10 ms·

The Evidence Supports Artificial Sweeteners Over Sugar

86 points by toby 11y ago

jjbiotech 11y ago
Interesting that this article didn't mention sucralose (Splenda).
- phkahler 11y ago
  >> Interesting that this article didn't mention sucralose (Splenda). I know someone whose baby was very active in womb to the point that she worried about it. And then she read that sucralose was shown to cause miscarriage in animals so she stopped eating it (it was in something she ate regularly) and the baby calmed right down. But that's just one datum.
  - fpgaminer 11y ago
    Sorry, but anecdotal evidence like that is not a valid counterargument. To the contrary, anecdotal evidence is oftentimes damaging. It spreads misinformation and fear, and is a common tool used by those with perverse agendas (I'm not imply this is the case here).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - SG- 11y ago
    If she started eating nothing but pizza she would probably claim pizza was the solution.
    - seba_dos1 11y ago
      That wouldn't be bad, pizza is always the solution.
      - cholantesh 11y ago
        I thought that was alcohol.
0xffff2 11y ago
I thought the primary argument against artificial sweeteners these days was that they cause the body to expect a large inflow of sugar without actually delivering on that promise. This, in turn, leads to the consumer craving sugar even more, in many cases leading to higher total calorie consumption that if we just ate the sugar in the first place. It seems to me that by far the best option would be to limit consumption of both added sugars and artificial sweeteners.
- ssharp 11y ago
  Is there strong evidence backing that up? Personally, I've done low-carb diets where things with sugar are almost entirely off-limits, minus a small amount of fruit, and whatever small quantities of sugar are present in non-starchy vegetable. During these diets, I've tried them with and without artificial sugars. Those artificial sugars would be consumed in either diet drinks/sodas, or with coffee. I had the occasional desire to consume something with lots of carbs/sugar, but I can't say it was any strong with artificial sugars than without. If anything, for me, the artificial sugars worked to satiate the desire for something sweet.
  - malkia 11y ago
    Here is how I fall off the atkins diet. First I was on strict diet, less than 10 grams a day sugar first two weeks, then restrict to less than 20 grams and gradually increase... Then one day I had craving for chocolate, got one with malittol - first a little chunk, then a bit more, a bit more... Then I had troubles in the loo, more troubles, more troubles, and... switched back to normal chocolate. It did not worked for me. But it could the next time...
    - Frozenlock 11y ago
      https://www.reddit.com/r/keto https://www.reddit.com/r/keto
- rfw 11y ago
  I believe that the insulin spike theory has been mostly debunked: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21245879 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21245879 You shouldn't swear off artificial sweeteners because of the stigma around them, especially since there's such an abundance of research around them debunking all the purported ill effects (except for maybe laxative effects and bad reactions in phenylketonurics) – you can have your artificially sweetened cake and eat it too.
bunderbunder 11y ago
But what about sugar? We should acknowledge that when I, and many others, address sugar in contexts like these, we are talking about added sugars, not the naturally occurring sugars or carbohydrates you find in things like fruit. Those are, for the most part, not the problem. *Added* sugars are. In a world where extremely sugary products such as fruit juice and even sugar cane juice can claim "no sugar added" prominently on the label, I find this statement to be problematic. It seems a little bit akin to implying that you can drink all the applejack you want without worrying about intoxication because it has "no alcohol added" - instead, water was removed. I can guarantee your liver is not playing pedantic word games around the process by which that beverage got to 40% ABV, all it cares about is whether you're drinking too much alcohol or not.
- _delirium 11y ago
  It's been a common trend to actually add sugar via this method too, using e.g. pear juice concentrate as an ingredient to sweeten the resulting product. This is not really any less "adding sugar" than sweetening a product with sugar concentrated from sugar beets or corn.
  - mattmaroon 11y ago
    This seems like a problem easily fixed by a simple regulation. Any product containing an ingredient which has a higher sugar content than it's natural range may not use the "no sugar added" label. Might have to define the range for various ingredients since I'm sure breeders/engineers would figure out how to increase the brix on a pear.
    - switch007 11y ago
      Coca Cola company: Revenue: US$ 46.854 billion (2013) Operating income: US$ 10.228 billion (2013) Net income: US$ 8.584 billion (2013) Not sure that's going to happen any time soon :(
      - mixmastamyk 11y ago
nitrogen 11y ago
Do artificial sweeteners have any of sugar's other effects beside providing calories? Do they trigger the sweetness taste receptors in the digestive system or trigger an increase in insulin? Or do they simply become inert past the tongue?
- err4nt 11y ago
  I can't speak for all the science behind sugars and sweeteners, but this guy does a really good job of explaining how different sugars are metabolized (and the implications of those processes) here: Sugar: The Bitter Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  I think everyone started out assuming they had no other effects. Recently, though, evidence has shown up [0] that suggests that they have some unexpected effects on gut bacteria. I don't think anyone has figured out why. [0] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeten...
- adventured 11y ago
  All artificial sweeteners are not created equal. Check out erythritol, it's superior to most of the others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol
  - odiroot 11y ago
    My only problem with it is that it's super hard to combine it with other ingredients (baking for example). It stays in the granulated form no matter how much liquid you add or how long you stir.
- astrange 11y ago
  They mostly don't cause insulin spikes. Sugar alcohols in particular are indigestible, so eating too many will make your intestines unhappy with you… On the other hand, they apparently _heal_ cavities instead of causing them. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1291185 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1291185
zzalpha 11y ago
My wife and I limit our children’s consumption of soda to around four to five times a week. That's limited? Once a week, that's limited. Once every weeknight isn't limited, it's a habit. Given the choice, I'll take a naturally sweetened beverage weekly over an artificially sweetened beverage daily, if only because of the awful taste of artificial sweeteners...
- spathi_fwiffo 11y ago
  Four or five times a week is still a large quantity; but, it isn't so much when compared to having sodas as as the only form of liquid intake.
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    Absolutely true. And to be fair, my comment doesn't change the basic premise of the article: that if you're going to drink a sweetened beverage, artificial sweeteners have fewer negative health effects than sugar. I just found the statement odd. It seems the author's and my ideas of "reduced intake" don't align with one another... I mean, I can't imagine anyone would say a bag of candy every day constitutes "reduced intake". But for some reason it's acceptable when it comes to beverages. Go figure.
    - chrisfosterelli 11y ago
      I think the difference between having a bag of candy every day and a diet pop every day is that it isn't healthy to have candy that often. As far as we currently know, there isn't anything wrong with that level of diet pop consumption. I am in the same boat, I probably have 4-5 diet pop drinks per week. However, if it was naturally sweetened pop I wouldn't consider it OK to drink more than one a week. Everything in appropriate moderation. Although, to be fair, I don't consider the level of pop I drink to be "reduced", but it's less than what some children will drink if left unmoderated.
      - zzalpha 11y ago
        Yeah, but keep in mind, the author of the article isn't saying daily intake is okay because of the artificial sweeteners. I read it to mean, the kids are going to drink pop 4-5 times a week. We give them artificially sweetened pop so that it's "healthy". Contrasting this again with candy: if a parent said "I give my kids candy every day with their dinner, but I make sure it has sucralose in it", I'd still find it odd, because candy shouldn't be a daily occurrence. And yet, for some reason, soda is. It really is very strange, don't you think?
hiou 11y ago
> In the last few years, I’ve watched a continuing battle among my friends about which is worse for you: artificial sweeteners or sugar. And now we are going to watch the same thing on this thread. Why are these diet fad bits so popular on HN?
- gambiter 11y ago
  Can you really call a discussion about ingredients which have been studied/discussed for decades a 'fad'? I think the main point is that there is A LOT of misinformation out there, and people have made up their minds on things without adequate evidence. Anti-vaxxers are (rightly) lambasted for this... IMO, anyone who makes public statements about nutrition without doing adequate research deserves the same. Articles like this one are important. Even though it still has some opinion sprinkled in, it has a lot of links to evidence, and that is what people really need.
gtrubetskoy 11y ago
There is a lot of evidence that even the sugars naturally present in fruit are not good for you in large amounts either, e.g. in fruit juices. Oranges are best consumed as oranges, not as orange juice, which contains all of the sugar and none of the good stuff like fiber. Also drinking a single glass of orange juice equates to eating a whole bunch of oranges at once, which just doesn't sound healthy.
- misev 11y ago
  Actually freshly squeezed orange juice is not completely void of fiber, even if you try to sieve it out. Not sure why are you so certain that fiber is such good stuff anyway.
fpgaminer 11y ago
I feel like people are actively trying to worsen their diets, despite vocalizations to the contrary. (I'll be speaking from an American perspective here). I mean, people say they want to eat healthy, but all the actions I see are in the opposite direction. First, there was the anti-fat movement. Everyone ran from fat like it was the plague, believing it to be responsible for heart disease and obesity. Turns out, neither is true, quite the opposite in fact, and fat is generally good for you (excepting, e.g. trans fat). What happened, though, was that fat was replaced by sugar in our diets. Leading to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease... Alongside the anti-fat movement came olestra, the fat substitute that solved the problem that people created with the fat witchhunt. This was their fat savior, and what was the general response? Everyone was afraid of this scary chemical, worried that it would cause anal leakage (hint: it doesn't); they burned it alive and went about their merry lives with a jug of soda in their hands. So, now we're knee deep in the consequences of that previous diet, and people say they want to be healthy again. Science creates artificial sweeteners, so as to sate the new desire for sugary food and drink. The response is again one of unfounded and irrational fear. So people turn to what they view as their last bastion of hope: vegetables. But no, we couldn't just eat vegetables. We could only eat them if they were organic. The general thinking being that organic vegetables must be healthier, and avoid dangerous, scary pesticides (hint: the pesticides on organic food are worse). Problem is, vegetables were expensive and difficult to use in the first place (they spoil quickly, requiring frequent market trips). Organics only made it worse, for both organic and non-organic sources. And to top it off, people are wailing against GMO, which would have presented a solution to the insane desire for "organic" foodstuff. I just don't get it. The average person bemoans their health and cries for a better diet, but every step they take is towards something worse. A great example I've found is bacon. I tell people that bacon is good for them; a healthy choice. Every time I receive puzzled looks and they think I'm joking. Usually while they stuff their faces with hamburgers. But guess what? That hamburger comes with a calorie loaded, glucose spiking bun, and sugary sauce. The beef it's made from has perhaps the worst impact on the global environment of any animal based food. And people will scarf down their entire 1000+ calorie burger, only to feel hungry enough to eat some fries to top it off. My bacon? It's a measly 43 calories per slice, with me maxing out at 4 slices on my best days. I feel full and sated afterwards, with none of that hamburger bloat. Pork is significantly better for the environment compared to beef. And I didn't have to put sugary sauce or carb heavy buns on my meal. And all that fat? Bacon has the same fat content as a hamburger.
shaneqful 11y ago
The author has a very good youtube channel if you like getting advice like this that can be trusted. https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage I'd also recommend using http://examine.com/ http://examine.com/ to validate studios on what you are going to eat by yourself.
- shaneqful 11y ago
  studies
doodpants 11y ago
I don't care which of them is least bad for you, my problem is that all artificial sweeteners taste terrible! If I consume something that contains aspartame or sucralose, I can taste it, and I don't like it. Even Stevia tastes awful. And what I really hate is that sucralose is now being used in lots of non-diet beverages that also contain sugar or corn syrup! The Arizona Beverage Company does this with some of their drinks, for example.
- astrange 11y ago
  Yeah, isn't it weird that nobody in America can sell bottled tea without trying to make it ridiculously sweet? Here, try this: http://www.amazon.com/Teas-Tea-Unsweetened-Green-Ounce/dp/B0017T6S0Y/ref=sr_1_6?rps=1&ie=UTF8&qid=1438026388&sr=8-6&keywords=oi+ocha http://www.amazon.com/Teas-Tea-Unsweetened-Green-Ounce/dp/B0... Also available at Costco or any Asian grocery store (at least on the west coast).
- roel_v 11y ago
  Meh, it's an acquired taste, like tea without sugar. Takes a week of getting used to and then you don't want to go back. Try Coke Zero for a week.
larssorenson 11y ago
It seems that this article also somehow missed entirely the potential link between some artificial sweeteners and diabetes[1][2] [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095119 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095119 [2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature1...
- evanpw 11y ago
  The link between real sugar and diabetes is very strong and well-studied, so any effect of artificial sweeteners on the incidence of diabetes would have to be a lot more definite before "replace sugar with artificial substitutes" would be bad advice. (Even if "eliminate sugar and don't replace it" might be better from a purely health-oriented standpoint.)
curiousjorge 11y ago
My biggest gripe about artificial sweeteners or anything with 'no sugar' is that it feels empty. Yes it is sweet, yes it is delicious but it just doesn't seem to have that fullness I get from consuming sugar. I know sugar is harmful so I prefer artificial sweeteners but I can still detect some something-is-off-this-might-be-chemical-taste feeling. I might be oversensitive here but splenda is a definite step up from aspartame.
- adventured 11y ago
  It's surprising you're getting a fullness response from consuming sugar, given how poor and short lived of an energy source it is. Typically sugar leaves people feeling a lot less full, which leads to craving more, and comes with an energy crash shortly thereafter. Maybe try using artificial sweeteners and supplementing your diet with more fiber and or protein at the point you consume the artificial sweetener, both of which will fill you up (or should) drastically more than sugar. That might compensate for the sensation you're getting regarding removing sugar.
eastbayjake 11y ago
It's disappointing this article only addressed cancer risk but avoided artificial sweeteners' possible impact on gut bacteria.[1][2] I quit Diet Coke cold turkey after reading several of these studies. I won't extrapolate from my personal experiences -- I really do wish there were more studies about gut bacteria's impact on our health -- but I've felt better after avoiding artificial sweeteners and adding probiotic foods to my diet like greek yogurt and kombucha. [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature1... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeten...
- S_A_P 11y ago
  I don't know that there is a way to reliably measure some of the positive benefits of avoiding artificial sweeteners. I briefly tried switching to diet drinks before giving up semi regular soda drinking. Even after I got used to the taste, I seemed to get headaches and/or a general feeling of malaise or bad feeling. I don't know if it is your body thinking it ate something sweet and sending out too much insulin or what. It could totally be a psychosomatic response, but I just feel better when I stick to water, black coffee, or drinks with real sugar(on the occasion I have something like that) I cant really see that being easily quantified though.
  - axlprose 11y ago
    Do you know if you get that with other sweeteners like sucralose or stevia? Because if not, you might just be sensitive to the phenylalanine in aspartame. It can have psychoactive effects in large enough quantities, and can cause adverse reactions in certain people that are consistent with the symptoms you're describing. Personally, I prefer aspertame drinks for this reason; they feel more stimulating to me, and I suspect it's due to the phenylalanine since it can potentially get converted into dopamine/norepinephrine/epinephrine, which is useful for me cause I have adhd. Though the effects from that are minuscule compared to the effect of the caffeine that aspartame is usually paired with. For the record (for people downvoting), there's nothing wrong with phenylalanine, most of the anti-aspartame propaganda labels it as a "neurotoxin"/"excitotoxin"/whatever, which is just FUD. It's just a psychoactive amino acid and half of what makes up aspartame (aspartic acid being the other half). And a few people do have allergic reactions to it.
evanpw 11y ago
The arguments against artificial sweeteners seem a little like the arguments against e-cigarettes. Yes, there are plausible mechanisms by which the substitutes may cause harm. Yes, further research is needed. Yes, cutting out both the original and the substitute would be better. But people really like (or "like") sugar and cigarettes, so the most likely outcome of loudly proclaiming the dangers of substitutes is that more people stay with the originals, which are almost certainly worse.
vixen99 11y ago
Problems with sweeteners? "none can be detected with artificial sweeteners" concludes the author. Plenty of peer-reviewed papers suggest that this is either not true or the issue is not adequately resolved. Sugar consumed in the quantities used by many people is certainly dangerous but there is another option which is that of abandoning sweeteners altogether. Food stripped of habitual sweetness as in say, tea and coffee, is so much more interesting.
- cheapsteak 11y ago
  Is your argument that people should change their tastes?
mixmastamyk 11y ago
Generally agreed with the article, but I'm surprised when I see parents still giving their kids soda these days, diet or not. We generally drink water and it's just fine, when we want something "fancy" we get the sparkling water at Trader Joe's that has the orange or berry essence. They are available at other stores as well, no sugar or artificial sweeteners, and kids still love them. It may seem like we need everything to be sweetened from habit, but you can easily start a new habit. Once you get used to something, it becomes the new normal.

86 points by toby 11y ago

jjbiotech 11y ago

Interesting that this article didn't mention sucralose (Splenda).

phkahler 11y ago
>> Interesting that this article didn't mention sucralose (Splenda). I know someone whose baby was very active in womb to the point that she worried about it. And then she read that sucralose was shown to cause miscarriage in animals so she stopped eating it (it was in something she ate regularly) and the baby calmed right down. But that's just one datum.
- fpgaminer 11y ago
  Sorry, but anecdotal evidence like that is not a valid counterargument. To the contrary, anecdotal evidence is oftentimes damaging. It spreads misinformation and fear, and is a common tool used by those with perverse agendas (I'm not imply this is the case here).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- SG- 11y ago
  If she started eating nothing but pizza she would probably claim pizza was the solution.
  - seba_dos1 11y ago
    That wouldn't be bad, pizza is always the solution.
    - cholantesh 11y ago
      I thought that was alcohol.

0xffff2 11y ago

I thought the primary argument against artificial sweeteners these days was that they cause the body to expect a large inflow of sugar without actually delivering on that promise. This, in turn, leads to the consumer craving sugar even more, in many cases leading to higher total calorie consumption that if we just ate the sugar in the first place. It seems to me that by far the best option would be to limit consumption of both added sugars and artificial sweeteners.

ssharp 11y ago
Is there strong evidence backing that up? Personally, I've done low-carb diets where things with sugar are almost entirely off-limits, minus a small amount of fruit, and whatever small quantities of sugar are present in non-starchy vegetable. During these diets, I've tried them with and without artificial sugars. Those artificial sugars would be consumed in either diet drinks/sodas, or with coffee. I had the occasional desire to consume something with lots of carbs/sugar, but I can't say it was any strong with artificial sugars than without. If anything, for me, the artificial sugars worked to satiate the desire for something sweet.
- malkia 11y ago
  Here is how I fall off the atkins diet. First I was on strict diet, less than 10 grams a day sugar first two weeks, then restrict to less than 20 grams and gradually increase... Then one day I had craving for chocolate, got one with malittol - first a little chunk, then a bit more, a bit more... Then I had troubles in the loo, more troubles, more troubles, and... switched back to normal chocolate. It did not worked for me. But it could the next time...
  - Frozenlock 11y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/keto https://www.reddit.com/r/keto
rfw 11y ago
I believe that the insulin spike theory has been mostly debunked: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21245879 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21245879 You shouldn't swear off artificial sweeteners because of the stigma around them, especially since there's such an abundance of research around them debunking all the purported ill effects (except for maybe laxative effects and bad reactions in phenylketonurics) – you can have your artificially sweetened cake and eat it too.

bunderbunder 11y ago

But what about sugar? We should acknowledge that when I, and many others, address sugar in contexts like these, we are talking about added sugars, not the naturally occurring sugars or carbohydrates you find in things like fruit. Those are, for the most part, not the problem. *Added* sugars are. In a world where extremely sugary products such as fruit juice and even sugar cane juice can claim "no sugar added" prominently on the label, I find this statement to be problematic. It seems a little bit akin to implying that you can drink all the applejack you want without worrying about intoxication because it has "no alcohol added" - instead, water was removed. I can guarantee your liver is not playing pedantic word games around the process by which that beverage got to 40% ABV, all it cares about is whether you're drinking too much alcohol or not.

_delirium 11y ago
It's been a common trend to actually add sugar via this method too, using e.g. pear juice concentrate as an ingredient to sweeten the resulting product. This is not really any less "adding sugar" than sweetening a product with sugar concentrated from sugar beets or corn.
- mattmaroon 11y ago
  This seems like a problem easily fixed by a simple regulation. Any product containing an ingredient which has a higher sugar content than it's natural range may not use the "no sugar added" label. Might have to define the range for various ingredients since I'm sure breeders/engineers would figure out how to increase the brix on a pear.
  - switch007 11y ago
    Coca Cola company: Revenue: US$ 46.854 billion (2013) Operating income: US$ 10.228 billion (2013) Net income: US$ 8.584 billion (2013) Not sure that's going to happen any time soon :(
    - mixmastamyk 11y ago

nitrogen 11y ago

Do artificial sweeteners have any of sugar's other effects beside providing calories? Do they trigger the sweetness taste receptors in the digestive system or trigger an increase in insulin? Or do they simply become inert past the tongue?

err4nt 11y ago
I can't speak for all the science behind sugars and sweeteners, but this guy does a really good job of explaining how different sugars are metabolized (and the implications of those processes) here: Sugar: The Bitter Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
ScottBurson 11y ago
I think everyone started out assuming they had no other effects. Recently, though, evidence has shown up [0] that suggests that they have some unexpected effects on gut bacteria. I don't think anyone has figured out why. [0] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeten...
adventured 11y ago
All artificial sweeteners are not created equal. Check out erythritol, it's superior to most of the others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol
- odiroot 11y ago
  My only problem with it is that it's super hard to combine it with other ingredients (baking for example). It stays in the granulated form no matter how much liquid you add or how long you stir.
astrange 11y ago
They mostly don't cause insulin spikes. Sugar alcohols in particular are indigestible, so eating too many will make your intestines unhappy with you… On the other hand, they apparently _heal_ cavities instead of causing them. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1291185 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1291185

zzalpha 11y ago

My wife and I limit our children’s consumption of soda to around four to five times a week. That's limited? Once a week, that's limited. Once every weeknight isn't limited, it's a habit. Given the choice, I'll take a naturally sweetened beverage weekly over an artificially sweetened beverage daily, if only because of the awful taste of artificial sweeteners...

spathi_fwiffo 11y ago
Four or five times a week is still a large quantity; but, it isn't so much when compared to having sodas as as the only form of liquid intake.
- zzalpha 11y ago
  Absolutely true. And to be fair, my comment doesn't change the basic premise of the article: that if you're going to drink a sweetened beverage, artificial sweeteners have fewer negative health effects than sugar. I just found the statement odd. It seems the author's and my ideas of "reduced intake" don't align with one another... I mean, I can't imagine anyone would say a bag of candy every day constitutes "reduced intake". But for some reason it's acceptable when it comes to beverages. Go figure.
  - chrisfosterelli 11y ago
    I think the difference between having a bag of candy every day and a diet pop every day is that it isn't healthy to have candy that often. As far as we currently know, there isn't anything wrong with that level of diet pop consumption. I am in the same boat, I probably have 4-5 diet pop drinks per week. However, if it was naturally sweetened pop I wouldn't consider it OK to drink more than one a week. Everything in appropriate moderation. Although, to be fair, I don't consider the level of pop I drink to be "reduced", but it's less than what some children will drink if left unmoderated.
    - zzalpha 11y ago
      Yeah, but keep in mind, the author of the article isn't saying daily intake is okay because of the artificial sweeteners. I read it to mean, the kids are going to drink pop 4-5 times a week. We give them artificially sweetened pop so that it's "healthy". Contrasting this again with candy: if a parent said "I give my kids candy every day with their dinner, but I make sure it has sucralose in it", I'd still find it odd, because candy shouldn't be a daily occurrence. And yet, for some reason, soda is. It really is very strange, don't you think?

hiou 11y ago

> In the last few years, I’ve watched a continuing battle among my friends about which is worse for you: artificial sweeteners or sugar. And now we are going to watch the same thing on this thread. Why are these diet fad bits so popular on HN?

gambiter 11y ago
Can you really call a discussion about ingredients which have been studied/discussed for decades a 'fad'? I think the main point is that there is A LOT of misinformation out there, and people have made up their minds on things without adequate evidence. Anti-vaxxers are (rightly) lambasted for this... IMO, anyone who makes public statements about nutrition without doing adequate research deserves the same. Articles like this one are important. Even though it still has some opinion sprinkled in, it has a lot of links to evidence, and that is what people really need.

gtrubetskoy 11y ago

There is a lot of evidence that even the sugars naturally present in fruit are not good for you in large amounts either, e.g. in fruit juices. Oranges are best consumed as oranges, not as orange juice, which contains all of the sugar and none of the good stuff like fiber. Also drinking a single glass of orange juice equates to eating a whole bunch of oranges at once, which just doesn't sound healthy.

misev 11y ago
Actually freshly squeezed orange juice is not completely void of fiber, even if you try to sieve it out. Not sure why are you so certain that fiber is such good stuff anyway.

fpgaminer 11y ago

I feel like people are actively trying to worsen their diets, despite vocalizations to the contrary. (I'll be speaking from an American perspective here). I mean, people say they want to eat healthy, but all the actions I see are in the opposite direction. First, there was the anti-fat movement. Everyone ran from fat like it was the plague, believing it to be responsible for heart disease and obesity. Turns out, neither is true, quite the opposite in fact, and fat is generally good for you (excepting, e.g. trans fat). What happened, though, was that fat was replaced by sugar in our diets. Leading to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease... Alongside the anti-fat movement came olestra, the fat substitute that solved the problem that people created with the fat witchhunt. This was their fat savior, and what was the general response? Everyone was afraid of this scary chemical, worried that it would cause anal leakage (hint: it doesn't); they burned it alive and went about their merry lives with a jug of soda in their hands. So, now we're knee deep in the consequences of that previous diet, and people say they want to be healthy again. Science creates artificial sweeteners, so as to sate the new desire for sugary food and drink. The response is again one of unfounded and irrational fear. So people turn to what they view as their last bastion of hope: vegetables. But no, we couldn't just eat vegetables. We could only eat them if they were organic. The general thinking being that organic vegetables must be healthier, and avoid dangerous, scary pesticides (hint: the pesticides on organic food are worse). Problem is, vegetables were expensive and difficult to use in the first place (they spoil quickly, requiring frequent market trips). Organics only made it worse, for both organic and non-organic sources. And to top it off, people are wailing against GMO, which would have presented a solution to the insane desire for "organic" foodstuff. I just don't get it. The average person bemoans their health and cries for a better diet, but every step they take is towards something worse. A great example I've found is bacon. I tell people that bacon is good for them; a healthy choice. Every time I receive puzzled looks and they think I'm joking. Usually while they stuff their faces with hamburgers. But guess what? That hamburger comes with a calorie loaded, glucose spiking bun, and sugary sauce. The beef it's made from has perhaps the worst impact on the global environment of any animal based food. And people will scarf down their entire 1000+ calorie burger, only to feel hungry enough to eat some fries to top it off. My bacon? It's a measly 43 calories per slice, with me maxing out at 4 slices on my best days. I feel full and sated afterwards, with none of that hamburger bloat. Pork is significantly better for the environment compared to beef. And I didn't have to put sugary sauce or carb heavy buns on my meal. And all that fat? Bacon has the same fat content as a hamburger.

shaneqful 11y ago

The author has a very good youtube channel if you like getting advice like this that can be trusted. https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage I'd also recommend using http://examine.com/ http://examine.com/ to validate studios on what you are going to eat by yourself.

shaneqful 11y ago
studies

doodpants 11y ago

I don't care which of them is least bad for you, my problem is that all artificial sweeteners taste terrible! If I consume something that contains aspartame or sucralose, I can taste it, and I don't like it. Even Stevia tastes awful. And what I really hate is that sucralose is now being used in lots of non-diet beverages that also contain sugar or corn syrup! The Arizona Beverage Company does this with some of their drinks, for example.

astrange 11y ago
Yeah, isn't it weird that nobody in America can sell bottled tea without trying to make it ridiculously sweet? Here, try this: http://www.amazon.com/Teas-Tea-Unsweetened-Green-Ounce/dp/B0017T6S0Y/ref=sr_1_6?rps=1&ie=UTF8&qid=1438026388&sr=8-6&keywords=oi+ocha http://www.amazon.com/Teas-Tea-Unsweetened-Green-Ounce/dp/B0... Also available at Costco or any Asian grocery store (at least on the west coast).
roel_v 11y ago
Meh, it's an acquired taste, like tea without sugar. Takes a week of getting used to and then you don't want to go back. Try Coke Zero for a week.

larssorenson 11y ago

It seems that this article also somehow missed entirely the potential link between some artificial sweeteners and diabetes[1][2] [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095119 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095119 [2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature1...

evanpw 11y ago
The link between real sugar and diabetes is very strong and well-studied, so any effect of artificial sweeteners on the incidence of diabetes would have to be a lot more definite before "replace sugar with artificial substitutes" would be bad advice. (Even if "eliminate sugar and don't replace it" might be better from a purely health-oriented standpoint.)

curiousjorge 11y ago

My biggest gripe about artificial sweeteners or anything with 'no sugar' is that it feels empty. Yes it is sweet, yes it is delicious but it just doesn't seem to have that fullness I get from consuming sugar. I know sugar is harmful so I prefer artificial sweeteners but I can still detect some something-is-off-this-might-be-chemical-taste feeling. I might be oversensitive here but splenda is a definite step up from aspartame.

adventured 11y ago
It's surprising you're getting a fullness response from consuming sugar, given how poor and short lived of an energy source it is. Typically sugar leaves people feeling a lot less full, which leads to craving more, and comes with an energy crash shortly thereafter. Maybe try using artificial sweeteners and supplementing your diet with more fiber and or protein at the point you consume the artificial sweetener, both of which will fill you up (or should) drastically more than sugar. That might compensate for the sensation you're getting regarding removing sugar.

eastbayjake 11y ago

It's disappointing this article only addressed cancer risk but avoided artificial sweeteners' possible impact on gut bacteria.[1][2] I quit Diet Coke cold turkey after reading several of these studies. I won't extrapolate from my personal experiences -- I really do wish there were more studies about gut bacteria's impact on our health -- but I've felt better after avoiding artificial sweeteners and adding probiotic foods to my diet like greek yogurt and kombucha. [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature1... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeten...

S_A_P 11y ago
I don't know that there is a way to reliably measure some of the positive benefits of avoiding artificial sweeteners. I briefly tried switching to diet drinks before giving up semi regular soda drinking. Even after I got used to the taste, I seemed to get headaches and/or a general feeling of malaise or bad feeling. I don't know if it is your body thinking it ate something sweet and sending out too much insulin or what. It could totally be a psychosomatic response, but I just feel better when I stick to water, black coffee, or drinks with real sugar(on the occasion I have something like that) I cant really see that being easily quantified though.
- axlprose 11y ago
  Do you know if you get that with other sweeteners like sucralose or stevia? Because if not, you might just be sensitive to the phenylalanine in aspartame. It can have psychoactive effects in large enough quantities, and can cause adverse reactions in certain people that are consistent with the symptoms you're describing. Personally, I prefer aspertame drinks for this reason; they feel more stimulating to me, and I suspect it's due to the phenylalanine since it can potentially get converted into dopamine/norepinephrine/epinephrine, which is useful for me cause I have adhd. Though the effects from that are minuscule compared to the effect of the caffeine that aspartame is usually paired with. For the record (for people downvoting), there's nothing wrong with phenylalanine, most of the anti-aspartame propaganda labels it as a "neurotoxin"/"excitotoxin"/whatever, which is just FUD. It's just a psychoactive amino acid and half of what makes up aspartame (aspartic acid being the other half). And a few people do have allergic reactions to it.

evanpw 11y ago

The arguments against artificial sweeteners seem a little like the arguments against e-cigarettes. Yes, there are plausible mechanisms by which the substitutes may cause harm. Yes, further research is needed. Yes, cutting out both the original and the substitute would be better. But people really like (or "like") sugar and cigarettes, so the most likely outcome of loudly proclaiming the dangers of substitutes is that more people stay with the originals, which are almost certainly worse.

vixen99 11y ago

Problems with sweeteners? "none can be detected with artificial sweeteners" concludes the author. Plenty of peer-reviewed papers suggest that this is either not true or the issue is not adequately resolved. Sugar consumed in the quantities used by many people is certainly dangerous but there is another option which is that of abandoning sweeteners altogether. Food stripped of habitual sweetness as in say, tea and coffee, is so much more interesting.

cheapsteak 11y ago
Is your argument that people should change their tastes?

mixmastamyk 11y ago

Generally agreed with the article, but I'm surprised when I see parents still giving their kids soda these days, diet or not. We generally drink water and it's just fine, when we want something "fancy" we get the sparkling water at Trader Joe's that has the orange or berry essence. They are available at other stores as well, no sugar or artificial sweeteners, and kids still love them. It may seem like we need everything to be sweetened from habit, but you can easily start a new habit. Once you get used to something, it becomes the new normal.