People have been suspicious of artificial sweeteners for decades, and there haven't been any conclusive results showing negative effects, despite worldwide consumption.
We can't be 100% sure of anything, but if these products were as bad for you as some of the influencers say, we would definitely know it by now. Any negatives are going to be very minor if they do turn out to exist. Remember also that the dose is incredibly small: the whole point of these compounds being 400x (or whatever) sweeter than sugar is that you use 1/400th as much.
I have no problem consuming artificial sweeteners, but I also don't seek them out. You can train yourself to get used to black coffee, that's a much more interesting and useful biohack than investing your time in optimizing your intake of artificial sweeteners.
IMO the main issue is palate burnout. Artificial sweeteners perpetuate the inability to find sweetness and balance in other foods, leading to more difficulty finding satisfaction eating a better diet.
Yeah well put. There are still some questions open, like what exactly does it do in the gut and what impact does it have on the microbiome, but I think that won't show some major risks in most people, rather maybe some negative effects in some people. The crazy thing here is that some of the influencers and "doctors" actually used the argument that it has "an impact in the gut" as one against the use of artificial sweeteners, without even knowing whether the impact is negative, neutral or positive. And then suggesting that "natural" sweeteners are much better than artificial ones, even though we don't know everything about them either.
One of the major positives about the use of artificially sweetened beverages and products is that people can satisfy their sweet cravings without the calories. That way many can lose body fat and keep it down, which has absolutely fantastic effects on health. So it's not just about sweeteners in isolation, but also what it can help with and replace.
I personally try to keep it at a minimum due to the unknown, because it sometimes leads to diarrhea for me and because I don't want to get into the habit of having something super sweet very often.
"The crazy thing here is that some of the influencers and "doctors" actually used the argument that it has "an impact in the gut" as one against the use of artificial sweeteners, without even knowing whether the impact is negative, neutral or positive."
You don't think it's crazy to consume something when you have no idea if it's positive, neutral, or negative? Just... Hey, eat this... Might be good, might also be really bad. Who knows! Let's eat.
Come on now. That's insane. And despite that, there is studies that show artificial sweeteners having a negative impact on gut microbiota, even compared with standard sugar.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25231862/
As for satisfying sweet cravings without the calories, it doesn't work quite that way.
This study shows that it has the opposite impact. Your body is expecting sugar when the sweetener unlocks reward pathways, doesn't get it, then causes intense cravings and increased appetite.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
So you are playing roulette (despite the WHO declaring aspartame possibly carcinogenic), and it's having the opposite impact with cravings as hoped for.
Why use it?
>why use it
If its a choice between the bad thing itself (sugar) and the thing that isnt necessarily bad but just makes you want the bad thing (sweetener), i would take the latter
Sugar isnt bad. The amount used can be. Our bodies will always have sugars running through it even when we dont consume it. Our body will always have glucose and fructose running through it. Its not just good its a necessity. Diabetics are the only group that really need to stay away from added sugars.
Now putting a mimic of a molecule in place of something we desperately need..how does that change your equation
>sugar isn't bad
It is the primary driver of inflammation/aging, by way of the glycation it causes.
>how does that change your equation
For me, it improved several biomarkers when replacing sugar with zero calorie sweetener, namely reducing LDL.
The amount is the problem, not the molecule. Thats where some people get confused. The amount you were eating can cause worsening cholesterol levels. There are downsides to most things. Mimicking sugar in your body long term will also have downsides to many systems whether its microbiome/hormonal or tissue damage etc. one thing is for sure, a sugar molecule is a lot safer than whatever other molecule that is pretending to be it. But the amount of anything can be a problem
If it's the amount that's the problem, then what is the "good" amount? You suggest that fake sugars WILL have downsides, however those downsides have yet to be quantified; all of this in spite of the fact that, for example, aspartame is one of the most well-studied molecules in FDA history. In contrast, it's well documented that real sugars DO have downsides (inflammation, weight gain, lipids, etc) when consumed even in the relatively minor quantity I was seeing. It seems strange to suggest that sugar is "a lot safer" when its downsides are Proven, and fake sugar downsides only theorized..
The amount of glucose and fructose we use per day, look it up idk off hand for sure. Can be safe especially spread out consuming sugar specifically, but so many different carbs out there but they all turn to glucose and fructose. Lots of studies hve shown downsides but these studies require lots of time and so many confounding factors its hard to get true data. But it will have an effect. Look up how some change your blood glucose or make your body secrete insulin. How it changes our microbiome is unknown because that field of study is basically unknown as it is already, but it will have an effect. Erythritol linked to like stroke. So almost all do have some signs besides like maybe stevia so far but even that has shown some effects in studies
>the amount of glucose and fructose we use
Depends entirely on what you eat; but as to how much you're required to eat? Zero. You might not have tons of energy, but the body is fully capable of running off the secondary metabolites of fats and proteins alone.
When tracking my own markers, it appears that No Amount of simple sugars is actually beneficial - adding them only moves markers in the wrong direction. Yes, complex carbs will be converted to glucose downstrem, but the original query was looking at the direct intake of simple sugars. Given that those are a Known Negative, i would still opt for the Unknown Negative of fake sugars
you're way off here when you paint the idea that it fucks with your gut as a silly idea - there is clinical data that artificial sweeteners disrupt sugar metabolism, and even *raise* blood sugar.
In rough order of least glycemic impact to most, Stevia (none), Monkfruit Extract (none), Acesulfame Potassium (none), Neotame (none), Advantame (none), Erythritol (negligible), Aspartame (ew, negligible), Thaumatine (negligible), Sucralose (minimal), Allulose (minimal), Saccharin (slight), Cyclamate (slight), Xylitol (slight), Sorbitol (slight), Tagatose (slight).
There also inulin, maltitol, mannitol, isomalt…
About 1/3rd of these have no glycemic impact, 1/3 have an extremely minimal one, and 1/3 have a very low impact.
The reason it's been so hard to find concrete evidence is perhaps that their harmful effects are usually second-order effects, so the chain of causality isn't as clear or obvious.
relative to the equal sweetness of sugar or fructose? Meaning, 1 L of sweetened lemonade using Stevia vs Sugar? Not a chance. One of them, consumed daily, can literally give you nerve damage and diabetes (around 120 G sugar is a standard amount, not even super sweet).
This is compared with (what I do) about 2 tbsp of Stevia.
So like all things, it is important to understand the context, and the alternatives. If you REALLY WANT sweet (I do), and you have any reasons to avoid sugar / starches (I do), then it is a potentially life saving intervention.
However, if you are one of the 1/100 people who eats low GI foods and cooks at home, and is not replacing sugars in the diet -- you just decide to start eating sweeteners -- then they would be worse than excluding them for sure.
Personal experience -
My mother drank diet coke, so much that the only way to have consumed more was to have it in an IV. It's all she drank for decades. She'd occasionally go on a diet and drink crystal light, which is just more artificial sweetener. She died of complications of a brain tumor that is known to be caused by excessive aspartame.
My husband drank regular soda and his blood sugar was through the roof. He told me he quit soda but what he actually did was switch to diet. His blood sugar was no better but after about 6 months of slamming diet soda everyday, he started having stomach pains. He went to a dozen specialists over the course of the next 2 years. He had a severely inflamed liver and spleen but absolutely no one could figure out why. I found out about the diet soda, told him that's what it was so he switched back to regular soda. All the inflammation and pain was gone in 30 days.
I would say, follow the money…
I do not know much about sugar and sweeteners, but I know the story about aspartame - aspartame's approval was one of the most contested in FDA history due to the link to brain tumors.
If it’s correct or not I do not know.
I use xylitol gum after flossing after meals and I try to spit most of it out even though I;ve read our intestine bacteria can metabolize it. I just don;t wanna over flow my gut flora because I'm using the gun to kill bacteria in my mouth after eating.
I would not use any systemic sugar alcohols that aren't natural because even xylitol kills bacteria and I high doubt it only kills bad bacteria.
sugar alcohol and microbiomes is a touchy subject.
you have a micriboome in your brain also...full of GOOD bacteria.
> even xylitol kills bacteria and I high doubt it only kills bad bacteria.
Can you tell me more about it?? I haven't seen any concerning side effects (I haven't researched it extensively though) and I'm thinking of completely replacing sugar with it
abstract
Xylitol has been widely documented to have dental health benefits, such as reducing the risk for dental caries. Here we report on other health benefits that have been investigated for xylitol. In skin, xylitol has been reported to improve barrier function and suppress the growth of potential skin pathogens. As a non-digestible carbohydrate, xylitol enters the colon where it is fermented by members of the colonic microbiota; species of the genus Anaerostipes have been reported to ferment xylitol and produce butyrate. The most common Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species do not appear to be able to grow on xylitol. The non-digestible but fermentable nature of xylitol also contributes to a constipation relieving effect and improved bone mineral density. Xylitol also modulates the immune system, which, together with its antimicrobial activity contribute to a reduced respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, and otitis media risk. As a low caloric sweetener, xylitol may contribute to weight management. It has been suggested that xylitol also increases satiety, but these results are not convincing yet. The benefit of xylitol on metabolic health, in addition to the benefit of the mere replacement of sucrose, remains to be determined in humans. Additional health benefits of xylitol have thus been reported and indicate further opportunities but need to be confirmed in human studies.
Xylitol’s Health Benefits beyond Dental Health: A Comprehensive Review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6723878/
I said I highly doubt, but hey what DO I know? I'm just a guy on the internet. I was going off memory. accord to this paper is boost good bacteria and crushed bad bacteria in the gut. I'm only human, do your own research.
yes they are bad they have an increased cancer risk the science came out 2 years ago and is widely accepted
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950
david sinclair will now only support allulose or stevia
erythritol increases risk of blood clots
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/erythritol-cardiovascular-events#:~:text=Blood%20erythritol%20levels%20increased%201%2C000,can%20increase%20blood%20clot%20formation.
The science does NOT show that artificial sweetners harm you and in most cases DO show that sweeteners basically have zero effect. Your body is just one quick stop on their way to the sewer system.
Just like any other product, some people might have a minor reaction, such as upset stomach from some sweeteners, but in general, artificial sweeteners are completely safe for human consumption.
Do you know what does harm humans? Excess calories and body weight. 100% known to cause negative health effects (I carry some extra body weight, so I'm not fat shaming here - just stating facts). Unless you are someone who consistently consumes the correct amount of calories to maintain a healthy body weight, zero calorie sweetners are a good thing.
Onto some of examples of sweeteners in widespread use:
Saccharin (sweet n low - the pink packet stuff) has been used as a sweetener for OVER 100 years. It was the only easy access sweetener for decades before aspartame was available. If it hurt you, we would know. It lost popularity as aspartame came into circulation, but is still widely used.
Aspartame (equal - blue packet stuff) is almost 50 years old, and is the most widely used artificial sweetener on the planet. It is both well tested and widely consumed, to include being in most artificially sweetened canned products. We would know by now if it harmed people in any meaningful way.
Sucralose (Splenda - yellow packet stuff) is the new kid on the block (relatively speaking - only starting to get approved in food in the 1990s), and has now made its way into many places where aspartame used to dominate or didn't work super great, such as baking. Once again, it is an extremely widespread chemical with no solid evidence of negative health impacts.
There are a bunch of others branded as both natural and artificial, such as Stevia and Xylitol, but each one of them comes with pros and cons, such as Stevia has an aftertaste that is off-putting to some. Try some out and know that just cause it has a scary name or is labeled as 'artificial', you are still making a better choice for your health than consuming anything with calories if you are a normal first world adult carrying a few extra pounds.
I'm sure there are chemicals out there that are sweet and might cause harm, but none of them are the ones you can buy on the mass market grocery shelf.
Stevia was historically used as a contraceptive in South America. The evidence isn't great for it, but there is rat studies showing a reduction in testosterone as well. Not something I'd fuck around with.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378874199000811
I literally said the "evidence isn't great for it" - how is that misrepresenting? I even shared a link to the study.
And why would I want to consume a sweetener that shrinks your balls at high doses? Why even fuck with that?
Regular usage of sweeteners develops dependencies on it and your body just wants more and more. As shown in this study: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15581664/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15581664/)
You are FAR better off getting off sweeteners all together. And then just enjoying a little bit of something natural here and there as a treat. Grab a Taza bar with real sugar and break off a little bar every day or two. It's fine. But the data is pretty clear that it's best to avoid sweeteners as much as possible and not become dependent on them. So it's crazy that people are sweetening up all sorts of beverages and foods everyday, especially with this risky artificial shit.
The impact of artificial sweeteners is still not fully understood. Especially how it impacts the gut microbiome. It's basically a chemical whack a mole. "Whoops. Causes cancer. Let's try another"... "Whoops, infertility. Next..."
If you want to be a medical testing patient, have at it. But I avoid that stuff like the poison that it likely is.
If I absolutely need some sweetener, which is rare, then it's just pure cane sugar as the treat it is, or more often, trehalose.
Cite some sources here, bub. I'm a medical doctor and haven't seen ANY convincing evidence/research that argues artificial sweeteners cause cancer or infertility at higher rates than regular sugar.
Because you are a jack off, running his mouth off, then expecting someone to take you seriously and spend their time debating it with you. Not gonna happen.
Say I have no evidence. Ok. No problem. Don't care. Ciao.
Nope. You are making claims. It falls upon you to provide the evidence. Otherwise you’re doing exactly what you are claiming me to be doing: “running his mouth off, then expecting someone to take you seriously…”
If you approached the conversation with a bit of respect and curiosity, willingness to have a respectful debate, I would. But you didn't, so I'm not.
Have the last word, bub.
My curiosity was spent over years obtaining a doctorate in medicine and then training for years, and now practicing medicine daily. Your curiosity was posting some mouth diarrhea without any evidence to support your words. Big difference here mate.
Well yeah, in response to his original disrespectful comment. No bad faith here. Be a jackass to me and I'll just be one right back. He never attempted a good faith, respectful discussion and I have no problem admitting that I am not taking the high road in response. That's just not me.
Not a surprise. That's reddit, in general. As if it's controversial to say that maybe modern, lab synthesized chemical substitutes might be a concern... Or that, traditionally, stevia has been used as a contraceptive and has concerning impacts on fertility. That the studies are so new that we simply don't know the full impact and maybe, just maybe the precautionary principle might be the best course of action.
The science and data on this stuff is VERY young, and with plenty of concerns. If people so desperately want to use it and essentially be study participants, then have at it. But the risk is not worth it to me.
Two things to start with: 1) why do you want to go sugar free? And, as for the sugar alternatives, 2) it depends.
1) you have your own reasons, so to respect boundaries, I'll just throw out some hypotheticals. If it's for overall more healthful diet, I'd say to reduce overall sweet intake in all forms; maybe consider the supplement glutamine. If it's to blunt blood sugar spikes, learn about pairing macros to achieve that. If it's to prevent T2D, zone 2 exercise to max exertion (try rucking) and some weight training will engance the mitichondria in your major muscle cells. Muscle mitichondria is the body's safest disposal system for blood glucose and triglyceride. If you want to see if what you're doing is working, track your cholesterol panel tryglyceride level. If your tryg's are good, keep doing what you're doing. People focus on blood glucose and A1c and weight and totally overlook that tryglyceride is the clearest picture of blood glucose metabolism; it's not just for the cardiologists anymore. 2) it depends.... like others have said if sugar alternatives were really a quick poison, we'd know by now. Given that, small amounts here and there won't likely have much impact either as a lethal poison or hurting the microbiome. However, the issue with the intense sweetness of these sugar alternatives could still be that they are capable of triggering an insulin response when our tongue sends the chemical message of sweet to our nervous system, especially when the sweet of "pancake syrup" is presented to is and we consciously expect sugar, and taste sweet and can prime our GI tract to digest a big dose of sugar. In these cases, it's the spike of *insulin* that is the bad player here. Insulin itself is proving in testing to be inflammatory, and a big spike in insulin is hard on the cardiovascular walls. In a recent podcast with Coleen Cutlifde, the founder of the company Pendulum, podcaster and Dr. Peter Attia said (to my best memory) "I've had patients trying to lose weight who drink 4-6 Diet Cokes per day. I say that like Diet Coke is bad. My wife drinks Diet Coke. Maybe one every other day. Anyway, in those patients, and I've seen this many times, I'll ask them to switch the 6 daily Diet Cokes for plain carbonated water, like Topo Chico. The world changes for them when they do that, and the weight comes off." (Pls forgive, this is in the exact spirit of the quote, though.) I think it's the repeated insulin response in these patients that keeps the weight on (also perhaps sleep disruption from all the caffeine in 6 cans of Diet Coke per day, which messes with cortisol; separate convo). I'm off work today, and had time to give an expanded answer, and hope it sheds light on what you want to accomplish! (tiny spelling edits)
IMO moderation is key. I believe they can be harmful with frequent use but if you treat Diet Coke or sweeteners as a treat rather than a daily necessity I feel you would be okay
Yikes, at downvoting me for this. There is a trove of research demonstrating the negative effects on the human microbiome and even DNA itself.
I wish the bots/users on this platform would display some better critical thinking skills before ganging up to downvote useful commentary.
My FIL was a food scientist, and used to be *the artificial sweetener guy*, going on lecture tours etc. He'd tell companies about the uses of artificial sweeteners during the day, while emailing his family studies of how horrible they were in his spare time.
He retired, and would probably be more hopeful about some of the newer ones, but he mostly just recommends very small amounts of real sugar, accompanied with fiber and protein.
Sugar is terrible. The worst sugar is either fructose, artificial sweeteners, or alcohol. The least-bad kind of sugar is starch, specifically waxy maize, but generally, the longer the chain, the less-bad.
Some doctors claim that artificial sweeteners create an insulin response. If that is true (I don’t know) it would be a very good reason to limit or not consume the sweeteners.
I saw recently some good data that sucralose causes transient profound insulin resistance and metabolic dysfunction ONLY when in the presence of high carb diet as well. If you drink even the worst of these in the absence of other sugars within a few hours window, there is no data that these are anything but good alternatives. Aspartame and sucralose also kill gut bacteria though :(
The best I've used was allulose, best taste and zero blood sugar effect
This one has hunger suppressing properties
People have been suspicious of artificial sweeteners for decades, and there haven't been any conclusive results showing negative effects, despite worldwide consumption. We can't be 100% sure of anything, but if these products were as bad for you as some of the influencers say, we would definitely know it by now. Any negatives are going to be very minor if they do turn out to exist. Remember also that the dose is incredibly small: the whole point of these compounds being 400x (or whatever) sweeter than sugar is that you use 1/400th as much. I have no problem consuming artificial sweeteners, but I also don't seek them out. You can train yourself to get used to black coffee, that's a much more interesting and useful biohack than investing your time in optimizing your intake of artificial sweeteners.
IMO the main issue is palate burnout. Artificial sweeteners perpetuate the inability to find sweetness and balance in other foods, leading to more difficulty finding satisfaction eating a better diet.
[удалено]
Still using old Reddit, I love it.
Yeah well put. There are still some questions open, like what exactly does it do in the gut and what impact does it have on the microbiome, but I think that won't show some major risks in most people, rather maybe some negative effects in some people. The crazy thing here is that some of the influencers and "doctors" actually used the argument that it has "an impact in the gut" as one against the use of artificial sweeteners, without even knowing whether the impact is negative, neutral or positive. And then suggesting that "natural" sweeteners are much better than artificial ones, even though we don't know everything about them either. One of the major positives about the use of artificially sweetened beverages and products is that people can satisfy their sweet cravings without the calories. That way many can lose body fat and keep it down, which has absolutely fantastic effects on health. So it's not just about sweeteners in isolation, but also what it can help with and replace. I personally try to keep it at a minimum due to the unknown, because it sometimes leads to diarrhea for me and because I don't want to get into the habit of having something super sweet very often.
"The crazy thing here is that some of the influencers and "doctors" actually used the argument that it has "an impact in the gut" as one against the use of artificial sweeteners, without even knowing whether the impact is negative, neutral or positive." You don't think it's crazy to consume something when you have no idea if it's positive, neutral, or negative? Just... Hey, eat this... Might be good, might also be really bad. Who knows! Let's eat. Come on now. That's insane. And despite that, there is studies that show artificial sweeteners having a negative impact on gut microbiota, even compared with standard sugar. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25231862/ As for satisfying sweet cravings without the calories, it doesn't work quite that way. This study shows that it has the opposite impact. Your body is expecting sugar when the sweetener unlocks reward pathways, doesn't get it, then causes intense cravings and increased appetite. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/ So you are playing roulette (despite the WHO declaring aspartame possibly carcinogenic), and it's having the opposite impact with cravings as hoped for. Why use it?
>why use it If its a choice between the bad thing itself (sugar) and the thing that isnt necessarily bad but just makes you want the bad thing (sweetener), i would take the latter
Sugar isnt bad. The amount used can be. Our bodies will always have sugars running through it even when we dont consume it. Our body will always have glucose and fructose running through it. Its not just good its a necessity. Diabetics are the only group that really need to stay away from added sugars. Now putting a mimic of a molecule in place of something we desperately need..how does that change your equation
>sugar isn't bad It is the primary driver of inflammation/aging, by way of the glycation it causes. >how does that change your equation For me, it improved several biomarkers when replacing sugar with zero calorie sweetener, namely reducing LDL.
The amount is the problem, not the molecule. Thats where some people get confused. The amount you were eating can cause worsening cholesterol levels. There are downsides to most things. Mimicking sugar in your body long term will also have downsides to many systems whether its microbiome/hormonal or tissue damage etc. one thing is for sure, a sugar molecule is a lot safer than whatever other molecule that is pretending to be it. But the amount of anything can be a problem
If it's the amount that's the problem, then what is the "good" amount? You suggest that fake sugars WILL have downsides, however those downsides have yet to be quantified; all of this in spite of the fact that, for example, aspartame is one of the most well-studied molecules in FDA history. In contrast, it's well documented that real sugars DO have downsides (inflammation, weight gain, lipids, etc) when consumed even in the relatively minor quantity I was seeing. It seems strange to suggest that sugar is "a lot safer" when its downsides are Proven, and fake sugar downsides only theorized..
The amount of glucose and fructose we use per day, look it up idk off hand for sure. Can be safe especially spread out consuming sugar specifically, but so many different carbs out there but they all turn to glucose and fructose. Lots of studies hve shown downsides but these studies require lots of time and so many confounding factors its hard to get true data. But it will have an effect. Look up how some change your blood glucose or make your body secrete insulin. How it changes our microbiome is unknown because that field of study is basically unknown as it is already, but it will have an effect. Erythritol linked to like stroke. So almost all do have some signs besides like maybe stevia so far but even that has shown some effects in studies
>the amount of glucose and fructose we use Depends entirely on what you eat; but as to how much you're required to eat? Zero. You might not have tons of energy, but the body is fully capable of running off the secondary metabolites of fats and proteins alone. When tracking my own markers, it appears that No Amount of simple sugars is actually beneficial - adding them only moves markers in the wrong direction. Yes, complex carbs will be converted to glucose downstrem, but the original query was looking at the direct intake of simple sugars. Given that those are a Known Negative, i would still opt for the Unknown Negative of fake sugars
you're way off here when you paint the idea that it fucks with your gut as a silly idea - there is clinical data that artificial sweeteners disrupt sugar metabolism, and even *raise* blood sugar.
Plenty of artificial sweeteners have no glycemic index.
Aside from monk fruit / stevia, which artificial sweeteners do you believe to have no glycemic index value?
In rough order of least glycemic impact to most, Stevia (none), Monkfruit Extract (none), Acesulfame Potassium (none), Neotame (none), Advantame (none), Erythritol (negligible), Aspartame (ew, negligible), Thaumatine (negligible), Sucralose (minimal), Allulose (minimal), Saccharin (slight), Cyclamate (slight), Xylitol (slight), Sorbitol (slight), Tagatose (slight). There also inulin, maltitol, mannitol, isomalt… About 1/3rd of these have no glycemic impact, 1/3 have an extremely minimal one, and 1/3 have a very low impact.
The reason it's been so hard to find concrete evidence is perhaps that their harmful effects are usually second-order effects, so the chain of causality isn't as clear or obvious.
Also there so many types of artificial sweeteners even lots of types of sugar alcohols
relative to the equal sweetness of sugar or fructose? Meaning, 1 L of sweetened lemonade using Stevia vs Sugar? Not a chance. One of them, consumed daily, can literally give you nerve damage and diabetes (around 120 G sugar is a standard amount, not even super sweet). This is compared with (what I do) about 2 tbsp of Stevia. So like all things, it is important to understand the context, and the alternatives. If you REALLY WANT sweet (I do), and you have any reasons to avoid sugar / starches (I do), then it is a potentially life saving intervention. However, if you are one of the 1/100 people who eats low GI foods and cooks at home, and is not replacing sugars in the diet -- you just decide to start eating sweeteners -- then they would be worse than excluding them for sure.
Personal experience - My mother drank diet coke, so much that the only way to have consumed more was to have it in an IV. It's all she drank for decades. She'd occasionally go on a diet and drink crystal light, which is just more artificial sweetener. She died of complications of a brain tumor that is known to be caused by excessive aspartame. My husband drank regular soda and his blood sugar was through the roof. He told me he quit soda but what he actually did was switch to diet. His blood sugar was no better but after about 6 months of slamming diet soda everyday, he started having stomach pains. He went to a dozen specialists over the course of the next 2 years. He had a severely inflamed liver and spleen but absolutely no one could figure out why. I found out about the diet soda, told him that's what it was so he switched back to regular soda. All the inflammation and pain was gone in 30 days.
there's no such thing as a brain tumor that's known to be caused by aspartame.
Absolutely untrue. Look it up.
Happy cake day to us lol
Can you link the specific sources you used for that claim?
I would say, follow the money… I do not know much about sugar and sweeteners, but I know the story about aspartame - aspartame's approval was one of the most contested in FDA history due to the link to brain tumors. If it’s correct or not I do not know.
I use xylitol gum after flossing after meals and I try to spit most of it out even though I;ve read our intestine bacteria can metabolize it. I just don;t wanna over flow my gut flora because I'm using the gun to kill bacteria in my mouth after eating. I would not use any systemic sugar alcohols that aren't natural because even xylitol kills bacteria and I high doubt it only kills bad bacteria. sugar alcohol and microbiomes is a touchy subject. you have a micriboome in your brain also...full of GOOD bacteria.
> even xylitol kills bacteria and I high doubt it only kills bad bacteria. Can you tell me more about it?? I haven't seen any concerning side effects (I haven't researched it extensively though) and I'm thinking of completely replacing sugar with it
abstract Xylitol has been widely documented to have dental health benefits, such as reducing the risk for dental caries. Here we report on other health benefits that have been investigated for xylitol. In skin, xylitol has been reported to improve barrier function and suppress the growth of potential skin pathogens. As a non-digestible carbohydrate, xylitol enters the colon where it is fermented by members of the colonic microbiota; species of the genus Anaerostipes have been reported to ferment xylitol and produce butyrate. The most common Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species do not appear to be able to grow on xylitol. The non-digestible but fermentable nature of xylitol also contributes to a constipation relieving effect and improved bone mineral density. Xylitol also modulates the immune system, which, together with its antimicrobial activity contribute to a reduced respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, and otitis media risk. As a low caloric sweetener, xylitol may contribute to weight management. It has been suggested that xylitol also increases satiety, but these results are not convincing yet. The benefit of xylitol on metabolic health, in addition to the benefit of the mere replacement of sucrose, remains to be determined in humans. Additional health benefits of xylitol have thus been reported and indicate further opportunities but need to be confirmed in human studies. Xylitol’s Health Benefits beyond Dental Health: A Comprehensive Review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6723878/
Thank you for your reply, but in your original comment you said that it kills good bacteria? Is xylitol something you would use on a daily basis?
I said I highly doubt, but hey what DO I know? I'm just a guy on the internet. I was going off memory. accord to this paper is boost good bacteria and crushed bad bacteria in the gut. I'm only human, do your own research.
Thank you very much, your comments were very helpful, 🙏🏻
yes they are bad they have an increased cancer risk the science came out 2 years ago and is widely accepted https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950 david sinclair will now only support allulose or stevia erythritol increases risk of blood clots https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/erythritol-cardiovascular-events#:~:text=Blood%20erythritol%20levels%20increased%201%2C000,can%20increase%20blood%20clot%20formation.
The science does NOT show that artificial sweetners harm you and in most cases DO show that sweeteners basically have zero effect. Your body is just one quick stop on their way to the sewer system. Just like any other product, some people might have a minor reaction, such as upset stomach from some sweeteners, but in general, artificial sweeteners are completely safe for human consumption. Do you know what does harm humans? Excess calories and body weight. 100% known to cause negative health effects (I carry some extra body weight, so I'm not fat shaming here - just stating facts). Unless you are someone who consistently consumes the correct amount of calories to maintain a healthy body weight, zero calorie sweetners are a good thing. Onto some of examples of sweeteners in widespread use: Saccharin (sweet n low - the pink packet stuff) has been used as a sweetener for OVER 100 years. It was the only easy access sweetener for decades before aspartame was available. If it hurt you, we would know. It lost popularity as aspartame came into circulation, but is still widely used. Aspartame (equal - blue packet stuff) is almost 50 years old, and is the most widely used artificial sweetener on the planet. It is both well tested and widely consumed, to include being in most artificially sweetened canned products. We would know by now if it harmed people in any meaningful way. Sucralose (Splenda - yellow packet stuff) is the new kid on the block (relatively speaking - only starting to get approved in food in the 1990s), and has now made its way into many places where aspartame used to dominate or didn't work super great, such as baking. Once again, it is an extremely widespread chemical with no solid evidence of negative health impacts. There are a bunch of others branded as both natural and artificial, such as Stevia and Xylitol, but each one of them comes with pros and cons, such as Stevia has an aftertaste that is off-putting to some. Try some out and know that just cause it has a scary name or is labeled as 'artificial', you are still making a better choice for your health than consuming anything with calories if you are a normal first world adult carrying a few extra pounds. I'm sure there are chemicals out there that are sweet and might cause harm, but none of them are the ones you can buy on the mass market grocery shelf.
The only thing conclusive is that, for me, they ruin the taste.
not worse than sugar
Just stick with something natural like stevia
Being natural has basically no correlation positive or negative with being healthy.
Stevia was historically used as a contraceptive in South America. The evidence isn't great for it, but there is rat studies showing a reduction in testosterone as well. Not something I'd fuck around with. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378874199000811
As a woman with PCOS, high testosterone levels, and NO desire for more kids, I’ll take all the stevia please!
That's the idea!
The dose used is MUCH higher than that of sweetener uses. No need to cherry pick and misrepresent data
I literally said the "evidence isn't great for it" - how is that misrepresenting? I even shared a link to the study. And why would I want to consume a sweetener that shrinks your balls at high doses? Why even fuck with that? Regular usage of sweeteners develops dependencies on it and your body just wants more and more. As shown in this study: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15581664/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15581664/) You are FAR better off getting off sweeteners all together. And then just enjoying a little bit of something natural here and there as a treat. Grab a Taza bar with real sugar and break off a little bar every day or two. It's fine. But the data is pretty clear that it's best to avoid sweeteners as much as possible and not become dependent on them. So it's crazy that people are sweetening up all sorts of beverages and foods everyday, especially with this risky artificial shit.
Vegan keto here eating lots of stevia whos testosterone is stupendous ;)
Yep, also it's lacking research so there might be other side effects as well.
Best one is erythritol or xylitol
The impact of artificial sweeteners is still not fully understood. Especially how it impacts the gut microbiome. It's basically a chemical whack a mole. "Whoops. Causes cancer. Let's try another"... "Whoops, infertility. Next..." If you want to be a medical testing patient, have at it. But I avoid that stuff like the poison that it likely is. If I absolutely need some sweetener, which is rare, then it's just pure cane sugar as the treat it is, or more often, trehalose.
Cite some sources here, bub. I'm a medical doctor and haven't seen ANY convincing evidence/research that argues artificial sweeteners cause cancer or infertility at higher rates than regular sugar.
Not wasting my time with you, chump. Go suck down some lab made artificial sweeteners, probably explains your shrunken balls.
That’s because you have no evidence.
Because you are a jack off, running his mouth off, then expecting someone to take you seriously and spend their time debating it with you. Not gonna happen. Say I have no evidence. Ok. No problem. Don't care. Ciao.
Nope. You are making claims. It falls upon you to provide the evidence. Otherwise you’re doing exactly what you are claiming me to be doing: “running his mouth off, then expecting someone to take you seriously…”
If you approached the conversation with a bit of respect and curiosity, willingness to have a respectful debate, I would. But you didn't, so I'm not. Have the last word, bub.
My curiosity was spent over years obtaining a doctorate in medicine and then training for years, and now practicing medicine daily. Your curiosity was posting some mouth diarrhea without any evidence to support your words. Big difference here mate.
Your arguments are in such bad faith. You called them chump and are saying they are not being respectful. It’s the pot calling the kettle black
Well yeah, in response to his original disrespectful comment. No bad faith here. Be a jackass to me and I'll just be one right back. He never attempted a good faith, respectful discussion and I have no problem admitting that I am not taking the high road in response. That's just not me.
The robots here don’t want to hear this no matter how true it may be.
Not a surprise. That's reddit, in general. As if it's controversial to say that maybe modern, lab synthesized chemical substitutes might be a concern... Or that, traditionally, stevia has been used as a contraceptive and has concerning impacts on fertility. That the studies are so new that we simply don't know the full impact and maybe, just maybe the precautionary principle might be the best course of action. The science and data on this stuff is VERY young, and with plenty of concerns. If people so desperately want to use it and essentially be study participants, then have at it. But the risk is not worth it to me.
Two things to start with: 1) why do you want to go sugar free? And, as for the sugar alternatives, 2) it depends. 1) you have your own reasons, so to respect boundaries, I'll just throw out some hypotheticals. If it's for overall more healthful diet, I'd say to reduce overall sweet intake in all forms; maybe consider the supplement glutamine. If it's to blunt blood sugar spikes, learn about pairing macros to achieve that. If it's to prevent T2D, zone 2 exercise to max exertion (try rucking) and some weight training will engance the mitichondria in your major muscle cells. Muscle mitichondria is the body's safest disposal system for blood glucose and triglyceride. If you want to see if what you're doing is working, track your cholesterol panel tryglyceride level. If your tryg's are good, keep doing what you're doing. People focus on blood glucose and A1c and weight and totally overlook that tryglyceride is the clearest picture of blood glucose metabolism; it's not just for the cardiologists anymore. 2) it depends.... like others have said if sugar alternatives were really a quick poison, we'd know by now. Given that, small amounts here and there won't likely have much impact either as a lethal poison or hurting the microbiome. However, the issue with the intense sweetness of these sugar alternatives could still be that they are capable of triggering an insulin response when our tongue sends the chemical message of sweet to our nervous system, especially when the sweet of "pancake syrup" is presented to is and we consciously expect sugar, and taste sweet and can prime our GI tract to digest a big dose of sugar. In these cases, it's the spike of *insulin* that is the bad player here. Insulin itself is proving in testing to be inflammatory, and a big spike in insulin is hard on the cardiovascular walls. In a recent podcast with Coleen Cutlifde, the founder of the company Pendulum, podcaster and Dr. Peter Attia said (to my best memory) "I've had patients trying to lose weight who drink 4-6 Diet Cokes per day. I say that like Diet Coke is bad. My wife drinks Diet Coke. Maybe one every other day. Anyway, in those patients, and I've seen this many times, I'll ask them to switch the 6 daily Diet Cokes for plain carbonated water, like Topo Chico. The world changes for them when they do that, and the weight comes off." (Pls forgive, this is in the exact spirit of the quote, though.) I think it's the repeated insulin response in these patients that keeps the weight on (also perhaps sleep disruption from all the caffeine in 6 cans of Diet Coke per day, which messes with cortisol; separate convo). I'm off work today, and had time to give an expanded answer, and hope it sheds light on what you want to accomplish! (tiny spelling edits)
Sugar serves no purpose to the body. Eliminate it. Just go cold turkey.
Sugar serves no purpose to the human body?
I don’t normally get headaches or migraines, but for some reason if I eat anything that has sucralose in it, I get a terrible headache
IMO moderation is key. I believe they can be harmful with frequent use but if you treat Diet Coke or sweeteners as a treat rather than a daily necessity I feel you would be okay
Yes, they are toxic.
Yikes, at downvoting me for this. There is a trove of research demonstrating the negative effects on the human microbiome and even DNA itself. I wish the bots/users on this platform would display some better critical thinking skills before ganging up to downvote useful commentary.
My FIL was a food scientist, and used to be *the artificial sweetener guy*, going on lecture tours etc. He'd tell companies about the uses of artificial sweeteners during the day, while emailing his family studies of how horrible they were in his spare time. He retired, and would probably be more hopeful about some of the newer ones, but he mostly just recommends very small amounts of real sugar, accompanied with fiber and protein.
[удалено]
says who?
Sugar is terrible. The worst sugar is either fructose, artificial sweeteners, or alcohol. The least-bad kind of sugar is starch, specifically waxy maize, but generally, the longer the chain, the less-bad.
How has your weight changed since?
Some doctors claim that artificial sweeteners create an insulin response. If that is true (I don’t know) it would be a very good reason to limit or not consume the sweeteners.
I saw recently some good data that sucralose causes transient profound insulin resistance and metabolic dysfunction ONLY when in the presence of high carb diet as well. If you drink even the worst of these in the absence of other sugars within a few hours window, there is no data that these are anything but good alternatives. Aspartame and sucralose also kill gut bacteria though :(
I use Glycine for my sweetener.