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?
Options
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.
I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.
@Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.
Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.
Sometimes I know I am wasting my time with a particular poster but respond for the benefit of others in the thread or lurkers.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice it gets tiring. I've learned from experience that if I just respond to absolutely everyone on this topic I burn myself out and end up stopping posting altogether. Better to pace myself I feel and not jump in when someone literally says they don't want to pay attention to that.
We got your back
1 -
MeganMoroz89 wrote: »
No such thing. It's been cultivated from a source. Sugar doesn't grow from trees or underground.GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
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
But there is a such thing called Sugar in the Raw, which is what I think they were talking about. We have some at our office right now, although in cubed form.
http://www.thekitchn.com/whats-the-difference-muscovado-145157
It's all sugar, even delicious, toffeeish muscavado. That turbanido looks indistinguishable from demerara, anyhow, and, apart from the depth of flavour which distinguishes it from the white stuff, it's still sticky and calorific and still adds just as many calories to the blueberry & banana muffins I make for the boys.3 -
And yeah, for the record, I think it's better to re-educate your palate than seek out sugar substitutes. Some taste better than others, but I prefer to avoid them all, unless I want some coke for my vodka.1
-
So in other words it's gone through no "processing"? The sugar comes from somewhere, usually a fruit or cane. It's then extracted. Just because it's called "sugar in the raw", doesn't mean it's "raw" sugar.MeganMoroz89 wrote: »
No such thing. It's been cultivated from a source. Sugar doesn't grow from trees or underground.GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
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
But there is a such thing called Sugar in the Raw, which is what I think they were talking about. We have some at our office right now, although in cubed form.
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
2 -
I don't know that there's much else that can be added to this conversation. I agree with many others that artificial sweeteners in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. If a particular person finds that a certain sweetener gives them migraines, it is "bad" only for that person, in the same way that peanuts are "bad" for a person with a peanut allergy but not for the population at large.
As a personal anecdote, I've been regularly ingesting aspartame for over 20 years - I started drinking Diet Coke as a kid. I've also been using Splenda (my sweetener of choice) in my coffee, cooking and baking for about 10 years. I find sweeteners a wonderful option for lowering calories without sacrificing the sweetness I love. All of this without any medical problems. Even as a migraine sufferer, I have not found aspartame consumption to be a precipitating event.
Do what works for you.3 -
I have to wonder if the people who avoid sweeteners also avoid foods that are smoked, charred, or cured. After all, sweeteners, perhaps the most studied food related chemicals in the world, have been showed by dozens of studies to be safe. Smoked, charred, and cured foods are *known* to contain carcinogens by virtue of being smoked. Thoughts?0
-
jaya_the_playa wrote: »I have to wonder if the people who avoid sweeteners also avoid foods that are smoked, charred, or cured. After all, sweeteners, perhaps the most studied food related chemicals in the world, have been showed by dozens of studies to be safe. Smoked, charred, and cured foods are *known* to contain carcinogens by virtue of being smoked. Thoughts?
I avoid smoked foods but drink diet soda daily.0 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
Why would you even ask that??
My first assumption when debating a topic and someone says "maybe we should call so and so" is that the person must know a lot about the topic, not that they would be coming to beat me up.ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
Nope. Not true at all.
Totally true depending on whom you ask. I say yes it's worse. The stomach problems and funky neurological side effects do not make artificial sweeteners in any way a good choice for me or my kids. The putrid after taste that doesn't go away for over 2 hours is also a massive annoyance.
Neurological side effects?
And is this something the general population has to worry about, or a select few, who should avoid consuming whatever it is causing their uncommon problem (similar to how someone allergic to peanuts should avoid peanuts)?
Sounds like unnecessary fear mongering to me.
I am not speaking for the population, I am speaking for myself. Hence the words "I say yes it's worse." Not "it's worse for us ALL." I did not attempt to apply this to everyone in any way.
So you and your children have suffered neurological side effects from ingesting artificial sweeteners?
I did and my child had a serious stomach problem that was caused by sucralose. So FOR US, we say it's worse than sugar. To each his or her own.
This was the official diagnosis? How was the doctor able to determine conclusively that sucralose was the cause?ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
You posted your unquantifiable anecdotes in a debate thread, but you don't want to argue, learn the basis for opposing views, review relevant science, or read the opinion of experts in the field? I'm not sure that is a good way to participate in a debate. Do you consider the vast body of decades worth of established science all invalid because it was biased? If so, how was it biased?
I posted PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. NOT "anecdotes".
You do realize that your personal experience is an anecdote, right?
an·ec·dote
ˈanəkˌdōt/
noun
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
"told anecdotes about his job"
synonyms: story, tale, narrative, incident9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.)
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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 not aspartame and sucrolose, etc.1 -
Sugar alcohols?
I don't understand how sugar alcohols would be in sugar-free lollies?
Don't sugar-free lollies have artificial sweeteners instead?0 -
paperpudding 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.4 -
Spliner1969 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.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.0 -
Spliner1969 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.5 -
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.2
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Spliner1969 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.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Spliner1969 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.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Spliner1969 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.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »paperpudding 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.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions