No Surprise - Sucralose is Bad for You

TT4KimmyCub
Posts: 1 Member
And why am I not surprised by this story?
https://newsweek.com/artificial-sweetner-sucralose-dna-damage-1804008
I mean seriously, how many times have we found out eventually that man-made food ingredients do more harm than good? Funny thing, there is a simple way to determine (though not definitively) if something is okay to eat. Set the food outside and look for insects to start eating it. If insects stay away from it, you should too.
The bigger story of course is just how we "acquire" the taste of toxins, which sounds ridiculous to me. But sadly, it means that by acquiring the taste, we lose an ability to detect harm. In other words, the bad aftertaste of fake sugar should have been enough for us to say "no thanks".
https://newsweek.com/artificial-sweetner-sucralose-dna-damage-1804008
I mean seriously, how many times have we found out eventually that man-made food ingredients do more harm than good? Funny thing, there is a simple way to determine (though not definitively) if something is okay to eat. Set the food outside and look for insects to start eating it. If insects stay away from it, you should too.
The bigger story of course is just how we "acquire" the taste of toxins, which sounds ridiculous to me. But sadly, it means that by acquiring the taste, we lose an ability to detect harm. In other words, the bad aftertaste of fake sugar should have been enough for us to say "no thanks".
Tagged:
3
Replies
-
I'm no fan of artificial sweetners, but this study was in vitro, meaning they put the chemical directly on the cells. Funny thing is, things have a way of acting differently when you eat them vs when they're put directly on a cell. But it's interesting for sure, and another reason why they might not be great.5
-
I think the benifits of artificial sweeteners far outweigh any hypothetical or maybe risks.
Of course if you individually find gut issues from them or from any other food, don't use them.
But most people are perfectly fine.15 -
America's Most Popular Artificial Sweetener Damages Our DNA, Scientists Say
Newsweek click bait. This is in vitro first of all, and secondly the apparent mechanistic culprit " sucralose-6-acetate" was only tested in rats in doses that are pretty much unrealistic and finally the authors finish with
The potential adverse health effects of exposure to sucralose-6-acetate are not yet known because this chemical has not been tested individually with a toxicology battery of tests to assess human risks. A comprehensive and systematic search of the scientific literature including government websites, chemical databases, patent literature, and scientific publications did not produce any apparent information on genotoxicity and cytotoxicity attributed to sucralose-6-acetate.
cheers10 -
TT4KimmyCub wrote: »And why am I not surprised by this story?
https://newsweek.com/artificial-sweetner-sucralose-dna-damage-1804008
I mean seriously, how many times have we found out eventually that man-made food ingredients do more harm than good? Funny thing, there is a simple way to determine (though not definitively) if something is okay to eat. Set the food outside and look for insects to start eating it. If insects stay away from it, you should too.
The bigger story of course is just how we "acquire" the taste of toxins, which sounds ridiculous to me. But sadly, it means that by acquiring the taste, we lose an ability to detect harm. In other words, the bad aftertaste of fake sugar should have been enough for us to say "no thanks".
I’m not an inset. I have a different ability to digest food. I’ll let insects continue to eat dung and rotten wood and I’ll continue with my diet, thanks.8 -
paperpudding wrote: »I think the benifits of artificial sweeteners far outweigh any hypothetical or maybe risks.
Of course if you individually find gut issues from them or from any other food, don't use them.
But most people are perfectly fine.
If it helps you lose weight and keep weight off, the health benefits of that outweigh other side effects.5 -
I spent a lot of time, obese and sitting on my *kitten*, poo’pooing the idea of artificial sweeteners, oh they tasted bad and would give me cancer or pancreatic issues yada yada.
Having lost down to normal BMI and experiencing the joy of mobility again, I now realize that the extra hundred pounds I was carrying was a damn sight worse for me than any artificial sweetener.
I now thank heaven for the advances that make zero cal and sugar free low cal goods available and tasty.
I’m bright enough to have figured out which sweetener gives me stomach issues and avoid that particular one, but other than that, I’m very grateful.
Pretty much guaranteed hereditary diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney disease and more, versus a nominal chance of something with artificial sweeteners helping enable the simple pleasures of getting up at will and “doing”?
Yes, please.12 -
TT4KimmyCub wrote: »And why am I not surprised by this story?
https://newsweek.com/artificial-sweetner-sucralose-dna-damage-1804008
I mean seriously, how many times have we found out eventually that man-made food ingredients do more harm than good? Funny thing, there is a simple way to determine (though not definitively) if something is okay to eat. Set the food outside and look for insects to start eating it. If insects stay away from it, you should too.
The bigger story of course is just how we "acquire" the taste of toxins, which sounds ridiculous to me. But sadly, it means that by acquiring the taste, we lose an ability to detect harm. In other words, the bad aftertaste of fake sugar should have been enough for us to say "no thanks".
The bad taste of fake sugar was indeed enough for ME to say "no thanks."2 -
Oddly enough, the only sugar substitute that gives me stomach issues is the supposedly "all natural" stevia. I have to avoid that stuff like the plague.5
-
While no one here has directly made the case that "my only beverage choices are between high calorie full sugar soda and zero calorie artificially sweetened soda" and "my only dessert/snack choices are between high calorie full sugar baked goods and low calorie artificially sweetened baked goods" I feel there is a strong undercurrent of that sentiment here and wanted to address that.
I know you guys intellectually know that's not true but that is the vibe I'm getting.
For those wanting to cut down on sugar without using artificially sweeteners, here's what I do:
12 oz of coke has 39 grams of sugar. I drink a lot of tea and use 6 grams of sugar for a 14 oz cup. I used to use more sugar and cut back. I could cut back further.
When I eat full fat and sugar baked goods, I have a smaller portion and add 3 ounces of berries.
My normal bedtime snack is berries, low fat Greek yogurt, and 20 g of granola. My supermarket was out of the first two recently and I bought full fat (plus more added sugar) yogurt and used a can peaches in heavy syrup that had been languishing in my pantry. This was yummy and a nice change, but added a lot of calories, sugar, and decreased protein. I found an acceptable berry substitute and paid more for my regular yogurt at another store.
Actually, the berries were more than acceptable, they are amazing! I've had triple berry blends from other brands that weren't nearly as good.
https://columbia-fruit.com/three-berry-blend/
They were more per pound than I normally pay for strawberries but less than blueberries.1 -
@kshama2001
Didn’t mean to imply that at all. I enjoy sweets and fruit every day. I’m particularly addicted to two or three large meringues before bed, and those are straight up sugar and egg whites.
Incorporating low or sugar free products permits more volume elsewhere, and allows me to squeeze in more protein, which is satiating to me.
I don’t do sugar soft drinks any more, though. Two Coke Zero, max, the second one being if we have burgers, tacos, pizza or the like for dinner.
Right now, with the AC having been out for a month and parts still backordered, ice water is the tipple du jour.
1 -
PS: Wyman’s frozen wild blueberries for the win. Especially if topped with a scattering of sweet dark frozen cherries.0
-
springlering62 wrote: »PS: Wyman’s frozen wild blueberries for the win. Especially if topped with a scattering of sweet dark frozen cherries.
What brand of cherries do you get? Last time I bought frozen cherries it was a store brand and they were not worth buying again.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »springlering62 wrote: »PS: Wyman’s frozen wild blueberries for the win. Especially if topped with a scattering of sweet dark frozen cherries.
What brand of cherries do you get? Last time I bought frozen cherries it was a store brand and they were not worth buying again.
Kroger “preferred selection” or something like that. If you get the regular cherries they’re usually tart, so look for the dark sweet bag.
Ohh I’m peckish and you just reminded me I have some fresh cherries in the fridge a friend gave us. Yay!!!!2 -
I'm not about to believe a popular press story about a study without reading the study. The non-scientist writers usually get it wrong somehow, and overdramatize any clickbait potential.
I'm also not about to be guided by what insects - organisms quite wildly different from humans - prefer to eat.
Vampire bats like to sneak around at night and drink other critters' blood. Cows like to graze on grass, which I can't even digest. Which of these ultra-natural models do you propose we humans should follow? Or is it just the insects who know best what humans should eat? That's ridiculous.
Personally, I'm a fan of eating mostly foods humans have eaten for centuries to millennia and thrived, because they're nutrient dense and IMO tasty, but I agree with others about that study: Not definitive. Interesting, worthy of further research, which I'm sure will happen.
If someone wants to limit artificial sweetener intake out of caution, swell. I don't use it, but mostly because I don't enjoy the taste of most of those, am not a sweets fanatic from the get-go, and don't like most of the products where those are used: Soda/pop, poor quality baked goods, etc.
'Acquire' the taste of toxins? Please. Not in the article, so if it's the 'bigger story", it's your story.
7 -
Eggs are bad
Meat is bad
Carbs are bad
Sucralose is bad
Yadayadayada….
You can find a “study” that will show everything is bad
You know what’s really bad? Being overweight.16 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I think the benifits of artificial sweeteners far outweigh any hypothetical or maybe risks.
Of course if you individually find gut issues from them or from any other food, don't use them.
But most people are perfectly fine.
If it helps you lose weight and keep weight off, the health benefits of that outweigh other side effects.
And for diabetics the known high risks of poorly controlled diabetes - kidney failure, cardiovascular, eye damage etc vs some insy hypothetical risks of artificial sweeteners.
Of course we could all just adjust our tastebuds and not have things sweetened at all - but realistically that isnt going to happen for everyone nor is it the path they want to take.
7 -
Sucralose gives me migraines.
I've read several places that artificial sweeteners affect blood sugar is this not true ?
Stevia tastes like mint to me.0 -
Why would diabetic associations suggest them if it affected blood sugars?1
-
paperpudding wrote: »Why would diabetic associations suggest them if it affected blood sugars?
The ADA allows up to 10% of a persons calories to come from added sugars, which seems to be in pretty much everyone's general guidelines in the western world and suspect it's hard to remove all added sugars in someone's diet but they needed a blanket statement that will work for the vast majority of the population. They also say artificial sweeteners can be used, but also have a limit depending on the demographic like young children, pregnant people, that kind of thing. Artificial sweeteners don't raise glucose levels simply because there's no calories and there's no glucose. I'm sure you can find a study that says it does though. Cheers
0 -
No I don't think I could find a reputable study that says it does.
I am not saying it does at all, quite the opposite.
That was my whole point, diabetic associations would not suggest it if it did.
Perhaps I should of posted that as a statement rather than a rhetorical question.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 388.9K Introduce Yourself
- 42.9K Getting Started
- 258.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.2K Recipes
- 232K Fitness and Exercise
- 340 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.3K Motivation and Support
- 7.5K Challenges
- 1.2K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 21 News and Announcements
- 703 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 1.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions