Hacker News Reader

Comment by INTPenis | Hacker News Reader

To people like me, it doesn't matter how unfounded it is. I'm sure there are people in this world who can benefit from sugar replacements, but in my mind there is absolutely no reason at all to start feeding myself artificial sweeteners when there is enough sweeteners in nature.

On a related note, I'm kinda happy to note that steviol is much in use here in southern europe, where I'm currently residing. They don't even make a big deal out of it, regular sodas, vitamin powders, you read the ingredients and there it is.

Steviol is a sweetener based on a natural plant Stevia. I've so far seen it in both Hungary and Croatia.

I come from Sweden and it used to be that Stevia products were in a bin on their own, marketed specifically as stevia products. But down here they don't even mention it on the marketing side of the label. It's buried in the ingredients.

View on HN

This is an example of the "appeal to nature" logical fallacy. You may be able to make a case that Stevia is healthier than Aspartame, but it should be based on evidence to that effect rather than because you like the idea that it has ingredients derived from organic material.

And this is an example of "where is the evidence" logical fallacy. In complex systems, such as the human body, the only evidence of safety is time -- a very long time. The Stevia plant (though not the same as extract) has been used for centuries. Aspartame was (accidentally) created in the lab in 1965.

If you are going to mess with complex systems, such as feed yourself aspartame, vape, give pregnant women a synthetic sedative and medication for morning sickness etc., you do it for a high potential gain that offsets potentially huge downsides. Benefits of aspartame are close to nil; if anything it probably makes things worse because people think they can consume more ultra processed foods sweetened with it because such foods have "fewer calories".

> In complex systems, such as the human body, the only evidence of safety is time -- a very long time. The Stevia plant (though not the same as extract) has been used for centuries. Aspartame was (accidentally) created in the lab in 1965.

Time is not evidence of safety, that is an odd claim (see smoking tobacco), thankfully we have the scientific method to investigate hypotheses like "x is bad for you".

Only if a long time passes without evidence of harm, we consider that the "evidence" of safety -- there is no other. It is very difficult to claim that something new introduced in a complex system is safe, so you weigh what you get right away from it vs. what you might end up paying down the road if it ends up being unsafe. Aspartame does not, in my view, clear that bar.

So does cocaine. 100% natural ingredients.

That's why if I ever need a false tooth with a suicide pill in it, I'll fill it with cyanide and not novitchok. It's much better for you

You may call it "appeal to nature", I may call it; if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Well a dictionary would call your comment an "appeal to nature" as well. Ricin is natural, hugging a bear is natural, I mean come on...

The problem is that you assume consistency, but in reality, we keep modifying plants / fruits / etc by selecting them and planting them. IIRC fruits are now too sweet for zoo animals.

It is the statistical processes that determine how much something is "natural". Our bodies evolved alongside fruit that was on the smaller and less sweet side, and logically that's what we are the most compatible with. Over centuries and millennia we selected fruits to favor size and sweetness, and over 5 years we e.g. genetically modify a strawberry to have peach flavor. The last one is like a step function compared to the slow moving processes of the agricultural selection and so less "natural" and almost certainly less compatible with our bodies.

We might still get lucky and get beneficial side effects of aspartame or peach-flavored strawberries that makes us faster, stronger, smarter, but with these things the luck usually works in the other direction.

Seriously? I should trust some scientists getting paid to push a product to multi billion dollar companies, over something simple you can grow yourself?

Ricin [1] appears naturally in the castor oil plant. I wouldn't eat it just because it's "from nature". Who knows if Steviol is completely benign or not?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricin

You're seriously comparing stevia to ricin? Why not compare it to opium then too? They're both processed from nature right?

Are you a bot sent out from the aspartam industry?

No, I am not, I am suggesting your comment about something being good because it's natural is a logical fallacy

Is there any benefit in using sugar replacements? When you eat something sweet your body prepares itself for the sugar intake which, in the case sweetener usage, t never comes. What are the long terms effects of this imbalance? Let's assume your organism addapts to this situation and at some point you consume something that contains actual sugar, how will it respond to that?

That taste ends up as preparation for something is completely new to me, is this an assumption, or has been shown? Afaik taste is the evolutionary (but now outdated) helper to choose non-poison and energy providing food?

> Is there any benefit in using sugar replacements?

Serious question? The taste joy without getting that much calories in? (Yes I know, we skew our taste and could also have joy without too much sugar, and also other ingredients, e.g. salt, but different topic).

Carb rinsing is a well documented thing (swirling a sports drink in your mouth then spitting it out). I’m not sure whether artificial sweeteners trigger the same physiological effects.

You state this like it is a fact, but is this really the case? Does the body really anticipate anything in that case?

> But small amounts of insulin are also released before any sugar enters the bloodstream. This response is known as cephalic phase insulin release. It is triggered by the sight, smell, and taste of food, as well as chewing and swallowing (5Trusted Source).

> BOTTOM LINE: Eating carbohydrates causes a rise in blood sugar levels. Insulin is released to bring blood sugar levels back to normal. Some claim that artificial sweeteners may interfere with this process.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/artificial-sweeteners-b...

When questions are claimed to be "state this like it is a fact," I decide to stop listening to one side of the argument . . .

The research on the topic is at your finger tips

There’s a major benefit you’re missing, no calories.

If you drink seven cans of Coke a day you’re likely going to end up gaining weight and could end up obese with all the additional health issues that brings.

If you drink seven cans of Diet Coke per day you’re not going to end up obese (through that method anyway).

What seems to be missing in this HN debate is that sugar itself (yes the natural substance) is not good for us either! Aspartame may be “bad” (debatable) but sugar is bad but in different ways.

You failed to answer my question. Again is there a benefit to tricking your body that you are eating a meal which provides a high amount of energy?

Sugar isn't bad, it is a biological solution to the energy storage problem just like fat, and our bodies know how to deal with the sugar present in nature (in fruits). The sugar in an apple is absorbed slowly, without a dramatic increase in blood glucose unlike the one in a Coke can.

Sugar isn’t bad for you, too much of it is.

> Is there any benefit in using sugar replacements?

Monkfruit which I use supposedly has health benefits, in addition to being calorie light.

What health benefits? How is fooling your body that you eat a meal rich in calories while you eat the opposite a good thing?

I don't think activating taste receptors while not having calories is harmful and haven't seen any studies to suggest otherwise. Have you?

As for health benefits apparently it has antioxidant properties, but I don't know to what extent that's true. I use it because I like the taste and doesn't seem to be harmful in any way, but it also hasn't been studied as extensively.

Inconclusive or no research on the X is harmful topic doesn't imply X is not harmful

No shit.

You can easily buy that in the US, we have boxes of the stuff at home. Nowadays you can also buy Monk Fruit-based sweeteners, which are also "natural". Unfortunately, both taste a bit worse than Aspartame (which is already not so great). I guess this is just a matter of habit, though.

I have never tasted any liquid with artificial sweeteners that was "right" to me. They all have a weird aftertaste that reveals to me that they contain a sweetener, even stevia products.

I just would prefer the sweetener to be as natural as possible, if I had to use it.

> I have never tasted any liquid with artificial sweeteners that was "right" to me

Since you seem to be against anything artificial for god knows why, is this possibly a bias? You know it's artificial and that knowledge results in you thinking it tastes off to you?

Steviol isn't natural. Chewing on fresh stevia leaves is natural. Highly processed extracts mixed into highly acidic drinks isn't.

Like the other commenter said, you’re falling prey to the “appeal to nature” fallacy.

There are plenty of natural things that are bad for you and plenty of synthetic things that are good for you.

And there absolutely are reasons to feed yourself artificial sweeteners.

Sugar-free soda is awesome for people trying to lose weight. The carbonated drink keeps you satiated and you don’t ingest any of the calories in regular soda.

> in my mind there is absolutely no reason at all to start feeding myself artificial sweeteners when there is enough sweeteners in nature.

For you probably there aren't, but for others there is a very valid reason: to some (me included), Stevia's (and other products') taste sucks.

> there is absolutely no reason at all to start feeding myself artificial sweeteners when there is enough sweeteners in nature.

It being artificial is irrelevant. Doesn't mean it's healthier or better/worse in any way.

Anybody remember when "Saccharine causes cancer" went around and "Aspartame is natural" was the meme?

Erm, yeah ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com