Hacker News Reader

Comment by danblick | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps I'm just eccentric, but I avoid artificial sweeteners because I think they support behaviors that will ultimately lead to weight gain. (In particular I suspect we may subconsciously learn that sweet foods do not provide energy.)

On a related note... Science has led to many amazing things, but that doesn't mean it can realistically answer all questions. I think we should remember to be a bit humble and honest about which questions can be answered scientifically and which can't. Unfortunately, individual researchers and journalists both have incentives to make the most out of any result.

View on HN

>Science has led to many amazing things, but that doesn't mean it can realistically answer all questions.

Careful, this attitude is essentially perpetuating that we should only use evidence when we feel like it.

If you refuse to consume something because you think it is detrimental to health but there is no evidence supporting it, just be honest and admit that it's a religious belief.

Or you could call it being cautious.

Yeah, I agree. We learn most everyday about things "Science" got wrong because new science proves it.

That's not to be dismissive or meant to deny what we do know, only that it's wise to be humble and keep looking and learning.

>science proves it

But it doesn't. Science doesn't 'prove' anything, it provides evidence for hypotheses. And there is much more evidence for the hypothesis that diet soda is safe for human consumption than otherwise. It would take a lot of work to upend this, and so far, nothing really substantial has been done.

I'm not suggesting we ignore evidence; I'm just saying we should be honest about what the evidence really shows and also honest about our inability to collect conclusive evidence at times.

I agree that mouse studies can show that megadoses of these sugar substitutes aren't lethal and probably won't cause cancer. But humans aren't mice and we don't live in lab cages, so animal studies don't answer the question I'm really interested in (~"will accepting artificial sweeteners into my diet improve my health?"). What would be the right experiment to answer that question? Has that experiment actually been performed, and would it be practical? Changes in human behavior might be hard to observe and quantify, and there are always practical limits to sample sizes.

Sometimes it's very, very hard to design a study that actually answers the question you're interested in, but neither the scientists nor anyone else really has an incentive to be humble about that. (Most scientists want to make their work seem impactful.)

> In particular I suspect we may subconsciously learn that sweet foods do not provide energy.

I've wondered about that myself. After dieting for a while and getting pretty good at it, I've noticed that my body absolutely seems to be able to detect the difference between actual carbs/sweets and the artificial ones. At least, I will start craving an energy bar with actual sugar in it as opposed to a protein bar that tastes sweet but is just full of artificial sweeteners.

Not sure about the "subconsciously learn" part but you may be concerned to learn that the same "sweet" detectors you have on your tongue are also in your gut, and sign to the pancreas that some glucose is on the way so get cranking.

So I don't drink them out of concern for hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance in the cells (DMT2) and related endocrine issues.

Please note that there are NO STUDIES of this as far as I know: my choice not to drink them is entirely based on first principles and the easy fact that it's not hard to avoid them. I am not a fan of crazy health fads ("Hey kids, let's wash out those ol' bags of toxins with a juice cleanse") but like I said there's basically no downside to avoiding those drinks anyway.

This study seems to show that sugar-sweetened beverages are positively correlated with insulin resistance while diet soda does not have that same association:

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/146/12/2544.short

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage but Not Diet Soda Consumption Is Positively Associated with Progression of Insulin Resistance and Prediabetes

From the footnotes on the link given:

- Supported by the NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Framingham Heart Study (contract N01-HC-25195), the Boston University School of Medicine, and the USDA (USDA agreement 58-1950-0-014

- Author disclosures: J Ma, PF Jacques, JB Meigs, CS Fox, GT Rogers, CE Smith, A Hruby, E Saltzman, and NM McKeown, no conflicts of interest

Thanks for the ptr!

> Science has led to many amazing things, but that doesn't mean it can realistically answer all questions.

Why? To me, that's what science IS. Providing the ability to answer any and all questions about our nature.

Well, all falsifiable questions...

It's been a while since I learned the scientific method per se, but I remember something about "repeatable, controlled experiments". There are many, many questions in life just can't be studied in a repeatable, controlled experiment. Macroeconomic policy comes to mind. (You might reason, "okay, I'm going to make two Earths, and in the US on planet 1 I'm going to implement policy A, then in the US on planet 2 I'm going to implement policy B, then I'm going to travel back in time to the present day so we have identical initial conditions and implement the better policy.") Anything single-shot. Anything involving a counter-factual ("if Hitler had never been born, would there have been a second world war?"). Anything where confounding variables cannot be eliminated or controlled. I could continue but I think the point is probably clear. :)

That might be, but the affects of substances on the human body isn't one of those things.

Sorry but you are putting a lipstick on a pig.

I don't feel that strongly about artificial sweeteners. Just responding to this comment:

"that's what science IS. Providing the ability to answer any and all questions about our nature."

> In particular I suspect we may subconsciously learn that sweet foods do not provide energy.

What do you mean by this?

I think the parent is referring to this: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36772303

> Artificial sweeteners can boost appetite by activating hunger pathways in the body, scientists have found in animals.

> In fruit flies and mice, the mismatch between sweet taste and fewer calories sends the body into "feed me" mode, the journal Cell Metabolism reports. But UK nutritionists say this does not mean the same is true in humans.

With all the artificial flavoring, there can end up being very little nutrients in the food. So if you're always having sweet but very low nutritional/caloric foods, there's a chance your body will subconsciously learn this.

Something like this:

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20130710/could-artifi...

"After a while, Swithers said, it's like the mouth keeps crying wolf, and the brain and gut stop listening. As a result, when real sugar and real calories come along, the body doesn't respond to them as strongly as it normally might. Calories don't end up making you feel as full as they should. They aren't as rewarding. So you don't get the signals that might stop you from eating when you should."

It may support those behaviors under some circumstances. Of course, this is dependent on why you are using it. I've heard of bodybuilders who take it to the extreme and drink diet sodas like water. However, if usage is as benign as some artificial sweetener as opposed to sugar in your coffee, you are really only reaping the advantages of artificial sweetener.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com