3 ms·

I have very little knowledge about chemistry and biology, but I have the impression that there is something wrong with almost all artificial sweeteners. Even if

by dxuh 4y ago

I have very little knowledge about chemistry and biology, but I have the impression that there is something wrong with almost all artificial sweeteners. Even if there is nothing seriously wrong with them, like with Aspartame, some people still get headaches or similar. I guess that this can't be an accident. Is there a "reason" for it? Why is this such a hard problem to solve, especially since there are gigantic financial incentives for every company that produces sugary goods (which is many - large ones too)?

marl0 4y ago
Because sometimes in life... you just can't have your cake and eat it too.
- thisisscience 4y ago
  [flagged]
scodger2 4y ago
Since the article here was published: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070820175426.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070820175426.h..., we have known that the same receptor that artificial sweeteners bind to is also used in the gut to sense sugar. So anything that tastes sweet isn't just tasting, but being used elsewhere in the body to do sugar related stuff. Probably not a great idea to eat and drink things that strongly bind and mess with key sugar metabolism imo.
credit_guy 4y ago
> Why is this such a hard problem to solve? Because maybe it's not. Artificial sweeteners are a huge threat to producers of natural sugar, so they worked really hard to get them outlawed, or at least create some FUD around them. For example, did you know that saccharin causes cancer? Right? I certainly heard that as a kid, but it turns out the study that linked saccharin to cancer was done in rats, and involved a biological mechanism that is not relevant to humans [1]. You'd think a study that was refuted should have no legal implications, right? Well, to this day saccharin is not allowed as a food additive in Canada, specifically because of that rat lab study [2]: In the 1970s, scientific studies raised concerns that saccharin could be carcinogenic (cancer-causing) in laboratory rats. As a result of these studies, saccharin was not permitted as a food additive in Canada, although restricted use of saccharin as a table-top sweetener has been allowed. Since that time, further studies have revealed that the carcinogenic effect of saccharin in rats does not have the same effect on humans. Health Canada's scientists have thoroughly reviewed the scientific information available and as a result are considering re-listing saccharin in the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations to allow its use as a sweetener in certain foods. Just look at that: the scientists in Canada are "considering" re-listing saccharin as safe. Now, in 2023, many decades after that study was refuted. I can see the sugar lobbyists getting to their dinners and cigars and still patting themselves on the back for the stunt they pulled half a century ago. Edit: if you think there is no sugar lobby, here's a riddle for you: what is the biggest agricultural crop in the world? It must be one of rice, corn or wheat, right? No, it is sugar cane. As a piece of trivia, the world produces about the same amount of sugar cane each year as steel: 1.9 billion tons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Safety_and_health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Safety_and_health_ef... [2] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives/sugar-substitutes.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutriti...
anthomtb 4y ago
I just think there is no "free dessert" when it comes to sweetened foods. You are either consuming a bunch of empty calories (sugar/honey/agave), dealing with unpleasant GI or psychological side effects (sucralose/aspartame), experiencing an undesirable aftertaste (saccharin), risking a cardiovascular event (erythritol, apparently), burning your salary (allulose), or making weird recipe adjustments (stevia). The best solution is to kick the sugar habit. No soda, no cookies, no cake, no candy. Honestly, what purpose do these foods serve? Pleasing your palate? 30 grams of lightly salted almonds is just as pleasing to my palate as a piece of cake, contains the same amount of calories, and keeps me satiated for hours. About the only downside to skipping sweets is social acceptance. But that's not that hard to deal with. Co-worker: "hey, my wife made some cookies! Here, take one!". Me, "okay sure! They look great! I'll have that after my lunch." (said cookie then hits the trash can as soon as he gets out of sight).
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  A healthy diet can easily include occasional sweet foods and drinks. When I was counting calories, I could still include ice cream or cookies as long as I planned for it and did it in moderation. You can easily make a few hundred calories worth of wiggle room for snacks. Unless you are a tiny woman, in which case it seems really really difficult to restrict calories enough to lose weight but still eat a healthy minimum of calories per day.
  - anthomtb 4y ago
    > A healthy diet can easily include occasional sweet foods and drinks. When I was counting calories I actually agree with this. From a pure calorie-counting and weight loss standpoint, you can almost always make room for sweets and still achieve your goals. A caloric intake is like any other budget. Sure, I can come up with money for a Burberry hoodie but it means delaying that GPU upgrade for another year (needless to say my clothes do not come from couture houses). I just find it hard to put sugar calories in my body when those calories could be going to protein for building muscle or fats and low-gi carbs for sustained energy. About the only time I can consume very sugary foods these days is on long and intense cycling workouts, and even then I have to force myself to do it. > Unless you are a tiny woman, in which case it seems really really difficult to restrict calories enough to lose weight but still eat a healthy minimum of calories per day Really really difficult is spot on. My SO is a tiny female and managed to drop from 53kg to 45kg. It required an extremely well controlled diet, 600-700kcal workouts 6 days a week, and took around 9 months. Restaurants were all but off the table since you never know where they sneak in calories and even sharing a plate with me might be too much. She sustains at around 46-47kg right now, which does allow some wiggle room in the diet, but the weight loss part itself was definitely beyond what most people are willing to do.

by dxuh 4y ago

marl0 4y ago

Because sometimes in life... you just can't have your cake and eat it too.

thisisscience 4y ago
[flagged]

scodger2 4y ago

Since the article here was published: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070820175426.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070820175426.h..., we have known that the same receptor that artificial sweeteners bind to is also used in the gut to sense sugar. So anything that tastes sweet isn't just tasting, but being used elsewhere in the body to do sugar related stuff. Probably not a great idea to eat and drink things that strongly bind and mess with key sugar metabolism imo.

credit_guy 4y ago

> Why is this such a hard problem to solve? Because maybe it's not. Artificial sweeteners are a huge threat to producers of natural sugar, so they worked really hard to get them outlawed, or at least create some FUD around them. For example, did you know that saccharin causes cancer? Right? I certainly heard that as a kid, but it turns out the study that linked saccharin to cancer was done in rats, and involved a biological mechanism that is not relevant to humans [1]. You'd think a study that was refuted should have no legal implications, right? Well, to this day saccharin is not allowed as a food additive in Canada, specifically because of that rat lab study [2]: In the 1970s, scientific studies raised concerns that saccharin could be carcinogenic (cancer-causing) in laboratory rats. As a result of these studies, saccharin was not permitted as a food additive in Canada, although restricted use of saccharin as a table-top sweetener has been allowed. Since that time, further studies have revealed that the carcinogenic effect of saccharin in rats does not have the same effect on humans. Health Canada's scientists have thoroughly reviewed the scientific information available and as a result are considering re-listing saccharin in the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations to allow its use as a sweetener in certain foods. Just look at that: the scientists in Canada are "considering" re-listing saccharin as safe. Now, in 2023, many decades after that study was refuted. I can see the sugar lobbyists getting to their dinners and cigars and still patting themselves on the back for the stunt they pulled half a century ago. Edit: if you think there is no sugar lobby, here's a riddle for you: what is the biggest agricultural crop in the world? It must be one of rice, corn or wheat, right? No, it is sugar cane. As a piece of trivia, the world produces about the same amount of sugar cane each year as steel: 1.9 billion tons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Safety_and_health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Safety_and_health_ef... [2] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives/sugar-substitutes.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutriti...

anthomtb 4y ago

I just think there is no "free dessert" when it comes to sweetened foods. You are either consuming a bunch of empty calories (sugar/honey/agave), dealing with unpleasant GI or psychological side effects (sucralose/aspartame), experiencing an undesirable aftertaste (saccharin), risking a cardiovascular event (erythritol, apparently), burning your salary (allulose), or making weird recipe adjustments (stevia). The best solution is to kick the sugar habit. No soda, no cookies, no cake, no candy. Honestly, what purpose do these foods serve? Pleasing your palate? 30 grams of lightly salted almonds is just as pleasing to my palate as a piece of cake, contains the same amount of calories, and keeps me satiated for hours. About the only downside to skipping sweets is social acceptance. But that's not that hard to deal with. Co-worker: "hey, my wife made some cookies! Here, take one!". Me, "okay sure! They look great! I'll have that after my lunch." (said cookie then hits the trash can as soon as he gets out of sight).

mrguyorama 4y ago
A healthy diet can easily include occasional sweet foods and drinks. When I was counting calories, I could still include ice cream or cookies as long as I planned for it and did it in moderation. You can easily make a few hundred calories worth of wiggle room for snacks. Unless you are a tiny woman, in which case it seems really really difficult to restrict calories enough to lose weight but still eat a healthy minimum of calories per day.
- anthomtb 4y ago
  > A healthy diet can easily include occasional sweet foods and drinks. When I was counting calories I actually agree with this. From a pure calorie-counting and weight loss standpoint, you can almost always make room for sweets and still achieve your goals. A caloric intake is like any other budget. Sure, I can come up with money for a Burberry hoodie but it means delaying that GPU upgrade for another year (needless to say my clothes do not come from couture houses). I just find it hard to put sugar calories in my body when those calories could be going to protein for building muscle or fats and low-gi carbs for sustained energy. About the only time I can consume very sugary foods these days is on long and intense cycling workouts, and even then I have to force myself to do it. > Unless you are a tiny woman, in which case it seems really really difficult to restrict calories enough to lose weight but still eat a healthy minimum of calories per day Really really difficult is spot on. My SO is a tiny female and managed to drop from 53kg to 45kg. It required an extremely well controlled diet, 600-700kcal workouts 6 days a week, and took around 9 months. Restaurants were all but off the table since you never know where they sneak in calories and even sharing a plate with me might be too much. She sustains at around 46-47kg right now, which does allow some wiggle room in the diet, but the weight loss part itself was definitely beyond what most people are willing to do.