How Fake Sugars Sneak Into Foods and Disrupt Metabolic Health (washingtonpost.com) 159
Artificial sweeteners and other sugar substitutes sweeten foods without extra calories. But studies show the ingredients can affect gut and heart health. From a report: Table sugar, or sucrose, is still the dominant sweetener in the food supply, and eating a lot of ultra-processed foods with added sugar has been linked to chronic illness and obesity. The number of new food products containing sucrose has fallen by 16 percent in the last five years. Use of high-fructose corn syrup and agave syrup also have declined. "These low-calorie sweeteners are ubiquitous in the food supply, and so people often aren't even aware that they're consuming them," said Allison Sylvetsky, an associate professor in the department of exercise and nutrition sciences at George Washington University. Many sugar substitutes are known as high-intensity sweeteners because they're often hundreds of times sweeter than table sugar.
Some are synthetic, like sucralose, aspartame, and saccharin, while others, like allulose, stevia and monk fruit extract, are referred to as "natural" because they're derived from plants. Sugar substitutes can be found in ingredient lists on food packages, often with names that many consumers don't recognize, like adventame, neotame and acesulfame potassium. Foods that claim "no artificial sweeteners" often are sweetened with stevia and other so-called "natural" sugar substitutes. A variety of these sweeteners are turning up in cereals, juices and other packaged foods marketed to kids -- even though public health groups have discouraged their use among children. Sucralose and acesulfame potassium are regularly used in Greek yogurts, tortilla wraps and other foods served in school meals. Schools in some states have experimented with serving chocolate milk sweetened with a blend of sugar and monk fruit extract. [...] Scientists used to think that non-nutritive sweeteners were largely inert, activating sweet receptors on our tongues and passing through our bodies without causing metabolic changes. But questions remain about the health effects of consuming large amounts of these ingredients. The World Health Organization cautioned people to limit their intake of sugar substitutes because of their potential for "undesirable" long-term effects, including detrimental effects on gut and metabolic health.
Some are synthetic, like sucralose, aspartame, and saccharin, while others, like allulose, stevia and monk fruit extract, are referred to as "natural" because they're derived from plants. Sugar substitutes can be found in ingredient lists on food packages, often with names that many consumers don't recognize, like adventame, neotame and acesulfame potassium. Foods that claim "no artificial sweeteners" often are sweetened with stevia and other so-called "natural" sugar substitutes. A variety of these sweeteners are turning up in cereals, juices and other packaged foods marketed to kids -- even though public health groups have discouraged their use among children. Sucralose and acesulfame potassium are regularly used in Greek yogurts, tortilla wraps and other foods served in school meals. Schools in some states have experimented with serving chocolate milk sweetened with a blend of sugar and monk fruit extract. [...] Scientists used to think that non-nutritive sweeteners were largely inert, activating sweet receptors on our tongues and passing through our bodies without causing metabolic changes. But questions remain about the health effects of consuming large amounts of these ingredients. The World Health Organization cautioned people to limit their intake of sugar substitutes because of their potential for "undesirable" long-term effects, including detrimental effects on gut and metabolic health.
Nowhere in the summary... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do they actually address what the title claims - they say "this is bad", but never do explain the"how" or "why". I assume the rest of the article is equally vague.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "studies say". Not only is if off-topic, it's also garden-variety infotainment. /. is becoming The View.
Re:Nowhere in the summary... (Score:5, Informative)
Do they actually address what the title claims - they say "this is bad", but never do explain the"how" or "why". I assume the rest of the article is equally vague.
The article is paywalled, but the evidence that artificial sweeteners do bad stuff has been around for years.
The "news" part of this article is that the use of them is more ubiquitous than most people realize, I personally didn't know they were shoving food full of stevia and claiming "no artificial sweeteners". Personally, I've always wondered about the benefit of those protein powders stuffed full of artificial sweeteners.
Overall it just seems like more reason to avoid ultraprocessed foods [science.org].
Re: Nowhere in the summary... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nowhere in the summary... (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"The safety of aspartame has been studied since its discovery, and it is one of the most rigorously tested food ingredients. Aspartame has been deemed safe for human consumption by over 100 regulatory agencies in their respective countries, including the FDA, UK Food Standards Agency, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Health Canada, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
A 2017 review of metabolic effects by consuming aspartame found that it did not affect blood glucose, insulin, total cholesterol, triglycerides, calorie intake, or body weight. While high-density lipoprotein levels were higher compared to control, they were lower compared to sucrose."
TFA doesn't disagree with that.
Re:Nowhere in the summary... (Score:5, Informative)
In the linked article "ultra processed" means "ready-to-eat formulations with five or more ingredients". So many salads are "ultra processed".
No it doesn't, and no it's not. For goodness' sake have some integrity.
The article https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org] says: "The study used a food classification system called NOVA [link] developed by a team of researchers in Brazil. It describes "ultraprocessed" foods as ready-to-eat formulations with five or more ingredients, ...". That's clearly a journalist's summary *description* (not precise definition). To avoid you having to pick holes in the wording of the summary, the journalist provided you with the authoritative link.
The link https://worldnutritionjournal.... [worldnutri...ournal.org] has six dense paragraphs, and examples, and salads aren't even close to fitting into NOVA category 4.
Science-y (Score:2)
Conclusively proving a wide range of chemical compounds produce specific negative health outcomes over a long period of time is nearly impossible to prove. You can tell a study is probably junk because the negative effects vary widely - kidney issues, liver problems, heart problems, cancer, diabetes. For every additional effect the required experimental effect size increases.
To get around this, researchers clump all negative effects as a single outcome. It's garbage science.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA
But studies suggest that fake sugars can also have unexpected effects on your gut and metabolic health and even promote food cravings and insulin resistance, a precursor to Type 2 diabetes.
Re: Nowhere in the summary... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I always hear that artificial sweeteners are bad in the context that they don't actually help weight loss.
But, personally, my body fat level is completely fine and I drink A LOT of diet soda. Is it still bad for me? I'm not trying to lose weight. I just like diet soda.
Re: (Score:3)
Most diet sodas are sweetened with sweeteners that have links to negative stuff beyond "not losing weight". If you really want to know what you're putting in your body look at a label and then google the ingredients.
Personally I just stay away from sweeteners in general. The average person ingests far more sugar than any of our ancestors ever did, particularly sugar in an isolated form. Swapping that out for some other substance our body also didnt evolve around eating large amounts of doesnt sound like a s
Re: (Score:2)
"negative stuff"
FUD
"...at every location they suggested I not bring him his diet soda or at least extremely limit it."
Doesn't mean they were right. That recommendation is easy to find, justifications for it not easy to find.
People with heart failure are often prescribed very low sodium diets. Diet sodas do not have much sodium, but enough that high consumption can blow you out of your daily allowance. Eliminating diet soda, or "extremely limit it", is needed in this case and it is common. It's not a con
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, you've never read any studies on artificial sweeteners (you're ignorant on the subject). A simple google search and some reading would back my point just fine, I'll let you do that though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I get it, you've never read any studies on artificial sweeteners (you're ignorant on the subject).
There are lots of studies using bad science, because when you use proper scientific methods to test artificial sweeteners the results are pretty boring. They don't cause an insulin response, and they can't cause you to gain weight from calories you haven't consumed.
So, if you want your research paper to get any amount of attention, you change the rules and instead make pseudoscientific claims that artificial sweeteners make it tough for people to stick to their diets, or that they alter the gut biome in wa
Re: (Score:2)
So everything in favor of artificial sweeteners is valid and everything not in favor is pseudoscience. Not buying that for a second.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there can be any number of potential problems the artificial sweeteners can cause, such as aspartame causing anxiety problems [nih.gov] in folks, so bad that they require meds.
Re: (Score:2)
But their claims that they don't are never supported. Some even claim that artificial sweeteners cause weight gain and contribute to various metabolic problems the same as sugar. Again, without support.
There is allegedly some reason to believe that sweeteners other than sugar can interact with metabolic processes, but that is not to say they are in any way similar to sugar. Comparing any artificial sweetener to sugar is a massive win, sugar is THE sweetener proven to destroy your health.
"...I drink A LOT
Re: (Score:2)
I drink A LOT of diet soda. Is it still bad for me? I'm not trying to lose weight. I just like diet soda.
To be honest, I'd worry more about the phosphoric acid (can cause bone density loss) and potassium benzoate (reacts with vitamin C to break down into benzene, a carcinogen) than the sweeteners.
Re: (Score:2)
they link to studies in the article...
" I assume the rest of the article is equally vague" = I did not read the article
Re: (Score:2)
they link to studies in the article...
" I assume the rest of the article is equally vague" = I did not read the article
This is correct, I did not - in the best Slashdot tradition, I might add!
There are so many crap stories posted here nowadays - I use the summaries to gauge whether an article is worth reading in full. It is unforunate when a summary does not correctly reflect the quality of an article, which appears to be the case this time.
Re: Nowhere in the summary... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do they actually address what the title claims - they say "this is bad", but never do explain the"how" or "why".
It's basically the same deal with the anti-vape propaganda. They ignore the harm reduction aspect (sugar substitutes are still far healthier than consuming the amount of sugar in the typical western diet), and instead focus on nebulous fears that hedonism itself will lead to retribution. If you don't eat bland foods and drink only plain water, you're gonna die!.
Well guess what, we're all gonna die. I'd rather do it after having enjoyed foods with flavor while I'm alive.
Re: (Score:3)
I researched this about a year ago on http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/ [ucsf.edu]
-Artificial sweeteners tell your body "Sugar is coming".
-Your body spikes your insulin but no sugars show up so your body says WTF.
-Your body then has to deal with this excess insulin which makes you hungrier.
-At some point your body gets fed up with all this and starts to ignore insulin (aka insulin resistance)
TL;DR; avoid ALL artificial sweeteners. Glucose is the safest because your body makes itself by converting starch into glucose which
Re: (Score:2)
I think in part it's almost impossible to generalize about sweeteners because they're so chemically and biologically diverse.
Sucralose -- chlorinated disaccharide
Aspartame -- dipeptide ester of amino acids (phenylalanine and aspartic acid)
Nutrasweet -- methylated dipeptide ester of amino acids (phenylalanine and aspartic acid)
Saccharine -- Benzothiazole compound
sorbitol, mannitol, erythritol -- sugar alcohols
Monkfruit, Stevia -- various mixtures of polycyclic plant terpene glycosides
The main thing they have
Re: (Score:2)
RE: "Testing the effects of such diet for over multiple years isn't something anyone has the funding to do"
These people do: http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/ [ucsf.edu] [ucsf.edu]
-Artificial sweeteners tell your body "Sugar is coming".
-Your body spikes your insulin but no sugars show up so your body says WTF.
-Your body then has to deal with this excess insulin which makes you hungrier.
-At some point your body gets fed up with all this and starts to ignore insulin (aka insulin resistance)
TL;DR; avoid ALL artificial sweeten
Re: (Score:2)
Artificial sweeteners tell your body "Sugar is coming".
-Your body spikes your insulin but no sugars show up so your body says WTF.
There have been numerous glycemic studies done on artificial sweeteners proving they do not cause an insulin spike, otherwise you'd see type 2 diabetics having huge problems with consuming them. This is why real science is peer reviewed, because individual studies can be biased and/or flawed.
Re:"sugar added" != "ultra-processed" (Score:2)
Re:"sugar added" != "ultra-processed" (Score:4, Insightful)
For some definitions of "ultra processed" it does. The question is for what definitions does it not? After all, sugar itself is "ultra processed" in most people's minds.
"...but making it is easy."
Making a Hot Pocket is easy too. Ease is not a measure of processing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ultra Processed" doesn't refer to the number of steps taken to make something.
It refers to the fact that the food is almost totally pre-digested before you eat it. Boiling down fruit for hours and adding refined sugar vs. eating a raw plum certainly qualifies for that designation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so they're boiled for a mere 20 minutes. Same result. -1 misses the whole point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever, I'll leave you here in this pointless rathole you've veered into.
Re: (Score:3)
After all, sugar itself is "ultra processed" in most people's minds.
...despite the fact that all they do is mash up the beets, add water to dissolve the sugar, filter out the pulp, then evaporate the water.
Make your own food from whole ingredients (Score:3, Insightful)
It's simple. Make your own food from whole ingredients, or at least minimally processed ones. If you're serious about your health, you'll find the time. You'll also realize the satisfaction that comes from enjoying the fruit of your own labour.
Even junk food then becomes nutritious. E.g. pizza is trivial to make, and the more effort you put in, the better the results. You can even easily make your own mozzarella.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 100% with you, and it's how I live my culinary life. But I can afford it.
Re: (Score:3)
But I can afford it.
That's a myth. The (financial) health costs associated with eating cheap food are much higher than eating whole or minimally processed food, even if per calorie healthy food is more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a myth. It's the difference between "paying now" and "paying later" If you eat enough, you avoid an empty stomach. If you eat well, at some point in the future it might come back and haunt you. It's a difficult enough question to answer when it's just you - try it as a single parent on a low income with a hungry child.
Re: (Score:2)
"don't eat well"... damn my lack of proofreading.
Re: (Score:2)
I am assuming that one can afford food in the first place. Given that, one can make decisions to buy better food so as to avoid highly processed foods; there are so many strategies for this that I feel I would insult you by suggesting any.
It is specious to argue that the opposite of convenience food is starvation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's specious if you exclude enough people. But that's 38 million people (the 2021 number of who lives below the poverty line).
I already made the point that I can afford to make the choice. Lots of people can. But the number for whom the question is painful is not small.
Re: (Score:2)
You again put my case forward poorly. Where did I say making 3 meals from scratch a day? I don't even cook everyday (aside from re-heating or reassembling). A little bit of cooking can be turned into many meals over many days.
As for not having a kitchen - I'll grant that can be the case. But you say "often." The best stats I can find [khn.org] say that 828,000 households in America have "incomplete" kitchens; there are 124,010,992 (2021) households in America. So, less than 1% of American houses lack the ability to
Re: Make your own food from whole ingredients (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am quite familiar with the history of the division of labour.
Note I also included minimally processed foods. And I have indeed decided to spend a lot of time, and good deal of my modest income, on healthy food. But: I have never owned a car. I don't have a cell-phone plan. I don't have cable TV, or even a TV. And before you call me privileged again, I live in the quasi food-desert that is police district 22 of North Philly. Look it up.
People make decisions on how they want to spend their time and money. O
Re: (Score:2)
This is true about many things, but many do not have that luxury. For example, dental cleanings will save you a ton of money in the long run, but many people don't have the luxury of being able to afford a dentist every 6 months to 1 year.
I recently changed my diet and eat in the medditernanian style. For a family of two, eating healthy is running us about $250 a week in fruits, produce, meats, and grains. I only eat what I can make 'from scratch'. I make my own hummus, taziki, tahini, yogurt, breads, pesto
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 100% with you, and it's how I live my culinary life. But I can afford it.
Everyone can afford it. "Junk food is cheaper" is nonsense.
Just googling some US prices, a Big Mac meal is $6, which is the same as a kilo of chicken breasts or thighs at Walmart. A kilo is probably 4-5 breasts, so combine one with some rice or frozen vegetables or lentils and drink free water instead of sugar garbage and there you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Just googling some US prices, a Big Mac meal is $6, which is the same as a kilo of chicken breasts or thighs at Walmart.
Most inexpensive packaged chicken is already injected with a solution of salts and preservatives. You do have to spend a bit more if you want to buy chicken that's just... chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, whatever, double the price of chicken and it's still cheaper for more protein and less other garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Cook your own meals. Shop the permitter of the grocery store. Do 3 hours of exercise, half of it vigorous, at least. Get a good nights sleep.
Re: Make your own food from whole ingredients (Score:2)
Make your own food from whole ingredients, or at least minimally processed ones.
No thanks, I have better things to do than return to a primitive diet which consumed a massive amount of time and effort, and left most people with nutritional deficiencies and constant, unrelenting digestive and gastrointestinal diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's an inherently classist attitude.
Buying quality and fresh ingredients takes more time (keeping fresh ingredients means more trips to the store) and money (they're usually more expensive), and preparing a meal from them also takes more time. So poorer people that are working odd hours and/or multiple jobs, and households where everybody is working, cannot afford the ingredients and don't have the time for extra store trips and meal preparation. Instead, they run through the store, grab a bunch of boxed
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell you how to learn to like cooking, but if you started using a crock pot, almost all of the cooking time would take place while you were at work. And, if you end up getting home later than planned, it won't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because so much extra cooking time is added. Crock pots do not reduce preparation or clean up time, both of which are major time sinks for single people.
More interestingly, whether using a crock pot solves any "healthiness" problem isn't even considered. The reason food has become unhealthy is because of a social goal of making food cheap and convenient. Crock pots have the same convenience goal, perhaps with some of the same sacrifices. What you put in crock pot food is still what matters; crock
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to do the cooking yourself, there's no reason that a chef in a restaurant can't cook decent food, and the reason pre packaged food tends to be so bad is because it's a race to the bottom to produce ever cheaper foods while complying with all the government demands to reduce the levels of certain ingredients.
Re: (Score:2)
"...all the government demands to reduce the levels of certain ingredients."
Citations please.
Simple solution: Eat less sweet stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
There really is no reason for all that sweetness everywhere. Fortunately I personally find sweet stuff disgusting and non-sugar sweeteners even more so (taste "chemical" to me), but everybody can protect their health by just regarding "sweet" as warning sign.
You do not need it. It is bad for you. It is easy to detect. What else do you need to know? Now, I am not saying cut "sweet" totally, but make it a treat and special occasion only and insist on high quality (real sugar). After a few weeks your body will be done with the craving and you will be much better off.
Re:Simple solution: Eat less sweet stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Sugar and sweeteners make customers pick that product over competitors, that's the only reason they are included. If cocaine was legal, we'd have it included in food too.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically people are doing it to themselves. Yes, I figured that. But if they do it to themselves, they should stop complaining about it. Some taking of responsibility for your own behavior required, and I know many people have a hard time with that, but still.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's kind of like smart speakers; adding sweeteners is not really about serving *consumers'* needs. It's about creating "needs" that suit a business model, in this case the industrial transformation of cheap, government-subsidized ingredients into shelf-stable ultraprocessed food.
Consider a Dorito chip; it's a corn ship dusted with cheez powder and MSG then fried in oil. If you gave a square of cardboard the same treatment it would taste almost exactly the same. On the flip side, if you take away th
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, if you take away the added MSG, salt, and cheez powder out of a Dorito, you end up with a product that tastes like a square of cardboard.
If you removed all the junk from a Dorito, you'd end up with a tortilla chip, which actually are pretty tasty on their own. I have a bag of 'em around here somewhere, let me check the ingredients:
Corn masa flour, water, vegetable oil (cottonseed, corn and/or sunflower), sea salt
Re: (Score:2)
"After a few weeks your body will be done with the craving and you will be much better off."
The fact that you think this means you are unqualified.
"insist on high quality (real sugar)"
And this proves you are ignorant as well.
"There really is no reason for all that sweetness everywhere. "
There are billions of reasons, and they are the only reasons that count in capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "few weeks" I think is pretty misleading. It probably varies on the individual but both in my own experience in giving up most sugar (and sweeteners in general) and in talking to others it can take a year or longer to get rid of the cravings. I'd wager it likely has to do with the base starting point of sugar consumption but I am not at all an expert here.
Re: (Score:2)
> There really is no reason for all that sweetness everywhere...I personally find sweet stuff disgusting
A statistical sample size of one. We're done now!
As I did derive exactly nothing from that and just used it as a side-remark, your point is?
> After a few weeks your body will be done with the craving and you will be much better off.
I've found this only partially true. While the extreme stuff tastes like overkill after time, I still crave the "tasty stuff" in foods like sugar (or sweetener), fat/oils, salt, MSG, etc. The cravings never completely go away, and when in a bad mood, go up.
That is why occasionally, you can indulge yourself. Another side note: Fat is not actually bad for you, provided it is high (food) quality. MSG is not bad for you unless you are among the small group of people allergic. Or if it is used to cover deficiencies in the raw materials.
Mixem up (Score:2)
Regular sugar is also unhealthful, causing diabetes among other problems. I craved sweets as a kid, and still do to a large extent. It's really hard to just ignore such cravings.
Perhaps rotate artificial sweeteners to avoid any one substance from becoming a problem. The flavors we enjoy in many natural foods & spices are there to serve as toxic pesticides to keep the plant from getting eaten by birds or bugs. Our livers etc. can clean up small amounts of such toxins, as any omnivore needs such a mechani
The hilarious part: (Score:2)
As far as I am aware, artificial sweeteners may not carry kcal but they trigger an insulin reaction. So you get to be fat anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A few do and only in a small portion of the population and only to a very small degree and through unknown mechanisms.
"So you get to be fat anyway."
If you are fat anyway, it's not because artificial sweeteners cause an insulin reaction. You're selling the same FUD that the sugar industry sells.
You can thank welfare queens for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Were it not for welfare queens such as Domino Sugar squealing like stuck pigs and demanding they be protected from the free market, it is doubtful many of these fake sugars would exist. During the Reagan administration, price supports, tariffs, and subsidies were implemented to protect American sugar producers. Currently, the U.S. taxpayer spends $4 billion every year [marketwatch.com] handing over their money to these multi-national companies.
Were it not for these welfare payments, sugar prices would be almost half what they are now which would in turn make it more economical for sugar to be used instead of these fake sugars or even high fructose corn syrup (which also receives tons of subsidies each year). For example, there was a time when Coca Cola used real sugar in their soft drink (we'll ignore the cocaine for the time being). However, in 1985, thanks to the welfare payments and price supports, Coca Cola decided it was too expensive to use the real thing and transitioned to high fructose corn syrup.
And now you know, the rest of the story.
Re: You can thank welfare queens for this (Score:2)
CocaCola only has high fructose corn syrup in North America. In Europe it has good old fashioned sucrose.
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy the Mexican version of Coca Cola at many stores. That has sugar in it. It costs more.
Re: (Score:3)
You can buy the Mexican version of Coca Cola at many stores. That has sugar in it. It costs more.
Home Depot [homedepot.com] sells it. They're still 150 calories 39g of sugar per bottle.
Only major difference between it and the US-made stuff is that it tastes slightly different. It's still just as horribly unhealthy, because it's 150 empty calories.
Re: (Score:2)
Coca Cola from Mexico (and I presume other countries south of the US) is also bottled with sugar, not corn syrup. I have heard second-hand that larger markets in the US also get Coca Cola bottled with sugar (denoted by yellow caps) for Passover. I haven't personally seen Passover Coke, but I love Mexican Coca Cola. It does have a different taste.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be like that, now it varies by country, mostly in response to anti-sugar legislation from the government:
Malaysia has HFCS.
Singapore has some other artificial sweetener.
Re: (Score:2)
Were it not for welfare queens such as Domino Sugar squealing like stuck pigs and demanding they be protected from the free market, it is doubtful many of these fake sugars would exist.
Artificial sweeteners go back far further than that. The ancient romans sweetened their wine with a sugar substitute made from lead [smithsonianmag.com].
Regardless of the government's pushing on the scales of capitalism for big sugar, we'd still have artificial sweeteners today because diabetics need them, and for other dietary needs where the empty calories of sugar are undesirable.
This stinks of nonsense science. (Score:2)
Sure, tell me nutrasweet/aspartame is bad for me, or sucralose, or whatever individual one is, because you've tested THAT chemical. I'll believe that.
But telling me things like "sweet tasting stuff taste bad", and I'm going to say "So you think I'm stupid?". These are all different chemcials and extracts and it's like no different from saying "coffee and bleach are bad for you".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, how about aspartame causes anxiety problems in people [nih.gov] as one of them.
It really doesn't take much effort to find the many studies published online that show many of these chemicals added to our foods seem to be having detrimental effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, how about aspartame causes anxiety problems in people [nih.gov] as one of them.
In mice. The study was done on mice.
Humans and animals don't necessarily react the same way to different foods. Onions can kill cats. Chocolate can kill dogs. Humans can (and do) eat both of those foods without any problems.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really take much effort to find anything online, it takes effort to weed out all the BS. You wouldn't know about that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Any chemical that triggers the sweet taste receptors on your tongue will also trigger the sweet receptors in your gut because they are the same receptors. The receptors in your gut cause your body to produce endogenous chemicals to assist in the absorption of carbohydrates, but there will be overproduced for the circumstances, which could have consequences to your metabolism. There is enough evolutionary pressure to avoid this as evidenced by primates who adapted to not taste one of the sweet tasting chemic
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
sweeteners, which appear as sugar alternatives, have been critically evaluated by the FDA, EFSA, and Codex Alimentarius and are considered safe and well tolerated. However, some long-term prospective studies raise the concern that the consumption of artificial sweeteners might actually contribute to the development of metabolic derangements that lead to obesity, T2D, and cardiovascular disease
Also, article shows saccarine and sucralose affect the gut biome, but the effects of that are yet to be understood.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame and acesulfame-K (ace-K), are shown to be associated with increased cancer risk.
https://www.tandfonline.com/do... [tandfonline.com]
Aspartame is linked to behavioural and cognitive problems.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Artificial additives, including artificial sweeteners, can
natural to whom??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A large part of the world's population doesn't know what a corn plant looks like. That doesn't mean their bodies don't "know how to handle it". Sugar cane isn't native to my environment...
how about lowering sugar (regardless of the name)? (Score:2)
Go watch Rebecca Watson's Youtube Video (Score:5, Informative)
This is not to say you should mainline Sweet 'n Low, but don't worry about it being in your food either. There is literally no food substance more studied than aspertame. It's a safe as anything you can eat.
Re: (Score:2)
on this subject. It's good. Short summary, there's no evidence of artificial sweetners hurting gut bacterial except in vitro, the way your gut works means they break down before they cause trouble, and actual sugar is probably worse for you.
This is not to say you should mainline Sweet 'n Low, but don't worry about it being in your food either. There is literally no food substance more studied than aspertame. It's a safe as anything you can eat.
Skepchick is great at skepticism and science communication, but I'm not sure why you'd take the word of a podcaster over researchers in the field.
Just google and there's a ton of studies associating artificial sweeteners with obesity and metabolic disorder.
Disregarding all of the cancer and gut bacteria concerns I think a big issue is the sweetness itself.
When you ingest artificial sweeteners your body become accustomed to sweetness which triggers overeating (including eating of sugary food) [sydney.edu.au].
In isolation it
You don't have to (Score:2)
The link between obesity and artificial sweeteners is just that, a link. More research is needed, but it's likely that people who consume a lot of them probably consume a lot of other junk food. I know I do. I drink diet soda because once you get used to it regular soda tastes like syrup, but it's like the old Fred Pohl book The Space Merchants. These things are designed to be addictive. Soda goes good with salty hig
Linked to heart attacks and stroke (Score:5, Insightful)
One of these fake sugars, erythritol, used in zero-calorie drinks/foods, has been associated with a higher degree of heart attacks, stroke, blood clotting, and death. [cnn.com]
“If your blood level of erythritol was in the top 25% compared to the bottom 25%, there was about a two-fold higher risk for heart attack and stroke. It’s on par with the strongest of cardiac risk factors, like diabetes,” Hazen said.
Additional lab and animal research presented in the paper revealed that erythritol appeared to be causing blood platelets to clot more readily. Clots can break off and travel to the heart, triggering a heart attack, or to the brain, triggering a stroke.
Re:Linked to heart attacks and stroke (Score:5, Informative)
erythritol is not a "fake sugar", it is a natural sugar alcohol, and while it may be "associated with" that does not mean it is causal. Congratulations for spewing the most recent other FUD article almost certainly promoted by the same people promoting this garbage.
"... there was about a two-fold higher risk for heart attack and stroke."
So far less increase in risk than that of having had COVID, and what about all the uncontrolled factors? For example, diabetes sufferers are far more likely than 18 year olds to use erythritol and diabetes comes with a 2 fold increase as well, fully explaining the number in that case.
Sorry, but this article is pure FUD and you're posting it makes you a spreader of FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
"erythritol appeared to be causing blood platelets to clot more readily"
So does elevated blood sugar.
Most people have poor metabolic health (Score:2)
"Ultraprocessed" = clickbait nonsense (Score:2)
The term "ultraprocessed" is twisted in these articles to mean whatever foods the authors want to include in their definition of foods that are "bad for you" whatever that is. Notice that they always refer to "ultraprocessed foods such as..." without actually defining what specific attributes lead to the listed foods as being included in the category.
Perhaps the negative health effects of the listed foods are the real cause of the problems, and not the "artificial sweeteners". What studies? What exactly did
Non Paywalled Article (Score:3)
Editors still insist on paywalled articles, whether it is Bloomberg, WSJ or whatever ...
Here is a non paywalled copy of the article [yahoo.com].
No thanks (Score:2)
I try to avoid non-sugar sweeteners, mainly because I don't like the taste and/or aftertaste.
I'll stick with sugar and just be mindful of how much I eat.
Impossible to lump artificial sweeteners together (Score:2)
Each artificial sweetener has its own distinct properties, including health side effects. Most of these side effects don't show up until you ingest extremely high doses, such as the infamous study that exposed mice to amounts hundreds of times the typical human intake, even for habitual diet drink users. Though it's a nice shorthand to lump all artificial sweeteners into a single category, reality is more complicated.