Sugar vs Artificial - NY Times

Su_ziq

To add to the ongoing debate, here is what the NY Times has published:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/upshot/the-evidence-supports-artificial-sweeteners-over-sugar.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0

Kalikel

I switched to water and am not even concerned about whether sweeteners do or don't cause cancer.

When they publish articles about the controversy over whether water is bad for you, ring me.

_John_

caroldavison332

It seems that merley removing fat from milk undermines it ability to nourish us, so I don't put any more chemicals than necessary in or on my body.

LaurenAOK

I think both are overly demonized, but I'm glad this article brings some myths about artificial sweeteners to light. I rarely drink soda but when I do, it's diet. Why would I waste calories on a drink? And I like the taste of diet better anyway.

lemurcat12

LaurenAOK wrote: »

I rarely drink soda but when I do, it's diet. Why would I waste calories on a drink? And I like the taste of diet better anyway.

Agree with this.

I actually think the studies are much more worrisome about the effect of drinking a lot of soda or other sweetened beverages vs. added sugar in general (not sure why, maybe it's just that drinking lots of sweetened beverages tends to go along with huge amounts of added sugar, on average).

I think the current paranoia re moderate amounts of added sugar is silly (especially since the issue is that in the US on average we aren't eating moderate amounts), and don't get me started on the endless "is fruit making me fat, ruining my health, etc.?" posts lately, but I completely agree with the author of the article's decision to limit his kids' consumption of soda. When I was a kid soda was a rare treat, not the standard drink (and a half can was the serving size), and that to me seems perfectly reasonable.