and more. They all influence how substances behave. In vitro studies are like the one-man show of science – a lonely cell or molecule doing its thing without any backup dancers.

It’s the difference between making Lebron James take on an all time great team by himself…

• If any of our readers can name the other 4 players on the team Lebron dragged to the Finals in 07’ without looking it up we’ll send you a special surprise.

Versus putting a good team around him. The difference is STARK.

Our bodies work in the same way.

So next time you read about that “toxic ingredient” or “superfood” based on an in vitro study, take it with a grain of salt (don’t forget to throw the rest over your shoulder).

These studies are not worthless – they're actually great starting points for further research. But until they’re backed up by real-world trials, such as the decades of research showing Aspartame and Sucralose are perfectly safe, you can go on living your best life without worry.

That’s all for today folks! Hope you enjoyed a quick detour into Science Town. Let us know if you loved this one or hated it. And make sure to come back tomorrow for Whoop Wednesday & a feature on growing those glutes!