The Evidence Supports Artificial Sweeteners Over Sugar
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
But what about sugar? We should acknowledge that when I,
and many others, address sugar in contexts like these, we
are talking about added sugars, not the naturally occurring
sugars or carbohydrates you find in things like fruit.
Those are, for the most part, not the problem. *Added*
sugars are.
It seems a little bit akin to implying that you can drink all the applejack you want without worrying about intoxication because it has "no alcohol added" - instead, water was removed. I can guarantee your liver is not playing pedantic word games around the process by which that beverage got to 40% ABV, all it cares about is whether you're drinking too much alcohol or not.
Wait long enough and every substance we eat will be associated with a study which calls it into question. Then, if chance associates that study with a "slow news day", a relative panic will ensue. As a crusty old medicinal chemist, i offer the best rule of thumb (circa 16th century): [no matter what source it is] the dose makes the poison.
Not to nitpick but this phrasing always bothers me.
Our bodies, most likely, weren't "meant to" do anything by anyone. They've just pondered along adjusting to their environmental stimuli like everything else does.
"Our bodies weren't meant to eat meat."
"Our bodies are only meant to eat meat and nuts."
I love when a nerd forum like HN uses modern conjecture over fact.
Revenue: US$ 46.854 billion (2013)
Operating income: US$ 10.228 billion (2013)
Net income: US$ 8.584 billion (2013)
*meaning small, tasty, slightly tart, colorful fruits that grow on bushes and tend to be fairly wild, not the botanical definition
I just searched for that, and saw 10g.. link please?
"The evidence supports eating foods that are balanced in their portions of carbohydrates, protein, and fiber".
This (long) lecture by Steve Simpson illustrates this rather well.
[Law of the locust: a tale of swarms, cannibals, ageing and human obesity]
It's up to regulators to hold companies to account. They certainly aren't going to print things that could possibly harm sales on their labels by themselves.
Wikipedia has more information on exact conversions and the domestic and international agreements that set the sizes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units
You're welcome to do more research to confirm Wikipedia's assertions. As for whether it's flat or a little pile, 1 tsp is flat (5ml). What you're thinking of is the commonly used cooking instruction "heaping tablespoon", because yes, when cooking you don't have to have everything down to the exact ml.
EDIT: And again, more research done for you: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59711/rounded-he...
We should sit down and figure out a way to show nutritional information without these cheap tricks. For example, you have to show the nutritional information per unit of wrapping. That way, a bag can't be thought of as four servings, one bag = one serving.
How is that any better, really? You still have to do the same basic math if you eat less than the full package. Knowing that a large bag of chips is 1200 calories is irrelevant to the serving size I'll actually be eating.
It gets even more ridiculous for other foods. Do you eat/drink gallons of milk, whole watermelons, quarts of chicken stock or several pound bags of rice in one sitting?
You're arguing that the serving size should unrealistically small, rather than the whole bag, because it doesn't work for every case? For every coke bottle this fails, I have five cans it succeeds for. Nobody drinks a third of a can of coke.
Actually, no, that's what you're doing. You said that that whatever amount is in the container should be "one serving." That's clearly ridiculous and arbitrary in many cases, which was my point. I would contend that they (manufacturer, regulator, whoever) should choose some reasonable, non-arbitrary size and stick with it. Then at least I can compare two different-sized packages with a hope of figuring out what's going on. Using 100 grams would actually be a reasonable idea, but is not what you actually said in your prior messages.
>>You're arguing that the serving size should unrealistically small, rather than the whole bag, because it doesn't work for every case?
You're arguing that the serving size should be unrealistically large, rather than a some reasonable size, because you think everyone always eats the entire package?
Incidentally, I'm curious - when they sell a 24-pack of Coke, are they supposed to show the values for the individual cans, or for the entire case? You keep saying that people consume the entire unit - so that would be the entire case, right? What about for 2-liter bottles? What about for things that aren't junk food?
So you get sugar bombs like this prominently claiming "no sugar added", and many consumers are confused into believing that this somehow means the contents of the package are healthy: http://www.healicsu.com/art/photos/643-juicy-juice-no-sugar-...
In spite of our desire to reach for the stars, humans are not isolated creatures, they are figures in a landscape. Remove the landscape and you remove the human (or in this case, the heath of the human).
That's limited?
Once a week, that's limited. Once every weeknight isn't limited, it's a habit.
Given the choice, I'll take a naturally sweetened beverage weekly over an artificially sweetened beverage daily, if only because of the awful taste of artificial sweeteners...
I used to drink soda. Gave it up many years ago. Have not missed it. Have much less of a sweet tooth now; don't eat desserts very often, and when I do, a very small portion is plenty. I think giving up soda helped with that.
If I want a caffeinated beverage, I drink coffee, black or with cream but no sugar. If I want a cool, carbonated beverage, I drink beer (which has most of its sugar fermented out; still has some calories, but not nearly so sweet). If I just need to be rehydrated, I drink water.
It seems to me that so many people have this idea that sugary drinks, whether in the form of soda, sweet juices, sports drinks, and so on, but drinking those on a regular basis is a fairly new thing that I don't thin our bodies are well adapted for.
Cutting out sugars via drinks are some of the easiest empty carbs to cut out of your diet.
One kid gets a (small) chocolate milk a 1-3 times a week. That's probably the most sugar either gets (outside of birthday parties and sugar-based holidays); the other will drink water even when she has the option of free soda.
Funny thing is that we don't restrict sugar. There's a container of candy in the cupboard that they can eat when they want (they typically ask first, but we rarely say no), but it frequently goes weeks without being touched. Sometimes they'll have a square of chocolate or two, but it's not a regular thing.
It turns out that if you "allow" kids to do most anything they want, but give them the tools to think clearly about what is healthy and why, they are perfectly capable of making good choices. I think it's the very restrictions that parents place on kids that makes them crave the same things those parents restrict.
Why do people feel the need to hold a personal choice as something everyone else must do?
Please, next tell me how you don't have a TV.
I'm not saying that no one should ever drink soda; just that more moderation should be encouraged, people should start treating it as a choice that you should make as a responsible adult and use in moderation, like caffeine or alcohol, rather than a default that everyone does starting as a kid and continues doing whenever they feel like.
I significantly cut back on soda last year, and haven't had any at all for months. I drink mainly water. I don't miss soda; doesn't even sound appealing any more.
As an aside, the sugar profile of most sodas is made to mimic that of honey closely. So much so, that 'stretching' honey is a cause for concern in apiarist communities as it is quite easy to do so [1].
[0]http://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-withdrawal-symptoms...
Beer is better, but it's still got a surprising amount of sugar, depending on the brew. A can of Coke has 39 grams of sugar [1]. A Sierra Nevada Bigfoot has 30.3 [2]. Of course, that's the worst offender. Popular "craft" or "imports" seem to be around 10-15 (Anchor Steam is 14.2, Beck's is 9, Guiness is 14, Killian's is 14.8, etc.).
American light beers are around 3-5, which is much better than a can of Coke.
If you're switching from soda to anything but "light" beers, you're cutting some carbs, but not by about 1/2 or 2/3.
[1]: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/food/soda/carbo... [2]: http://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Calories-Popular-Beers-15046...
That number is the total carbs, not sugar specifically. Most beers have relatively low sugar content; your link actually claims 0g of sugar for the Sierra Nevada Bigfoot. Calories in beer come partly from alcohol and partly from complex carbs (hence "liquid bread"). That doesn't make them healthy, but 30g of complex carbs is a lot less bad for you than 30g of simple sugars.
I used to drink coffee. Gave it up many years ago. Have not missed it. Have much less of a caffeine addiction now; don't drink caffeinated drinks very often, and when I do, a very small portion is plenty. I think giving up coffee helped with that.
If I want a sweetened beverage, I drink soda, sugarless or with sugar but no caffeine.
Etc.
Actually, most people I know don't consider coffee to be an acceptable drink to give to kids; but they don't think twice of serving them soda with the same amount of caffeine, or just lots of sugary drinks like non-caffeinated sodas, sweetened juices, "low fat chocolate milk" (as if the fat, rather than the sugar, is the problem there), etc.
> In fact, why do people think that drinking coffee is something that anyone must do?
Caffeine (and the various forms it's consumed in, like coffee or tea) has both health benefits and health risks. As far as I can tell, based on all of the data I have seen, sugary drinks are much, much worse for you.
It was an eye opening discussion to say the least.
I don't even think he's saying that, actually, he seems to be saying "I don't drink soda so neither should you".
Having cut out soda, I find I have a lower tolerance for sweet food in general. I'm less likely to order sweet and sour chicken, or foods that are glazed, or things with barbecue sauce, or honey-mustard dressings or dips. I have desserts less often, and when I do, split them more ways.
As others have pointed out in this thread, most people have a sense that feeding caffeine or alcohol to kids is a bad idea; and even as adults, that they are things that should be consumed in moderation. They don't have coffee available in the school cafeteria. However, most people have no such sense about sugar, giving kids juice boxes, chocolate milks, and putting soda machines in schools for them to buy whenever they have a little extra allowance left over.
While sugar-free soda is probably an improvement over soda with sugar in it, it still leaves you with that sweet tooth, and you're more likely to subconsciously keep consuming sugars in other forms.
Because it is "okay". Why do people think it's okay to tell others what is okay?
>It seems to me that so many people have this idea that sugary drinks
What idea is that? Some people just like the taste of Mountain Dew. You, or your choice of coffee and beer, isn't superior.
Culturally, we consider coffee and alcohol to be things that should generally only be consumed by adults, and in moderation. Alcohol we have serious laws about; coffee not as much, but I know very few parents who would feed their children coffee on a regular basis.
However, we have no such cultural taboo about sugary drinks, despite the increasing amount of research showing that they are actually much more problematic when consumed regularly than caffeine or alcohol consumed in moderation.
And to be fair, my comment doesn't change the basic premise of the article: that if you're going to drink a sweetened beverage, artificial sweeteners have fewer negative health effects than sugar.
I just found the statement odd. It seems the author's and my ideas of "reduced intake" don't align with one another... I mean, I can't imagine anyone would say a bag of candy every day constitutes "reduced intake". But for some reason it's acceptable when it comes to beverages.
Go figure.
One by itself at some point in the day, one with lunch, and often times once with dinner as well.
That's how my teenage years went and I wasn't alone. As an adult I "limit" myself to 1 a day - although more typically I limit it to 2 or 3 a week. Which I still feel is too much.
Water all the time is "boring", I'm lactose intolerant so milk is out of the picture, juice makes me more thirsty. I often have tea, but I dislike chilled tea and hot tea during a hot summer isn't pleasant.
I feel like my dislike of having "plain old water" all the time is my only issue with consuming less soda. If I could get over that hurdle I'd be fine.
I am in the same boat, I probably have 4-5 diet pop drinks per week. However, if it was naturally sweetened pop I wouldn't consider it OK to drink more than one a week. Everything in appropriate moderation. Although, to be fair, I don't consider the level of pop I drink to be "reduced", but it's less than what some children will drink if left unmoderated.
I read it to mean, the kids are going to drink pop 4-5 times a week. We give them artificially sweetened pop so that it's "healthy".
Contrasting this again with candy: if a parent said "I give my kids candy every day with their dinner, but I make sure it has sucralose in it", I'd still find it odd, because candy shouldn't be a daily occurrence.
And yet, for some reason, soda is.
It really is very strange, don't you think?
1. Limited overall quantity of soda permitted to less than is typical for the age range,
2. Limited most of the consumption within that limited quantity to caffeine-free options,
3. Limited most of the consumption within that limited quantity to sugar-free options.
I don't see anything to suggest that sugar-free soda is perceived as positively "healthy", only that it is a mitigation of one of the sources of unhealthiness (as is the caffeine-free limitation), but that other concerns exist, hence the overall quantity limitation.
"Reduced" means "at a level lower than it was previously".
If you are eating two bags of candy every day, one bag of candy a day is reduced intake of candy.
If you aren't eating any candy before, then one piece of candy a day is increased intake of candy. What level of intake is "reduced" depends on what the starting point is.
Is it better? Well, yeah.
But it's still a daily habit, which still doesn't seem great, particularly as it sets the tone for the kids that soda every day is a perfectly fine and normal thing.
It seems to me that by far the best option would be to limit consumption of both added sugars and artificial sweeteners.
Personally, I've done low-carb diets where things with sugar are almost entirely off-limits, minus a small amount of fruit, and whatever small quantities of sugar are present in non-starchy vegetable. During these diets, I've tried them with and without artificial sugars. Those artificial sugars would be consumed in either diet drinks/sodas, or with coffee. I had the occasional desire to consume something with lots of carbs/sugar, but I can't say it was any strong with artificial sugars than without.
If anything, for me, the artificial sugars worked to satiate the desire for something sweet.
First I was on strict diet, less than 10 grams a day sugar first two weeks, then restrict to less than 20 grams and gradually increase... Then one day I had craving for chocolate, got one with malittol - first a little chunk, then a bit more, a bit more... Then I had troubles in the loo, more troubles, more troubles, and... switched back to normal chocolate.
It did not worked for me. But it could the next time...
You shouldn't swear off artificial sweeteners because of the stigma around them, especially since there's such an abundance of research around them debunking all the purported ill effects (except for maybe laxative effects and bad reactions in phenylketonurics) – you can have your artificially sweetened cake and eat it too.
[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature1...
[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeten...
Personally, I prefer aspertame drinks for this reason; they feel more stimulating to me, and I suspect it's due to the phenylalanine since it can potentially get converted into dopamine/norepinephrine/epinephrine, which is useful for me cause I have adhd. Though the effects from that are minuscule compared to the effect of the caffeine that aspartame is usually paired with.
For the record (for people downvoting), there's nothing wrong with phenylalanine, most of the anti-aspartame propaganda labels it as a "neurotoxin"/"excitotoxin"/whatever, which is just FUD. It's just a psychoactive amino acid and half of what makes up aspartame (aspartic acid being the other half). And a few people do have allergic reactions to it.
Greek yogurt is good for you because it has so much protein, but all the popular brands have added tons of sugar since it became popular - except they call it "evaporated cane syrup" in the ingredients. Hope you're eating plain yogurt.
This is a huge pain if you're not careful. I stick to FAGE or Safeway's store brand, both have no added sugar and only two ingredients: milk and active bacteria cultures.
https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage
I'd also recommend using http://examine.com/ to validate studios on what you are going to eat by yourself.
But people really like (or "like") sugar and cigarettes, so the most likely outcome of loudly proclaiming the dangers of substitutes is that more people stay with the originals, which are almost certainly worse.
Sugar: The Bitter Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Check out erythritol, it's superior to most of the others:
[0] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeten...
On the other hand, they apparently _heal_ cavities instead of causing them.
And now we are going to watch the same thing on this thread. Why are these diet fad bits so popular on HN?
I think the main point is that there is A LOT of misinformation out there, and people have made up their minds on things without adequate evidence. Anti-vaxxers are (rightly) lambasted for this... IMO, anyone who makes public statements about nutrition without doing adequate research deserves the same.
Articles like this one are important. Even though it still has some opinion sprinkled in, it has a lot of links to evidence, and that is what people really need.
We generally drink water and it's just fine, when we want something "fancy" we get the sparkling water at Trader Joe's that has the orange or berry essence. They are available at other stores as well, no sugar or artificial sweeteners, and kids still love them.
It may seem like we need everything to be sweetened from habit, but you can easily start a new habit. Once you get used to something, it becomes the new normal.
If I consume something that contains aspartame or sucralose, I can taste it, and I don't like it. Even Stevia tastes awful.
And what I really hate is that sucralose is now being used in lots of non-diet beverages that also contain sugar or corn syrup! The Arizona Beverage Company does this with some of their drinks, for example.
Here, try this: http://www.amazon.com/Teas-Tea-Unsweetened-Green-Ounce/dp/B0...
Also available at Costco or any Asian grocery store (at least on the west coast).
I know someone whose baby was very active in womb to the point that she worried about it. And then she read that sucralose was shown to cause miscarriage in animals so she stopped eating it (it was in something she ate regularly) and the baby calmed right down. But that's just one datum.
First, there was the anti-fat movement. Everyone ran from fat like it was the plague, believing it to be responsible for heart disease and obesity. Turns out, neither is true, quite the opposite in fact, and fat is generally good for you (excepting, e.g. trans fat). What happened, though, was that fat was replaced by sugar in our diets. Leading to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease...
Alongside the anti-fat movement came olestra, the fat substitute that solved the problem that people created with the fat witchhunt. This was their fat savior, and what was the general response? Everyone was afraid of this scary chemical, worried that it would cause anal leakage (hint: it doesn't); they burned it alive and went about their merry lives with a jug of soda in their hands.
So, now we're knee deep in the consequences of that previous diet, and people say they want to be healthy again. Science creates artificial sweeteners, so as to sate the new desire for sugary food and drink. The response is again one of unfounded and irrational fear.
So people turn to what they view as their last bastion of hope: vegetables. But no, we couldn't just eat vegetables. We could only eat them if they were organic. The general thinking being that organic vegetables must be healthier, and avoid dangerous, scary pesticides (hint: the pesticides on organic food are worse). Problem is, vegetables were expensive and difficult to use in the first place (they spoil quickly, requiring frequent market trips). Organics only made it worse, for both organic and non-organic sources. And to top it off, people are wailing against GMO, which would have presented a solution to the insane desire for "organic" foodstuff.
I just don't get it. The average person bemoans their health and cries for a better diet, but every step they take is towards something worse. A great example I've found is bacon. I tell people that bacon is good for them; a healthy choice. Every time I receive puzzled looks and they think I'm joking. Usually while they stuff their faces with hamburgers. But guess what? That hamburger comes with a calorie loaded, glucose spiking bun, and sugary sauce. The beef it's made from has perhaps the worst impact on the global environment of any animal based food. And people will scarf down their entire 1000+ calorie burger, only to feel hungry enough to eat some fries to top it off. My bacon? It's a measly 43 calories per slice, with me maxing out at 4 slices on my best days. I feel full and sated afterwards, with none of that hamburger bloat. Pork is significantly better for the environment compared to beef. And I didn't have to put sugary sauce or carb heavy buns on my meal. And all that fat? Bacon has the same fat content as a hamburger.
380 calories for a burger + bacon from fast food; remove the bacon and it's only 280
This monster is 1000 calories: https://www.wendys.com/en-us/hamburgers/daves-hot-n-juicy-tr...
Anyone eating that isn't telling you they are trying to be healthy. :)
ketchup is also an optional choice
Just don't eat more than three meals a day there and you'd be good.
Saturated fats are not good either.
Not that I particularly trust examine.com, but they do cite their sources, so it's better than nothing, and better than me spouting off unfounded nonsense. Anyway, here's the relevant bits:
> Looking at reviews and meta-analysis' of controlled trials, there does not seem to be much evidence that saturated fat increases risk for Cardiovascular Diseases. However, replacing some saturated fat with polyunsaturated may reduce risk.
> Saturated fats do increase cholesterol levels relative to polyunsaturated fats.[2][8] It should be noted that in any study done on macronutrients (fat, carbs, or protein) removal of a macronutrient must be met with inclusion of another in order to balance calories out. Many studies replace saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats, which tend to reduce cholesterol and triglyceride levels.[9][10][11][12] This may lead to the conclusion that saturated fats raise them, when the possibility that they are inert is viable.
In my opinion, as research stands today, worrying about anything except trans fat is not worth the effort. Maybe, just maybe saturated fats are worse than unsaturated fats. But in terms of your healthy it's probably in that 1%. People need to worry about the 99%. That 99% comes from eating less sugar, moderating carb consumption (I don't mean Atkins here, I mean replace some starches like french fries with vegetables and meats, but bread on your sandwich is fine), and general calorie tracking. Anything more than that will begin to fall into areas of research that aren't well covered, and, again, likely only contribute trivially to your long-term health.
Maybe try using artificial sweeteners and supplementing your diet with more fiber and or protein at the point you consume the artificial sweetener, both of which will fill you up (or should) drastically more than sugar. That might compensate for the sensation you're getting regarding removing sugar.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095119 [2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature1...