Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Sweetener - Good or Bad?

124678

Replies

  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,300 Member
    Sugar alcohols?

    I don't understand how sugar alcohols would be in sugar-free lollies?
    Don't sugar-free lollies have artificial sweeteners instead?
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    edited September 2016
    Sugar alcohols?

    I don't understand how sugar alcohols would be in sugar-free lollies?
    Don't sugar-free lollies have artificial sweeteners instead?

    Sugar alcohols are not sugar. This is just a common name they've been given.
    They are a lower calorie sugar substitute used in lots of sugar free candies and gums.

    ETA: Perhaps you've looked at the ingredients list of your sugar free lollies and seen sorbitol or xylitol on the list. These are two of the most common sugar alcohols.

    Again, they're not sugar so they can totally be used in sugar free products.
  • Shells918
    Shells918 Posts: 1,070 Member
    I personally like Stevia blends. It's more natural, and doesn't (to me anyway) have as much of an aftertaste.

    I think everything in moderation.
    I had a huge addiction to aspartame. I was putting 8 packets in each of my 2 cups of coffee in the morning, plus if I got an outside cup, that would be another 8 so up to 24 packets a day.
    Then I realized that each packet has a little less than 1 carb, so add all of them together and there's 20 carbs for someone on a LCHF diet. Not good. I switched to sweetnlow, because it's much sweeter, and have started using stevia, which has 0 carbs. I'm down to 2 sweetnlow and 2 stevia per coffee. If I could find a place that sells larger quantities of the stevia I'd be thrilled. A box of 35 packets is $3 at my local grocery store.
    Since I switched out the sweetners, my weight loss has picked up a bit, because I wasn't accounting for all of those extra carbs.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited September 2016
    I find that in most of these debates that the people who believe artificial sweeteners are bad in some way are so firmly set in their beliefs that there's no point in discussing things further with them. I've seen the science, I'm convinced they're safe. I've been drinking diet soda since the 60's.

    I have a place for regular sugar, sucralose, stevia, and xylitol in different places in my diet. I like them all for different things.

    There are some others who think they are okay and so set in THEIR beliefs they refuse to believe that people who avoid them have had a bad reaction. This making them BAD for THAT person.

    The only scientifically sound "bad" reaction to artificial sweeteners that I'm aware of is migraine for some migraneurs.

    Other than that, I'm sorry, I have to go with the other posters that you're finding confirmation bias.

    I think the diahhroea (sp?) effect from some artificial sweeteners is scientifically backed too.

    I have found this effect from sugar free lollies at any rate.

    But I drink Pepsi Max and Diet coke with no ill effects - different sweetener I think?

    Other than the 'ready made' artificial sweetener in diet sodas I dont use artificial sweeteners - not because I have anything against them but because I dont sweeten food much anyway - I have coffee unsweetened and a small teaspoon of sugar on my breakfast cereal.
    A 1kg packet of sugar lasts me nearly a year.

    (Yes I realise there is plenty of sugar in foods I eat - but I dont add sugar or sweetener.)

    The diarrhea is from sugar alcohols, which are, I believe, different from artificial sweeteners.

    Editing because I see that this has been covered.

    I'll add this from the Wikipedia article on them:
    Sugar alcohols are usually incompletely absorbed into the blood stream from the small intestines which generally results in a smaller change in blood glucose than "regular" sugar (sucrose). This property makes them popular sweeteners among diabetics and people on low-carbohydrate diets. However, like many other incompletely digestible substances, overconsumption of sugar alcohols can lead to bloating, diarrhea and flatulence because they are not absorbed in the small intestine. Some individuals experience such symptoms even in a single-serving quantity. With continued use, most people develop a degree of tolerance to sugar alcohols and no longer experience these symptoms. As an exception, erythritol is actually absorbed in the small intestine and excreted unchanged through urine, so it contributes no calories even though it is rather sweet.
  • fireytiger
    fireytiger Posts: 236 Member
    I use splenda in my iced tea, and I personally like sugar free jello and pudding on occasion. I've had people give me the whole "RAWWWRRR artificial sweeteners are POISON and you will DIE a HORRIBLE DEATH from CANCER if you eat that stuff!!!!" spiel. However, I think i'll listen to my dietitian on this one. I brought it up with her, and she agreed that unless i'm ingesting it by the pound, it's not going to have any measurable negative effects, and she has no problem with it. Better a large iced tea with a couple packets of splenda than a soda in its place.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Shells918 wrote: »
    I personally like Stevia blends. It's more natural, and doesn't (to me anyway) have as much of an aftertaste.

    I think everything in moderation.
    I had a huge addiction to aspartame. I was putting 8 packets in each of my 2 cups of coffee in the morning, plus if I got an outside cup, that would be another 8 so up to 24 packets a day.
    Then I realized that each packet has a little less than 1 carb, so add all of them together and there's 20 carbs for someone on a LCHF diet. Not good. I switched to sweetnlow, because it's much sweeter, and have started using stevia, which has 0 carbs. I'm down to 2 sweetnlow and 2 stevia per coffee. If I could find a place that sells larger quantities of the stevia I'd be thrilled. A box of 35 packets is $3 at my local grocery store.
    Since I switched out the sweetners, my weight loss has picked up a bit, because I wasn't accounting for all of those extra carbs.

    Aspartame breaks down into phenylalanine and aspartic acid (both are amino acids, not carbs) and methanol. Methanol is processed in the liver, not contributing to blood glucose.
    Therefore, aspartame won't endanger your LCHF diet.

    Those little packets have some filler material thrown in which is carbs because else you'd have to put in a fraction of a gram or it would get way too sweet.. the aspartame itself is amino acids though, yeah.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Shells918 wrote: »
    I personally like Stevia blends. It's more natural, and doesn't (to me anyway) have as much of an aftertaste.

    I think everything in moderation.
    I had a huge addiction to aspartame. I was putting 8 packets in each of my 2 cups of coffee in the morning, plus if I got an outside cup, that would be another 8 so up to 24 packets a day.
    Then I realized that each packet has a little less than 1 carb, so add all of them together and there's 20 carbs for someone on a LCHF diet. Not good. I switched to sweetnlow, because it's much sweeter, and have started using stevia, which has 0 carbs. I'm down to 2 sweetnlow and 2 stevia per coffee. If I could find a place that sells larger quantities of the stevia I'd be thrilled. A box of 35 packets is $3 at my local grocery store.
    Since I switched out the sweetners, my weight loss has picked up a bit, because I wasn't accounting for all of those extra carbs.

    Aspartame breaks down into phenylalanine and aspartic acid (both are amino acids, not carbs) and methanol. Methanol is processed in the liver, not contributing to blood glucose.
    Therefore, aspartame won't endanger your LCHF diet.

    Those little packets have some filler material thrown in which is carbs because else you'd have to put in a fraction of a gram or it would get way too sweet.. the aspartame itself is amino acids though, yeah.

    Thanks for keeping me honest. I wasn't thinking of the filler.
    I just got off a red eye flight so the jet lag and sleep deprivation are strong with me this morning.
  • Shells918
    Shells918 Posts: 1,070 Member
    edited September 2016
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Shells918 wrote: »
    I personally like Stevia blends. It's more natural, and doesn't (to me anyway) have as much of an aftertaste.

    I think everything in moderation.
    I had a huge addiction to aspartame. I was putting 8 packets in each of my 2 cups of coffee in the morning, plus if I got an outside cup, that would be another 8 so up to 24 packets a day.
    Then I realized that each packet has a little less than 1 carb, so add all of them together and there's 20 carbs for someone on a LCHF diet. Not good. I switched to sweetnlow, because it's much sweeter, and have started using stevia, which has 0 carbs. I'm down to 2 sweetnlow and 2 stevia per coffee. If I could find a place that sells larger quantities of the stevia I'd be thrilled. A box of 35 packets is $3 at my local grocery store.
    Since I switched out the sweetners, my weight loss has picked up a bit, because I wasn't accounting for all of those extra carbs.

    Aspartame breaks down into phenylalanine and aspartic acid (both are amino acids, not carbs) and methanol. Methanol is processed in the liver, not contributing to blood glucose.
    Therefore, aspartame won't endanger your LCHF diet
    .

    I don't know, my dietician was having a cow about me consuming so much of it, plus all the carbs adding up. And I'm losing a bit faster now that I've switched. I never thought of it as bad for me but just that I had to cut down considerably. My breakfast was an extra 14 carbs just from aspartame.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,300 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Sugar alcohols?

    I don't understand how sugar alcohols would be in sugar-free lollies?
    Don't sugar-free lollies have artificial sweeteners instead?

    Sugar alcohols are not sugar. This is just a common name they've been given.
    They are a lower calorie sugar substitute used in lots of sugar free candies and gums.

    ETA: Perhaps you've looked at the ingredients list of your sugar free lollies and seen sorbitol or xylitol on the list. These are two of the most common sugar alcohols.

    Again, they're not sugar so they can totally be used in sugar free products.

    So, basically what I said in the first place - they give some people diarrhoea while Pepsi Max etc do not because it is a different sort of artificial sweetener.

  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Sugar alcohols?

    I don't understand how sugar alcohols would be in sugar-free lollies?
    Don't sugar-free lollies have artificial sweeteners instead?

    Sugar alcohols are not sugar. This is just a common name they've been given.
    They are a lower calorie sugar substitute used in lots of sugar free candies and gums.

    ETA: Perhaps you've looked at the ingredients list of your sugar free lollies and seen sorbitol or xylitol on the list. These are two of the most common sugar alcohols.

    Again, they're not sugar so they can totally be used in sugar free products.

    So, basically what I said in the first place - they give some people diarrhoea while Pepsi Max etc do not because it is a different sort of artificial sweetener.

    I wasn't contesting that they cause intestinal distress for some people (they totally do).

    I was speaking to your question, "I don't understand how sugar alcohols would be in sugar-free lollies?"
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,300 Member
    Yes, I know.
    Thank you for that.

    I asked that after my first post.
    My first post was saying artificial sweeteners in lollies give me diahhroea but Pepsi Max etc do not - presumably different sweeteners.

    Which was indeed the case.

    I think everyone is agreed on that point.
  • adelanghe
    adelanghe Posts: 27 Member
    I was pro sweeteners in the past, until somebody told me that sweeteners replace sugar but they increase the cravings for sugary food. I didn't believe that until I stopped with sweeteners and added sugar to coffee, tea and other beverages and food and like magic my cravings for sugar were reduced to 50% or less than before. I say avoid added sugars AND sweeteners totally, you'll soon get used to it and you'll get fewer cravings for ice-cream, cakes, and other sugary bombs.
  • Golbat
    Golbat Posts: 276 Member
    Artificially sweetened things don't give me cravings for sweet things. They satisfy a craving if it comes up, but I don't get hungry for sweet things often anymore.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,300 Member
    adelanghe wrote: »
    I was pro sweeteners in the past, until somebody told me that sweeteners replace sugar but they increase the cravings for sugary food. I didn't believe that until I stopped with sweeteners and added sugar to coffee, tea and other beverages and food and like magic my cravings for sugar were reduced to 50% or less than before. I say avoid added sugars AND sweeteners totally, you'll soon get used to it and you'll get fewer cravings for ice-cream, cakes, and other sugary bombs.


    If that is the case for you, yes, probably better for you to avoid them

    Myself, like most people, do not have that situation. I no more crave sweet things after diet sodas than I used to after regular sugary sodas.
    I just consume less calories.
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    adelanghe wrote: »
    I was pro sweeteners in the past, until somebody told me that sweeteners replace sugar but they increase the cravings for sugary food. I didn't believe that until I stopped with sweeteners and added sugar to coffee, tea and other beverages and food and like magic my cravings for sugar were reduced to 50% or less than before. I say avoid added sugars AND sweeteners totally, you'll soon get used to it and you'll get fewer cravings for ice-cream, cakes, and other sugary bombs.

    This does not happen for me, so I will continue to enjoy my sweeteners and sweets.
  • i_SWEAT_n_SWEAR
    i_SWEAT_n_SWEAR Posts: 3,315 Member
    I am very against Splenda, sucralose etc. they caused me very bad AFIB for two years. I finally figured it out after tons of unanswered results from heart testing.

    I'm just starting to use Stevia. It's a natural sweetener, however, it's still highly processed. Staying with Whole Foods is best for our bodies... sometimes it's better to just have a little sugar in moderation I believe.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    So we're claiming that sucralose causes a-fib now?
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,300 Member
    artificial sweeteners caused atrial fibrillation???

    that is a new one. :o

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I don't think your body cares what grocery chain you use.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't think your body cares what grocery chain you use.
    i-see-what-you-did-there-meme.jpg
  • rapple83
    rapple83 Posts: 4 Member
    Very very bad. Not only have some been shown to cause cancer (although, I think you need to consume a lot for this to be an issue), but they all impact your insulin sensitivity which makes it more difficult to lose weight in the long run.

    I know it's easier said than done, as I've been trying to get rid of my sweet tooth for a long time now (with only partial success), but we shouldn't be consuming sweet things regularly enough for the calories to be of significant difference.

  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    rapple83 wrote: »
    Very very bad. Not only have some been shown to cause cancer (although, I think you need to consume a lot for this to be an issue), but they all impact your insulin sensitivity which makes it more difficult to lose weight in the long run.

    I know it's easier said than done, as I've been trying to get rid of my sweet tooth for a long time now (with only partial success), but we shouldn't be consuming sweet things regularly enough for the calories to be of significant difference.

    No. Just wrong. No.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    rapple83 wrote: »
    Very very bad. Not only have some been shown to cause cancer (although, I think you need to consume a lot for this to be an issue), but they all impact your insulin sensitivity which makes it more difficult to lose weight in the long run.

    I know it's easier said than done, as I've been trying to get rid of my sweet tooth for a long time now (with only partial success), but we shouldn't be consuming sweet things regularly enough for the calories to be of significant difference.

    nope. Link?
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,021 Member
    rapple83 wrote: »
    Very very bad. Not only have some been shown to cause cancer (although, I think you need to consume a lot for this to be an issue), but they all impact your insulin sensitivity which makes it more difficult to lose weight in the long run.

    I know it's easier said than done, as I've been trying to get rid of my sweet tooth for a long time now (with only partial success), but we shouldn't be consuming sweet things regularly enough for the calories to be of significant difference.
    So why is recommended by the American Diabetics Association as a substitute for sugar?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    I just eat real sugar "in moderation" If i want it "I fit it in my calories", "no need to completely eliminate anything" :wink:
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited October 2016
    rapple83 wrote: »
    Very very bad. Not only have some been shown to cause cancer (although, I think you need to consume a lot for this to be an issue), but they all impact your insulin sensitivity which makes it more difficult to lose weight in the long run.

    I know it's easier said than done, as I've been trying to get rid of my sweet tooth for a long time now (with only partial success), but we shouldn't be consuming sweet things regularly enough for the calories to be of significant difference.

    Nope. Completely unfounded scaremongering.

    Let me guess - this comes from Gary Taubes? Or is it Mercola? I have a hard time keeping all the crackpots straight sometimes.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    rapple83 wrote: »
    Very very bad. Not only have some been shown to cause cancer (although, I think you need to consume a lot for this to be an issue), but they all impact your insulin sensitivity which makes it more difficult to lose weight in the long run.

    I know it's easier said than done, as I've been trying to get rid of my sweet tooth for a long time now (with only partial success), but we shouldn't be consuming sweet things regularly enough for the calories to be of significant difference.

    There is no scientific evidence that sweeteners cause cancer and even less evidence that they impact insulin sensitivity.
This discussion has been closed.