4 ms·

As the article mentions, this is a false dichotomy. If you're an ordinary person driven to be healthy, drink water. Water is great. If you're already drinking

by kibwen 6mo ago

As the article mentions, this is a false dichotomy. If you're an ordinary person driven to be healthy, drink water. Water is great. If you're already drinking water, you should absolutely not replace it with whatever bottled crap that Coke or Pepsi is peddling, be it "smart water" or otherwise. But for people with sugar cravings bordering on addiction, which describes a depressingly enormous proportion of the population in the developed world, replacing sugary drinks with zero-calorie artificially-sweetened drinks can be a net health benefit. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that obesity, diabetes, and heart disease are bad for your health, and consumption of sugar water is a significant driver of these. Yes, you could be even healthier by drinking water instead; see above. But sugar is an addictive chemical (sugar withdrawl is, in fact, a thing), and not everyone is going to quit cold turkey. (And for the record, I fully agree that people should be more cognizant of their gut biome and how their diet affects it, including being skeptical of aspartame and other random synthetic ingredients.)

cornholio 6mo ago
On the other hand, allowing people to feed their sweet addictions only re-enforces and desensitizates them further. So while you are probably safe drinking ungodly amounts of aspartame water, you won't find equivalent substitutes for sugar in other foods and you might suffer rebound consumption there, perhaps to a much higher total caloric intake versus just drinking sugary water in moderation. Another thing to watch out for is caffeine input which is often associated with sweetened drinks. Caffeine is a diuretic and you will see yourself drinking can after can of diet coke while not quite quenching your thirst or properly hydrating yourself. This is documented to lead to intense muscle pain and unexplained migraines for people who do physical work and abuse these types of drinks, and can't be good for your kidneys long term, even under the assumption that sweeteners are 100% safe. Overall, just drink plenty of water and use everything else in moderation seems like a solid advice.
kakacik 6mo ago
Or... you know, there could be some little actual effort in shedding such addiction (sugar ain't that hard), build a bit of character and walk off better off in many regards. Winning against addiction won't kill you, break you or similar damage but makes you (much) stronger and healthier as a bonus. Why do people shy away from such things? But no, lets do everything possible just to keep the comfortable crappy couch lifestyle, no sweat, no effort, miserable health, miserable life. Then there are articles how US population (which suffers the most these shit HFCS addictions and resulting obesity problems) is depressed... for many reasons of course, but this sort of helpless victim mindset is one of them.
- tptacek 6mo ago
  There's nothing wrong with HFCS either, at least not that isn't also wrong with sugar. This is all just naturalist fallacy stuff.
  - Groxx 6mo ago
    The HFCS stuff always feels weird to me. Like sure, there's glycemic index impact, it is measurably different, etc... but I feel like people don't realize that "high" fructose is different only by a few percent from table sugar, and is "high" only because it's being compared to regular corn syrup. Like... HFCS-42 is 42% fructose. That's lower than cane / table sugar, which is 50%. If you really think fructose is the problem, HFCS-42 is an improvement. Or even better, embrace regular corn syrup because it has little to no fructose normally! It's nearly 100% glucose! (This is why 42% is "high") And if it's glycemic index that people are worried about, throw in a tiny amount of dissolvable fiber in your drink and it'll lower that by more than the sugar balance affects it. None of it makes sense.
    - tptacek 6mo ago
      I don't believe it is measurably different! Apart from what you noted (HFCS is "high fructose" relative to normal corn syrup, not table sugar), ordinary sugars are broken down instantly by the human body. The subtext and I think valid concern about HFCS is that it drastically reduces the cost of calorically sweetening foods and especially beverages. But people routinely cruise past that to claims that HFCS itself is uniquely harmful to humans, and it isn't, at least no more than sugar is.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - Groxx 6mo ago
        I think it's fairly safe to say there's a measurable difference - fructose generally (afaict) has noticeably lower insulin responses compared to glucose. Though it's still very minor compared to the total change vs none of course, and I haven't seen much of anything showing evidence of a benefit compared to the other - just "technically different". Definitely agreed that there's a weird demonizing of HFCS in particular though. Maybe because it sounds technical? It's easy to point to because it's common, and it doesn't sound "natural". And personally I don't think HFCS's clear manufacturing benefits really affect much, it's just the most convenient so it's the most used. The addictive qualities of sugar are much more valuable, IMO They™ would continue to sweeten things at the same level even if it were completely banned. They'd just use something else, and sucrose is also very cheap.
malfist 6mo ago
> sugar cravings bordering on addiction, which describes a depressingly enormous proportion of the population It's almost like our bodies are designed to crave calories
- kibwen 6mo ago
  Our bodies are designed to crave calories, but habitually ingesting too much sugar is more about hijacking dopamine release pathways than about fulfilling your body's basic need for satiation.

by kibwen 6mo ago

cornholio 6mo ago

On the other hand, allowing people to feed their sweet addictions only re-enforces and desensitizates them further. So while you are probably safe drinking ungodly amounts of aspartame water, you won't find equivalent substitutes for sugar in other foods and you might suffer rebound consumption there, perhaps to a much higher total caloric intake versus just drinking sugary water in moderation. Another thing to watch out for is caffeine input which is often associated with sweetened drinks. Caffeine is a diuretic and you will see yourself drinking can after can of diet coke while not quite quenching your thirst or properly hydrating yourself. This is documented to lead to intense muscle pain and unexplained migraines for people who do physical work and abuse these types of drinks, and can't be good for your kidneys long term, even under the assumption that sweeteners are 100% safe. Overall, just drink plenty of water and use everything else in moderation seems like a solid advice.

kakacik 6mo ago

Or... you know, there could be some little actual effort in shedding such addiction (sugar ain't that hard), build a bit of character and walk off better off in many regards. Winning against addiction won't kill you, break you or similar damage but makes you (much) stronger and healthier as a bonus. Why do people shy away from such things? But no, lets do everything possible just to keep the comfortable crappy couch lifestyle, no sweat, no effort, miserable health, miserable life. Then there are articles how US population (which suffers the most these shit HFCS addictions and resulting obesity problems) is depressed... for many reasons of course, but this sort of helpless victim mindset is one of them.

tptacek 6mo ago
There's nothing wrong with HFCS either, at least not that isn't also wrong with sugar. This is all just naturalist fallacy stuff.
- Groxx 6mo ago
  The HFCS stuff always feels weird to me. Like sure, there's glycemic index impact, it is measurably different, etc... but I feel like people don't realize that "high" fructose is different only by a few percent from table sugar, and is "high" only because it's being compared to regular corn syrup. Like... HFCS-42 is 42% fructose. That's lower than cane / table sugar, which is 50%. If you really think fructose is the problem, HFCS-42 is an improvement. Or even better, embrace regular corn syrup because it has little to no fructose normally! It's nearly 100% glucose! (This is why 42% is "high") And if it's glycemic index that people are worried about, throw in a tiny amount of dissolvable fiber in your drink and it'll lower that by more than the sugar balance affects it. None of it makes sense.
  - tptacek 6mo ago
    I don't believe it is measurably different! Apart from what you noted (HFCS is "high fructose" relative to normal corn syrup, not table sugar), ordinary sugars are broken down instantly by the human body. The subtext and I think valid concern about HFCS is that it drastically reduces the cost of calorically sweetening foods and especially beverages. But people routinely cruise past that to claims that HFCS itself is uniquely harmful to humans, and it isn't, at least no more than sugar is.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Groxx 6mo ago
      I think it's fairly safe to say there's a measurable difference - fructose generally (afaict) has noticeably lower insulin responses compared to glucose. Though it's still very minor compared to the total change vs none of course, and I haven't seen much of anything showing evidence of a benefit compared to the other - just "technically different". Definitely agreed that there's a weird demonizing of HFCS in particular though. Maybe because it sounds technical? It's easy to point to because it's common, and it doesn't sound "natural". And personally I don't think HFCS's clear manufacturing benefits really affect much, it's just the most convenient so it's the most used. The addictive qualities of sugar are much more valuable, IMO They™ would continue to sweeten things at the same level even if it were completely banned. They'd just use something else, and sucrose is also very cheap.

malfist 6mo ago

> sugar cravings bordering on addiction, which describes a depressingly enormous proportion of the population It's almost like our bodies are designed to crave calories

kibwen 6mo ago
Our bodies are designed to crave calories, but habitually ingesting too much sugar is more about hijacking dopamine release pathways than about fulfilling your body's basic need for satiation.