3 ms·

Ask HN: Is there evidence that artificial sweetener is bad for you?

• flavmartins 13y ago
  There. Is THERE evidence... Yes, there is lots of evidence. Both against artificial sweetener and also regular sugar for the body.
  • BookPage 13y ago
    Thanks - I swear to god I know the difference. Could you link me to anything you found definitive against artificial sweetener?
• dylanhassinger 13y ago
  I've looked into it and couldn't find any hard evidence linking artificial sweetener to cancer, alzeimers, or other problems. Sure there may be side effects, but so far they are undocumented. Sugar, on the other hand, is one of the most toxic substances we know, with proven links to diabetes, alzheimers, and other ailments. I'll take my chances with Aspartame!
• davak 13y ago
  MD (but not an endocrinologist) here. My family and I have been on a low carb diet for years now. I frequently do literature searches on the topic, and the scientific evidence remains less than perfect for just about anything nutrition related. In talking to metabolism people over the years, the bad artificial sweeteners theories go something like this. When you taste something sweet, your body prepares itself for true sugar. When you don't input the sugar to the body, you become hungry faster. Additionally, when you repeatedly use artificial sugars, you may decrease your sensitivity to the actual sweet taste. Thus, once again, subconsciously you end up eating more sweet things (and thus more calories) to make things taste better. Anecdotally, I believe I see this. When I drink a diet beverage, I end up getting very hungry soon afterwards. Additionally, when I drop all diet beverages for a while, I notice that things such as veggies taste sweeter. But you asked for empirical evidence. Here are the latest articles that I've noticed... Diet beverages increased risk of diabetes in middle-aged men. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575771 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575771 fMRI shows the process of taste is altered in chronic diet soda drinkers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583859 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583859 Sugar and diet sodas associated with stroke. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22492378 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22492378
• shail 13y ago
  Stevia?
  • makerops 13y ago
    I also am in keto, and use stevia, although sparingly. Anyone have any info regarding its safety? in exchange a recipy: cut a lemon into wedges, sprinkle a pack of stevia, eat said lemon. It's a great dessert!
• LarryMade2 13y ago
  There's the documentary Sweet Misery, that goes into some first hand accounts and history of aspertaime's effects and shady approval... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owtF2nt2VX4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owtF2nt2VX4 I can say for myself I had felt the bad effects of diet soda and now keep clear of it. Maybe it varies based on different folk's physiology? I know people who chug the stuff at work and seem to do well. But it's good to be aware of the symptoms in case you start feeling sick.
• ricardobeat 13y ago
  Recent and past research has linked sweeteners to obesity, diabetes, and even heart disease. Some studies show it results in larger weight gain than consuming sugar. In addition to those, substances like sodium cyclamate and aspartame have been linked to cancer after being considered 'safe' for decades. Who knows when they'll declare the same for neotame and other new sweeteners? If only xilitol made from bark was cheaper... I think the conclusion is that there is no magic formula for eating sweets without the consequences, avoiding refined sugar, high-fructose and similar stuff is the way to keep healthy and out of trouble. ps: stevia is probably safe, but I find it has too much of a bitter aftertaste.
  • tptacek 13y ago
    Things can come from bark and still be carcinogenic; that's an invocation of the naturalistic fallacy. Recent example: fish oil.
    • mjn 13y ago
      Aflatoxin is another one, notable for turning up nearly everywhere (including bark, sometimes). That's the example that led me to weaken my heuristic skepticism of nontraditional agriculture. I don't have a gaian spiritual attachment to traditional food production, but I'm skeptical that the testing of pesticides and fungicides used in farming, and the drugs given to farm-raised animals, is sufficiently stringent and long-term. I am okay with those in principle, but I would like them to be introduced more conservatively than today. At the store, the choice is between organic and regular food. So I can't buy my preferred choice of food, which would use novel drugs and chemicals but conservatively and after extensive testing. One heuristic, given that choice, is to prefer organic food. Not for the reasons most organic-food pushers are pushing it, but because organic food errs on the side of economic inefficiency, while regular food errs on the side of toxicity. Since I'm thankfully doing fairly well economically, my personal risk function prefers the first kind of error. But sadly that doesn't work. Due to aflatoxin being everywhere, organic food can be more carcinogenic than standard food is, depending on the specific food, climate, and distribution. In some cases it may be heuristically better to ingest even insufficiently tested chemicals if the organic alternative has higher levels of aflatoxin. And that's true even if money is no object. There are other examples, but that's the one that's common enough to have shot a hole in my purchasing heuristic. I would still prefer the in-between option, a class of food that does use pesticides and other drugs, but phases them in more conservatively, based on solid proof of their safety. Alas, there doesn't seem to be a profitable market halfway between regular and organic food.
• b3b0p 13y ago
  I wouldn't worry about. Personally, I drink Diet Coke (nectar of the gods). I don't think there has ever been a study on humans with a link to any cancer or specific issues. They have shown in rodents a link to cancer. However, the amount relative to body weight that the rodents were given was extreme. Anything in the extreme amounts in the studies is bound to cause problems. As they say, too much of anything is a bad thing. I bet they could link cancer to any chemical, mineral, supplement, etc in such quantities. Here are 2 studies: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/9/1654.full?ijkey=ac6c97b1ce31ada1c45888d3101fd0b9d5901fe7 http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/9/1654.full?ijkey=ac... http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/40.full http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/40.full My honest humble opinion is don't worry about. Drink your sweetened coffee and Diet Coke if you enjoy it. I believe I read some where that sweeteners are the most studied elements in the world and if there was a problem, a serious problem, I think it would have been known by now.