Sugar

annakimmie

Can you explain the cons of sweeteners in weight loss, like Splenda?

Phoenix_Warrior

It probably doesn't have the same effect a carb does for energy. I would assume. Not a doctor.

Pro: calorie free ish.

DjangoAndDeadlifts

There is no good science showing cons for consuming most artificial sweeteners, and anyone who tells you otherwise is repeating hearsay (caveat: some people cannot process aspartame properly, but this isn't very common).

There are studies that show unhealthy people tend to drink more diet soda, but that's not the same as diet soda being responsible.
http://examine.com/faq/is-diet-soda-bad-for-you.html

And not that you should trust anecdotes, but I consume splenda/aspartame every single day, to no ill effect.

Sugar alcohols (mainly in diabetic food like sugar free candy) can be a punch in the gut. Refer to here for hilarious disgusting results: http://www.amazon.com/Haribo-Gummy-Candy-Sugarless-5-Pound/product-reviews/B000EVQWKC

EDIT: Oh, and in response to the above comment, calories are energy, so no, calorie free sweeteners do not provide any energy.

Phoenix_Warrior

^That's what I had assumed thanks hehe.

willdb76

Pros - no calories. Suitable for diabetics.
Cons - the only one that I can think of is that you maintain a sweet tooth, which might make you inclined to over-indulge in sugary foods at other times.

SanteMulberry

There are others on MFP who are far more knowledgeable than I am about it but a fair bit of research has shown that the insulin response to artificial sweeteners is surprisingly similar to that of sugar. Since exaggerated insulin response is part of the obesity picture (and leads to insulin resistance, which, in turn leads to Type II diabetes) it is probably best to avoid artificial sweeteners from that angle alone. In addition, there are many who believe that we should not be adding chemicals to our food when it is not at all certain that those chemicals are safe. While artificial sweeteners have been given a pass by the FDA (and under suspicious circumstances in the case of Aspartame), that does NOT mean that they actually ARE safe with long-term use. I wouldn't use them.

Anyone can learn to live without sugar or artificial sweeteners. I have. Now I don't even want sugary foods (but I craved them when first getting off of all sugary foods). When I have been "forced" to have something sweet on occasion (birthday cake or some such) I have found it sickeningly sweet and usually end up leaving most of it after a bite or two. Our ancestors from 1900 consumed about five pounds of sugar per person per year--now the amount is estimated to be around 150 pounds per person per year--and about 60% of that is contained in processed food. The food processors add sugar to nearly all processed food. They well know that people will eat more of any food that contains added sugar.

Some scientists have suggested that sugar should be labeled an addictive substance. It is obvious from the numbers that a great many people ARE addicted. Curiously, it seems that some are now addicted to artificial sweeteners. I used to know a fellow who would eat a triple hamburger, a double order of fries AND a large diet soda. When I mildly inquired as to the reason he laughed and said that he was "addicted" to diet drinks. I thought it strange then--as I do now. I always hated the "chemically" taste of artificially sweetened stuff. Glad I never got into them--I would hate to be "addicted" to them.

DjangoAndDeadlifts

...a fair bit of research has shown that the insulin response to artificial sweeteners is surprisingly similar to that of sugar.

And here's an article citing 11 studies that says this isn't true http://examine.com/faq/do-artificial-sweeteners-spike-insulin.html

SanteMulberry

...a fair bit of research has shown that the insulin response to artificial sweeteners is surprisingly similar to that of sugar.

And here's an article citing 11 studies that says this isn't true http://examine.com/faq/do-artificial-sweeteners-spike-insulin.html

Thanks for the website--it looks legitimate (wonder where they get their funding--they claim to be independent). I still wouldn't eat artificial sweeteners though.

DjangoAndDeadlifts

Thanks for the website--it looks legitimate (wonder where they get their funding--they claim to be independent). I still wouldn't eat artificial sweeteners though.

All things being equal, I wouldn't consume them either. It does feel good to be able to totally resist the sweetness... but sometimes I just get sick of water

rml_16

They taste awful.

That's all I got.

SanteMulberry

Thanks for the website--it looks legitimate (wonder where they get their funding--they claim to be independent). I still wouldn't eat artificial sweeteners though.

All things being equal, I wouldn't consume them either. It does feel good to be able to totally resist the sweetness... but sometimes I just get sick of water

I know what you mean but what I drink is water with a squeeze of organic lemon (and then I throw in the peel to leach the beneficial D-limonene into the water). You'd be amazed at what a difference it makes over plain old water. I also drink a lot of herbal teas including lots of green tea. :-)

MattKachel

There are cons to artificial sweetners; and they outweigh the pros significantly. Here is a pubmed governmentally published article on these sweetners. It states: "evidence suggests that frequent consumers of these sugar substitutes may also be at increased risk of excessive weight gain, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease."

Here is the article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23850261
Here is another from Yale Med: http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/10/01/brain-recognizes-sugar-artificial-sweeteners/

1) Upon consumption the body reacts as if the artificial sweetener is glucose, and stimulates the release of insulin.
2) With the insulin spike, your body goes into storage mode. Fats and sugars are more likely to be stored than burned.
3) When sweetener is consumed by itself the body is trying to store the glucose that isn’t there, so hunger for sugar is stimulated.
4) That hunger can also trigger a stress response in the body that is most likely the cause physiological abnormalities. When the metabolism switches off, the body is put into storage mode and hunger for sugar is stimulated.

My personal give away is that artificial sweetners aren't naturally made, so why would I put them into my body?
There is literally no need for soda whatsoever. If you can kick it away that would be the most beneficial for you than having artificial sweetners. However, it is a HABIT just like any other addicting substance. It's not an easy path to go down, so start with moderation.

nikkihk

I have no solid science to prove or disprove anything? But in not knowing how it's really made or what chemicals it could be releasing into my system? I'm doing my best to steer clear of it where I can... Went to water and tea and internally I'm happy because of it. But it could very well have no affect on me, I have no idea.

tigersword

There are cons to artificial sweetners; and they outweigh the pros significantly. Here is a pubmed governmentally published article on these sweetners. It states: "evidence suggests that frequent consumers of these sugar substitutes may also be at increased risk of excessive weight gain, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease."

Here is the article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23850261
Here is another from Yale Med: http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/10/01/brain-recognizes-sugar-artificial-sweeteners/

1) Upon consumption the body reacts as if the artificial sweetener is glucose, and stimulates the release of insulin.
2) With the insulin spike, your body goes into storage mode. Fats and sugars are more likely to be stored than burned.
3) When sweetener is consumed by itself the body is trying to store the glucose that isn’t there, so hunger for sugar is stimulated.
4) That hunger can also trigger a stress response in the body that is most likely the cause physiological abnormalities. When the metabolism switches off, the body is put into storage mode and hunger for sugar is stimulated.

My personal give away is that artificial sweetners aren't naturally made, so why would I put them into my body?
There is literally no need for soda whatsoever. If you can kick it away that would be the most beneficial for you than having artificial sweetners. However, it is a HABIT just like any other addicting substance. It's not an easy path to go down, so start with moderation.

Medicines are artificially made, so I'm assuming you never use those, either.

Also, protein spikes insulin just as much as carbs do, which is a little fact that completely undoes the entire theory you've presented. If we use the logic of your theory, protein spikes insulin, but the body doesn't get glucose, therefore it causes you to crave sugar. Yet that doesn't happen. Funny, that.

MattKachel

JWPeddle - the sources provided in that article are outdated, with some the majority being published before the year 2000. We are constantly and continually learning about nutrition, and how our body reacts to the things we put into it.

Yes, each person's body has a different response. However, the studies posted were all conducted on "healthy" or "young and healthy" individuals as stated in the conclusions. That is not a very well rounded sample in my opinion, and those people aren't usually compromised when making bad eating decisions.

What about people who may already be overweight, in a poor state of health, or even have a sugar sensitivity?
Weren't artificial sweetners designed to help those people specifically when it comes to weight-control and sugar cravings?
It makes no sense to me why you would sample only a healthy population with high metabolisms.

Here are some more recent publications:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23398432
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060008
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21424985

MattKachel

TigersWord - There is a metabolic process called gluconeogenesis. The main purpose of this is to generate glucose from non-carbohydrate substrates; such as pyruvate, lactate, glycerol, fatty acids, and GLUCOGENIC AMINO ACIDS. Alanine is one of these amino acids broken down from protein via catabolism of GNG. Alanine is going to form glucose in the Alanine Cycle with lactate. My "theory" (aka science) stands.


There is always a time and place for all forms of healthcare, including medicine. Medicine is designed to help us when we are immuno-compromised, and artificial sweetners weren't designed to help us in that way at all. They are two completely different things, so I don't really see your point. My point is comparing two types of food like a natural source of sugar; an apple with dietary fiber which we are designed to digest, and a manufactured soda with FAKE sugar.

tigersword

I'm quite familiar with gluconeogenesis, It's irrelevant, as the insulin spike from protein doesn't cause gluconeogenesis, as gluconeogenesis is a process regulated by glucagon, and glucagon levels are inversely related to insulin levels.

There's a reason the "insulin theory of obesity" has been debunked by everyone that isn't named Gary Taubes.

LTKeegan

Aspartame has been shown to cause tumors in mice:

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yTH1iI9ybl4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA321&dq=aspartame+tumors+mice&ots=SiSoxAt26u&sig=5XsqmVzFD9UjJE4B-AvqoRRLN58#v=onepage&q=aspartame tumors mice&f=false

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.20896/full


There is also contradictory evidence, however, I'd rather not take the chance.

tigersword

Aspartame has been shown to cause tumors in mice:

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yTH1iI9ybl4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA321&dq=aspartame+tumors+mice&ots=SiSoxAt26u&sig=5XsqmVzFD9UjJE4B-AvqoRRLN58#v=onepage&q=aspartame tumors mice&f=false

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.20896/full


There is also contradictory evidence, however, I'd rather not take the chance.

Good thing we aren't mice. Also, a good thing we don't consume our bodyweight in aspartame every day. Know what else causes cancer? Sunlight. Air. Did you know that a study concluded that people who commute to work by bicycle are actually more likely to die younger than people who drive cars? It's because cyclists are breathing in all the exhaust fumes from the cars on the road, giving them lung cancer.

Also, from one of your links.

No carcinogenic effects were observed in female mice.

Interesting.

The fact is, what you're providing IS the contradictory evidence. You're posting rat studies. There are NO human studies that have ever found harmful effects. 96 countries have tried to find these problems through over 50 years of study. It hasn't happened. We know more about aspartame than we do about the air we're all breathing.