Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite and promote weight gain http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/pdf/yjbm...
Aspartame and depression: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935
SURVEY OF ASPARTAME STUDIES: CORRELATION OF OUTCOME AND FUNDING SOURCES http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
>And would all this research money not be better spent on advertising and attempts to influence public perception?
I guess if you're selling artificial sweeteners...
I do not see evidence or argument in your link to support your summary. The closest I found was mention of a large observational study where people that were observed to became fatter used more sugar substitute. The difference between the groups of +2lbs was statistically significant, but seems irrelevant given the obvious observational confound of people that gain weight also switching to substitutes to reduce calorie intake.
You are literally saying that since the article you chose to cite does not support your argument, that I should instead go argue with the author of the peer-reviewed journal article? Really?!? That's the best defense of your argument you can muster?
Just like all studies seeking to link artificial sweeteners to weight gain, it's a correlational argument that is not specific to artificial sweeteners. The "neurobiology of food reward" is the exact same for sugar and artificial sweeteners unless you happen to be purposefully depriving yourself of calories, in which case the sweetener cannot be blamed.
The heart of the problem is psychosocial, not biochemical. Overweight people are more likely to choose reduced calorie foods than people who are not overweight.
There is also such a thing as cognitive bias. People who are overweight and/or trying to lose weight will often end up using their exercise and calorie reductions as "credits" toward food choices (e.g., 'Since I'm having a Diet Soda, it's OK if I get the Extra Large fries because the calories cancel out') and don't actually end up burning more calories than they take in.
If you could demonstrate in controlled conditions that (ideally more than 13[1]) people who eat and exercise in moderation suddenly start gaining weight when artificial sweeteners are added to their diet (or losing weight when they are removed), it might be an interesting finding.
>Aspartame and depression
[1] - "Despite the small n" ... possibly the understatement of the century.
>SURVEY OF ASPARTAME STUDIES
If anyone has actual evidence of failure to disclose a conflict of interest in a published study, then it should be reported to the relevant institutions, not used as a platform to denounce all research on a topic.
i beg your pardon. With sugar you're pretty much getting the glucose injection into bloodstream, all the energy producing machinery starts working and you get the feeling of your body being fed. There is no such blood-glucose level feedback in case of artificial sweeteners. So whatever havoc they wreck, i stay out of it :)
I said when you are not deprived of calories, meaning that if you still maintain adequate food intake throughout the day, there is no deleterious effect from the sweetener.
Yes, if you drink nothing but diet soda all day and then eat a giant meal right before bed, that is probably not a healthy dietary cycle. But again, you can hardly blame that on the sweetener itself.
In reality, I'm not sure this happens all that often. What's more common is reports of "sugar cravings" that increase with consumption of artificial sweeteners. It seems to vary from person to person, but obviously if that happens to you then you would be a fool to continue consuming them.
I'm not into psych/medical research, but even in the hard sciences it is often difficult to have enough data to point to a conclusion so unambiguously as to be obvious
>If anyone has actual evidence of failure to disclose a conflict of interest in a published study, then it should be reported to the relevant institutions, not used as a platform to denounce all research on a topic.
That sounds wonderful but in the real world moneyed interests have and use their means to promote their worldview. Medicine, food, and diet-related markets are lousy with overly ambitious marketers and outright frauds. I did not "denounce all research on a topic" I was responding to another poster who appeared to want to dismiss anyone's concerns about the potential health risks of artificial sweeteners.
You are right, but that also cuts both ways, which is why we rely on consensus. And the consensus of the international scientific community (not just the FDA or any such organization by itself) is that artificial sweeteners are safe.
You are also right that CoI is not always a black-and-white issue, but that doesn't mean suspicions should be withheld from regulatory bodies and the publishing journal(s). Writing an OpEd on a personal webpage is not the most effective means to expose CoI, and, more importantly, such articles do not immediately overrule all consensus.
If you really believe that the majority of studies involving the safety of artificial sweeteners are wrong, the best course of action is to demonstrate it empirically by duplicating the experiments and coming up with different data.
Put together a reasonable paper, and other researchers will take note of it-- even if you believe the conspiracy theory that all major journals are puppets of the food industry. Ultimately, the data will trump the politics.
You're comparing subtle, little understood second order effects to a first order caloric increase due to sugar intake that we know is the leading cause in the modern obesity epidemic. N=40 single studies demonstrating minor differences can't compete with the massive body of evidence against caloric sweeteners.
Most of them taste awful. The best sugar substitute in terms of taste is probably xylitol, but due to the enormous levels of income inequality in the U.S. most Americans wouldn't be able to afford the extra couple cents a can.
When it comes to pop, I usually stick to cola - and when it's cola I'll never buy it unless it is made with real cane sugar. Boom, potential side effects of artificial sweeteners are gone, and the drink tastes way better. And just drink more water. Why is this so hard for people?
* No water cooler at the office
* Tap water tastes funny
* "Mocked" for drinking bottled water
In Australia the tap water has very strict monitoring and is tested often. The water here tastes fine.
What is absolutely staggering is that bottled water is not monitored as strictly as tap water, yet costs about 1000x more. All those pictures of pristine waterfalls and bubbling springs are absolute bullshit. You are far more likely to get a hefty dose of chlorine or other containment from bottled water.
They are downright evil but kudos to the Coke marketing department. Who was the genius that pitched the idea of selling sub-standard water at 1000x the price of what we get from the tap? I'd have said its a ridiculous idea. Clearly I was wrong.
Personally, I use a soda-stream at home if I get a soda craving. Cheap, no health concerns, convenient and less impact on the environment. If I really feel I need some sugar I'll squeeze an orange into a litre of fizzy water. Still a bit of sugar but nothing compared to a coke.
I think the parent understands. I don't think the comment is directed at soda companies or researchers, but the consumers leery of artificial sweeteners.
As someone not from the Northeastern USA what does that even mean?
Pop, cola, soda and more regularly "coke" (the word not the brand) are all used to refer to soft drinks in general.
The use of "coke" as a generic term is itself a regionalism of the southeastern US. "Pop" has the largest geographical coverage
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-11-09-Screenshot201211...
>Despite the name, the primary modern flavoring ingredients in a cola drink are sugar, citrus oils (from oranges, limes, or lemon fruit peel), cinnamon, vanilla, and an acidic flavorant.[2][3]
Another trick: Cut your soda with water.
I think it's still preferable to avoid soda, but if you like the taste and/or want a bit of a boost, try mixing it 50/50 with water. Or less.
I like Coke Classic this way.
Or, particularly on a hot day, pour over a glass full of ice. Slowly sip away as the ice continues to melt.
I still think this is a slippery slope towards greater consumption, including refilling the glass. But, I can enjoy a bit of cola flavor without taking as much of the sugar hit that is increasingly taxing as I continue to age.
I also agree as to cane sugar if you can as well as no artificial sweeteners.
He said that the 750ml bottle was enough for the 4 member family, one glass per person. When the 1L bottle came out, it was a problem they didn't know how to hand out the remaining, so they decide to have another child, my uncle.
Presumably because they're expensive, but if sold in bulk I'm sure they could bring prices down acceptably...
Xylitol = 66% of calories of normal sugar. It has dental benefits and LESS calories but it doesn't let them put the magic zero on the can.
Similar deal with isomalt.
Both also tend to cause, erm, digestive issues in larger quantities as well.
Health Benefits of xylitol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol#Health_benefits
It's because it tastes bad. Odd that any sugar could taste bad, but it's true. It's not _that_ expensive, but normal sugar is so cheap (not to mention HFCS, which has got to be even cheaper) that price is still a plausible issue. But more likely, the taste preferences of Americans is just so sweet that we can't appreciate xylitol as a sweetener.
Russel-Stover makes sugar-free chocolates, peanut butter cups, and other confections that rely on sugar alcohols and sucralose to replace the missing sugar. They carry a warning on the bag that eating more than 3 pieces may cause diarrhea.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-25/news...
We might already have a better sweetener if it weren't for stuff like this.
I think they wrote something about not being allowed to sell miracle berries in the EU, because it was categorized as some dietary supplement or so, without the necessary certifications.
I read somewhere an idea that people might formulate their food for a flavor that was complimentary to the effect of the miracle berry (Synsepalum dulcificum). I don't know how well that would work in practice, but it's an idea. I just want them because they're neat.