5 ms·

To people like me, it doesn't matter how unfounded it is. I'm sure there are people in this world who can benefit from sugar replacements, but in my mind there

To people like me, it doesn't matter how unfounded it is. I'm sure there are people in this world who can benefit from sugar replacements, but in my mind there is absolutely no reason at all to start feeding myself artificial sweeteners when there is enough sweeteners in nature. On a related note, I'm kinda happy to note that steviol is much in use here in southern europe, where I'm currently residing. They don't even make a big deal out of it, regular sodas, vitamin powders, you read the ingredients and there it is. Steviol is a sweetener based on a natural plant Stevia. I've so far seen it in both Hungary and Croatia. I come from Sweden and it used to be that Stevia products were in a bin on their own, marketed specifically as stevia products. But down here they don't even mention it on the marketing side of the label. It's buried in the ingredients.

glimshe 3y ago
You can easily buy that in the US, we have boxes of the stuff at home. Nowadays you can also buy Monk Fruit-based sweeteners, which are also "natural". Unfortunately, both taste a bit worse than Aspartame (which is already not so great). I guess this is just a matter of habit, though.
- INTPenis 3y ago
  I have never tasted any liquid with artificial sweeteners that was "right" to me. They all have a weird aftertaste that reveals to me that they contain a sweetener, even stevia products. I just would prefer the sweetener to be as natural as possible, if I had to use it.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > I have never tasted any liquid with artificial sweeteners that was "right" to me Since you seem to be against anything artificial for god knows why, is this possibly a bias? You know it's artificial and that knowledge results in you thinking it tastes off to you?
jebus989 3y ago
This is an example of the "appeal to nature" logical fallacy. You may be able to make a case that Stevia is healthier than Aspartame, but it should be based on evidence to that effect rather than because you like the idea that it has ingredients derived from organic material.
- INTPenis 3y ago
  You may call it "appeal to nature", I may call it; if it ain't broke, why fix it?
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    The problem is that you assume consistency, but in reality, we keep modifying plants / fruits / etc by selecting them and planting them. IIRC fruits are now too sweet for zoo animals.
    - ghostzilla 3y ago
      It is the statistical processes that determine how much something is "natural". Our bodies evolved alongside fruit that was on the smaller and less sweet side, and logically that's what we are the most compatible with. Over centuries and millennia we selected fruits to favor size and sweetness, and over 5 years we e.g. genetically modify a strawberry to have peach flavor. The last one is like a step function compared to the slow moving processes of the agricultural selection and so less "natural" and almost certainly less compatible with our bodies. We might still get lucky and get beneficial side effects of aspartame or peach-flavored strawberries that makes us faster, stronger, smarter, but with these things the luck usually works in the other direction.
  - sillystate2023 3y ago
    [dead]
  - sebstefan 3y ago
    Well a dictionary would call your comment an "appeal to nature" as well. Ricin is natural, hugging a bear is natural, I mean come on...
louthy 3y ago
Ricin [1] appears naturally in the castor oil plant. I wouldn't eat it just because it's "from nature". Who knows if Steviol is completely benign or not? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricin
- INTPenis 3y ago
  You're seriously comparing stevia to ricin? Why not compare it to opium then too? They're both processed from nature right? Are you a bot sent out from the aspartam industry?
  - louthy 3y ago
    No, I am not, I am suggesting your comment about something being good because it's natural is a logical fallacy
random_mutex 3y ago
Is there any benefit in using sugar replacements? When you eat something sweet your body prepares itself for the sugar intake which, in the case sweetener usage, t never comes. What are the long terms effects of this imbalance? Let's assume your organism addapts to this situation and at some point you consume something that contains actual sugar, how will it respond to that?
- ghosty141 3y ago
  You state this like it is a fact, but is this really the case? Does the body really anticipate anything in that case?
  - wkrsz 3y ago
    > But small amounts of insulin are also released before any sugar enters the bloodstream. This response is known as cephalic phase insulin release. It is triggered by the sight, smell, and taste of food, as well as chewing and swallowing (5Trusted Source). > BOTTOM LINE: Eating carbohydrates causes a rise in blood sugar levels. Insulin is released to bring blood sugar levels back to normal. Some claim that artificial sweeteners may interfere with this process. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/artificial-sweeteners-blood-sugar-insulin#TOC_TITLE_HDR_3 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/artificial-sweeteners-b...
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    When questions are claimed to be "state this like it is a fact," I decide to stop listening to one side of the argument . . .
  - random_mutex 3y ago
    The research on the topic is at your finger tips
- throwbadubadu 3y ago
  That taste ends up as preparation for something is completely new to me, is this an assumption, or has been shown? Afaik taste is the evolutionary (but now outdated) helper to choose non-poison and energy providing food? > Is there any benefit in using sugar replacements? Serious question? The taste joy without getting that much calories in? (Yes I know, we skew our taste and could also have joy without too much sugar, and also other ingredients, e.g. salt, but different topic).
bsder 3y ago
Anybody remember when "Saccharine causes cancer" went around and "Aspartame is natural" was the meme? Erm, yeah ...
_trackno5 3y ago
Like the other commenter said, you’re falling prey to the “appeal to nature” fallacy. There are plenty of natural things that are bad for you and plenty of synthetic things that are good for you. And there absolutely are reasons to feed yourself artificial sweeteners. Sugar-free soda is awesome for people trying to lose weight. The carbonated drink keeps you satiated and you don’t ingest any of the calories in regular soda.
pizza234 3y ago
> in my mind there is absolutely no reason at all to start feeding myself artificial sweeteners when there is enough sweeteners in nature. For you probably there aren't, but for others there is a very valid reason: to some (me included), Stevia's (and other products') taste sucks.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> there is absolutely no reason at all to start feeding myself artificial sweeteners when there is enough sweeteners in nature. It being artificial is irrelevant. Doesn't mean it's healthier or better/worse in any way.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Steviol isn't natural. Chewing on fresh stevia leaves is natural. Highly processed extracts mixed into highly acidic drinks isn't.

glimshe 3y ago

You can easily buy that in the US, we have boxes of the stuff at home. Nowadays you can also buy Monk Fruit-based sweeteners, which are also "natural". Unfortunately, both taste a bit worse than Aspartame (which is already not so great). I guess this is just a matter of habit, though.

INTPenis 3y ago
I have never tasted any liquid with artificial sweeteners that was "right" to me. They all have a weird aftertaste that reveals to me that they contain a sweetener, even stevia products. I just would prefer the sweetener to be as natural as possible, if I had to use it.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > I have never tasted any liquid with artificial sweeteners that was "right" to me Since you seem to be against anything artificial for god knows why, is this possibly a bias? You know it's artificial and that knowledge results in you thinking it tastes off to you?

jebus989 3y ago

This is an example of the "appeal to nature" logical fallacy. You may be able to make a case that Stevia is healthier than Aspartame, but it should be based on evidence to that effect rather than because you like the idea that it has ingredients derived from organic material.

INTPenis 3y ago
You may call it "appeal to nature", I may call it; if it ain't broke, why fix it?
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  The problem is that you assume consistency, but in reality, we keep modifying plants / fruits / etc by selecting them and planting them. IIRC fruits are now too sweet for zoo animals.
  - ghostzilla 3y ago
    It is the statistical processes that determine how much something is "natural". Our bodies evolved alongside fruit that was on the smaller and less sweet side, and logically that's what we are the most compatible with. Over centuries and millennia we selected fruits to favor size and sweetness, and over 5 years we e.g. genetically modify a strawberry to have peach flavor. The last one is like a step function compared to the slow moving processes of the agricultural selection and so less "natural" and almost certainly less compatible with our bodies. We might still get lucky and get beneficial side effects of aspartame or peach-flavored strawberries that makes us faster, stronger, smarter, but with these things the luck usually works in the other direction.
- sillystate2023 3y ago
  [dead]
- sebstefan 3y ago
  Well a dictionary would call your comment an "appeal to nature" as well. Ricin is natural, hugging a bear is natural, I mean come on...

louthy 3y ago

Ricin [1] appears naturally in the castor oil plant. I wouldn't eat it just because it's "from nature". Who knows if Steviol is completely benign or not? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricin

INTPenis 3y ago
You're seriously comparing stevia to ricin? Why not compare it to opium then too? They're both processed from nature right? Are you a bot sent out from the aspartam industry?
- louthy 3y ago
  No, I am not, I am suggesting your comment about something being good because it's natural is a logical fallacy

random_mutex 3y ago

Is there any benefit in using sugar replacements? When you eat something sweet your body prepares itself for the sugar intake which, in the case sweetener usage, t never comes. What are the long terms effects of this imbalance? Let's assume your organism addapts to this situation and at some point you consume something that contains actual sugar, how will it respond to that?

ghosty141 3y ago
You state this like it is a fact, but is this really the case? Does the body really anticipate anything in that case?
- wkrsz 3y ago
  > But small amounts of insulin are also released before any sugar enters the bloodstream. This response is known as cephalic phase insulin release. It is triggered by the sight, smell, and taste of food, as well as chewing and swallowing (5Trusted Source). > BOTTOM LINE: Eating carbohydrates causes a rise in blood sugar levels. Insulin is released to bring blood sugar levels back to normal. Some claim that artificial sweeteners may interfere with this process. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/artificial-sweeteners-blood-sugar-insulin#TOC_TITLE_HDR_3 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/artificial-sweeteners-b...
- drewcoo 3y ago
  When questions are claimed to be "state this like it is a fact," I decide to stop listening to one side of the argument . . .
- random_mutex 3y ago
  The research on the topic is at your finger tips
throwbadubadu 3y ago
That taste ends up as preparation for something is completely new to me, is this an assumption, or has been shown? Afaik taste is the evolutionary (but now outdated) helper to choose non-poison and energy providing food? > Is there any benefit in using sugar replacements? Serious question? The taste joy without getting that much calories in? (Yes I know, we skew our taste and could also have joy without too much sugar, and also other ingredients, e.g. salt, but different topic).

bsder 3y ago

Anybody remember when "Saccharine causes cancer" went around and "Aspartame is natural" was the meme? Erm, yeah ...

_trackno5 3y ago

Like the other commenter said, you’re falling prey to the “appeal to nature” fallacy. There are plenty of natural things that are bad for you and plenty of synthetic things that are good for you. And there absolutely are reasons to feed yourself artificial sweeteners. Sugar-free soda is awesome for people trying to lose weight. The carbonated drink keeps you satiated and you don’t ingest any of the calories in regular soda.

pizza234 3y ago

> in my mind there is absolutely no reason at all to start feeding myself artificial sweeteners when there is enough sweeteners in nature. For you probably there aren't, but for others there is a very valid reason: to some (me included), Stevia's (and other products') taste sucks.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

> there is absolutely no reason at all to start feeding myself artificial sweeteners when there is enough sweeteners in nature. It being artificial is irrelevant. Doesn't mean it's healthier or better/worse in any way.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Steviol isn't natural. Chewing on fresh stevia leaves is natural. Highly processed extracts mixed into highly acidic drinks isn't.