Health effects of the use of non-sugar sweeteners: a review and meta-analysis(who.int)
who.int
Health effects of the use of non-sugar sweeteners: a review and meta-analysis
https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240046429
257 comments
Sugar is not even in a comparable realm. By every measure, sugar is worst than any non-sugar sweetener.
Modern medical consensus is that added sugar should be avoided as much as possible.
Modern medical consensus is that added sugar should be avoided as much as possible.
I would be very surprised of there is consensus in nutrition science about anything as absolute as avoiding all added sugar.
You’re right. The consensus on the dangers of sugar is widely accepted in endocrinology and biochemistry. But a lot of nutritionists argue that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the source – they seem to be startlingly/conveniently naive.
Calorie == calorie is more like a loose correlation. I have successfully used purely calorie reduction strategies to lose weight and modify eating habits with some success. However there are two caveats: perhaps I would lose similar amounts of weight if calories came mostly from carbs & protein vs. protein & fat, but health impacts beyond weight will surely be impacted, e.g., cholesterol and the "skinny fat" scenario.
Annecdotally I also find that complex carbs like oats may be modestly better for weight than equivalent processed carbs but more importantly they control hunger more. A bit of shopping around will also find specialty pasta that uses a roughly calorie neutral fiber mixed in with flour for pasta that is high in fiber and has half the calories. This too appears to have a significantly different impact on appetite. (Fibre Gourmet is one such brand, texture of cooked pasta is slightly different)
So calories ~ calories for raw body needs of energy, with correlation varying on particular source pairs, but secondary effects are significantly different. Also general human metabolism is still not fully understood, with significant gaps, and anyone claiming to have "the answer" or a perfect diet are at best incorrect.
As a side note, it is difficult to manage hunger at a reduced calorie diet with only calorie-dense food, which makes adherence to a low calorie diet much harder. On average I have found that less calories dense foods tend to be healthier at the same time that I may eat larger volumes of them and feel more satisfied.
Source: Me, a non expert with annecdotal experience and a reasonable amount of non-expert research for balancing my own nutrition & health.
Annecdotally I also find that complex carbs like oats may be modestly better for weight than equivalent processed carbs but more importantly they control hunger more. A bit of shopping around will also find specialty pasta that uses a roughly calorie neutral fiber mixed in with flour for pasta that is high in fiber and has half the calories. This too appears to have a significantly different impact on appetite. (Fibre Gourmet is one such brand, texture of cooked pasta is slightly different)
So calories ~ calories for raw body needs of energy, with correlation varying on particular source pairs, but secondary effects are significantly different. Also general human metabolism is still not fully understood, with significant gaps, and anyone claiming to have "the answer" or a perfect diet are at best incorrect.
As a side note, it is difficult to manage hunger at a reduced calorie diet with only calorie-dense food, which makes adherence to a low calorie diet much harder. On average I have found that less calories dense foods tend to be healthier at the same time that I may eat larger volumes of them and feel more satisfied.
Source: Me, a non expert with annecdotal experience and a reasonable amount of non-expert research for balancing my own nutrition & health.
It is curious why the sugar risks were down played:
“How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat” (2016)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...
The science seems to have been so muddied by PR, is there anyway to get a clear consensus independent if vested interests?
“How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat” (2016)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...
The science seems to have been so muddied by PR, is there anyway to get a clear consensus independent if vested interests?
> The American Heart Association suggests a stricter limit for added sugars — no more than 100 calories from added sugar a day for most women and no more than 150 calories from added sugar a day for most men. That's about 6 teaspoons (24 grams) of sugar for women and 9 teaspoons (36 grams) of sugar for men.
I think I just used 1/3 of my recommended limit in my tea.
I think I just used 1/3 of my recommended limit in my tea.
While sugar when added to food, and especially when added to beverages, is bad, the conclusions of the study seem consistent with sweeteners being as bad as sugar.
According to this meta study, the sweeteners do not cause any cancer risk, but in the long term they significantly increase the risk of diabetes and of various cardio-vascular problems, without providing any reduction in obesity.
So they appear to be no better than sugar.
It seems that the best strategy is to satisfy one's craving for sweet things only with naturally sweet fruits and vegetables, raw or cooked, and without making juices out of them.
I have actually given up on using sugar some time ago, because both my grandfather and my father had diabetes at old age, so I do not want to repeat their fate.
Now, after becoming dis-habituated with sugar, all the fruits and also many vegetables like red bell-peppers, carrots or even red onion, feel extremely sweet, unlike during the time when I was frequently eating food with added sugar.
So I no longer crave for sweets, even if I had not expected that this is possible.
According to this meta study, the sweeteners do not cause any cancer risk, but in the long term they significantly increase the risk of diabetes and of various cardio-vascular problems, without providing any reduction in obesity.
So they appear to be no better than sugar.
It seems that the best strategy is to satisfy one's craving for sweet things only with naturally sweet fruits and vegetables, raw or cooked, and without making juices out of them.
I have actually given up on using sugar some time ago, because both my grandfather and my father had diabetes at old age, so I do not want to repeat their fate.
Now, after becoming dis-habituated with sugar, all the fruits and also many vegetables like red bell-peppers, carrots or even red onion, feel extremely sweet, unlike during the time when I was frequently eating food with added sugar.
So I no longer crave for sweets, even if I had not expected that this is possible.
>there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance
If you consider the introduction of non-sugar sweeteners as the beginning of an experiment, you would have to conclude that if there was a major benefit regarding weight loss, it would very clear by now if the experiment was a success.
The right thing to do is simply not crave sweets.
It's just one of many chemicals which is not nearly as risky when not in its chemically pure form.
If you consider the introduction of non-sugar sweeteners as the beginning of an experiment, you would have to conclude that if there was a major benefit regarding weight loss, it would very clear by now if the experiment was a success.
The right thing to do is simply not crave sweets.
It's just one of many chemicals which is not nearly as risky when not in its chemically pure form.
The absurd amount of money and time that has been spent on studies around artificial sweeteners should tell you its probably safe. Everyone has been dying to find a smoking gun here for decades and it never happens.
The politicized approval process that got sucralose and aspartame on the market should give anyone reason for concern. Remember that the beneficiaries of those approvals are people who know the most about these chemicals and are motivated to avoid learning more or disclosing what they know.
Can you cite whatever it is you're referring to?
>The politicized approval process
What do you mean by "politicized"?
>Remember that the beneficiaries of those approvals are people who know the most about these chemicals and are motivated to avoid learning more or disclosing what they know.
That's basically the status quo for how every new product gets approved.
What do you mean by "politicized"?
>Remember that the beneficiaries of those approvals are people who know the most about these chemicals and are motivated to avoid learning more or disclosing what they know.
That's basically the status quo for how every new product gets approved.
The conclusion of this study is that in the long term the sweeteners are not safe for adult people, because they increase the risk of diabetes and of various cardio-vascular problems, even if they do not cause any cancer risk.
The same is true for added sugar, so the sweeteners are not better than sugar.
The same is true for added sugar, so the sweeteners are not better than sugar.
Does the study prove causality though? By what physical mechanism does a range of different substances, with no calories, cause diabetes and cardiovascular problems?
The glaring problem is that diet sodas are often consumed as part of an unhealthy diet, alongside unhealthy fast food burgers and fries, and that best explains why you'd see the increase in diabetes and cardiovascular issues. Occam's razor.
The glaring problem is that diet sodas are often consumed as part of an unhealthy diet, alongside unhealthy fast food burgers and fries, and that best explains why you'd see the increase in diabetes and cardiovascular issues. Occam's razor.
One possible mechanism is that by tasting something sweet you respond hormonally the same as if you had consumed sugars, increasing pancreatic workloads. There's a fair bit of research showing that diet sodas increase hunger, so it isn't too far-fetched to believe something causal exists in there.
The study by itself doesn't really prove causality though.
The study by itself doesn't really prove causality though.
It doesn't matter if they're safe or not, because they taste absolutely revolting.
I guess this is overall good for my health, because I can no longer drink soft drinks or eat most processed foods.
I guess this is overall good for my health, because I can no longer drink soft drinks or eat most processed foods.
Have there been any solid findings on whether, even if there is no nutritional value (directly fattening/metabolic effects) in artificial sugar, it has effects on whether it triggers your hormones -- or that of your gut bacteria -- to contribute as if it were real sugar?
In my mind that is the most interesting unanswered question to help decide whether it's an effective sugar substitute.
In my mind that is the most interesting unanswered question to help decide whether it's an effective sugar substitute.
"The results suggest that, in the short term, NSS use may lead to small reductions in adiposity
without any significant impact on cardiometabolic risk. There is suggestion of negative health
effects with long-term use, but the evidence is ultimately inconclusive."
I won't be getting rid of my Coke Zero any time soon.
I won't be getting rid of my Coke Zero any time soon.
Also my conclusion. Aspartame and other sweeteners have been researched to death now and they still can’t tell me they have found anything. While other chemicals in regular use have real and concrete health issues.
It is practically impossible to conduct a long term health study on something like an artificial sweetener. The only way I can think of to accurately remove environmental noise is to collect extensive records on a _large_ population, and then line up A / B sets where the only major difference between the sets (other exposures similar) are the sweeteners.
With a lot of samples that fulfill that criteria a historic review might be able to identify statistical anomalies towards outcomes (positive or negative) that are common to the matched A and B sides of the set.
I could see an AI administering such a data collection and comparison in an accurate and ethical way; but only the scifi grade strong / true AI.
With a lot of samples that fulfill that criteria a historic review might be able to identify statistical anomalies towards outcomes (positive or negative) that are common to the matched A and B sides of the set.
I could see an AI administering such a data collection and comparison in an accurate and ethical way; but only the scifi grade strong / true AI.
It's also impossible to do this on almost every other substance we use. I'll focus my energy on avoiding things we know for sure are problematic like refined sugar and get to artificial sweeteners when everything else more important is solved.
Why not just avoid both?
Because humans are not automatons and there is value in deriving pleasure from one's lived experiences?
This isn't a difficult question.
This isn't a difficult question.
Is diabetes pleasurable? Is having a heart attack at 60 pleasurable?
You should attempt to balance pleasure that has long term risks associated with it.
You should attempt to balance pleasure that has long term risks associated with it.
[deleted]
This ("life is about fun, drink a can of coca cola a day") has been brought up multiple times by multiple different people in this comment section and quite frankly it's one of the more bewildering things I've seen on HN, and I have showdead on.
Never once has not drinking soda or sugary drinks or food ever impacted my life negatively. Takes like the ones you're referring to are completely alien to me.
The amount of flagged and downvoted comments that voice similar sentiment in this thread branch seems curious.
You can live a pleasurable life without eating and drinking unnecessary added sugars. You might even have a higher quality of life by eliminating sources of potential negative health effects.
[deleted]
Note how your answer equally works whether the question is "why not avoid extra sugar?", "why not quit smoking?", "why not abstain from drugs?", "why require consent?", etc.
There is value in not deriving pleasure just as there is value in deriving pleasure. In fact, I don't really know what you mean by "value", but I would not be at all surprised if deriving personal pleasure were found to be orthogonal even to own satisfaction overall.
There is value in not deriving pleasure just as there is value in deriving pleasure. In fact, I don't really know what you mean by "value", but I would not be at all surprised if deriving personal pleasure were found to be orthogonal even to own satisfaction overall.
Upon reflection, I don't even think I share your meaning of "pleasure". Yours appears to be heavily influenced by big corporations's marketing departments. I used to smoke and consume sugar excessively and every time made me feel good, yet I overall better when I don't do those things. There are no ads that show you that, of course.
You honestly think that refined sugars are more problematic than artificial sweeteners?
Yes, and this is a hill I will die on. Refined sugars are arguably responsible for billions in healthcare expenses, lowered quality of life and lowered life expectancy for millions of people in the US.
Refined sugars have clearly demonstrated problems. Most artificial sweeteners do not.
You can't really say that when they're only a couple decades into human history. Remember saccharine? It was considered safe until it wasn't.
>Remember saccharine? It was considered safe until it wasn't.
It's hilarious that you brought this up, because based on wikipedia[1], it the trend actually: it was considered safe until it wasn't ...until it was
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Safety_and_health_ef...
It's hilarious that you brought this up, because based on wikipedia[1], it the trend actually: it was considered safe until it wasn't ...until it was
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Safety_and_health_ef...
> You can't really say that when they're only a couple decades into human history.
My statement is accurate.
> Remember saccharine? It was considered safe until it wasn't.
That's more true of sugar than saccharine.
My statement is accurate.
> Remember saccharine? It was considered safe until it wasn't.
That's more true of sugar than saccharine.
[deleted]
100% NSS are better than tons of carbs and sugar loaded food.
n_io(2)
>It is practically impossible to conduct a long term health study on something like an artificial sweetener. The only way I can think of to accurately remove environmental noise is to collect extensive records on a _large_ population, and then line up A / B sets where the only major difference between the sets (other exposures similar) are the sweeteners.
The concern with cohort studies isn't "noise", it's confounders. eg. people who eat smoked meats tend to eat other unhealthy foods, so they live shorter lives, but smoked foods in and of themselves aren't harmful. Having a bigger sample size does nothing to combat this. You can "control" for confounders, but comes with its own problems. Control for too little variables, and you still get confounding, control for too much, and you run into p-hacking territory.
The concern with cohort studies isn't "noise", it's confounders. eg. people who eat smoked meats tend to eat other unhealthy foods, so they live shorter lives, but smoked foods in and of themselves aren't harmful. Having a bigger sample size does nothing to combat this. You can "control" for confounders, but comes with its own problems. Control for too little variables, and you still get confounding, control for too much, and you run into p-hacking territory.
Genuine question: How was it determined that smoked or processed meat is bad? Could the same processes be applied to non sugar sweeteners?
Yes, that process is statistical modeling and it can be applied to quantify numerous problems.
If you drink a can every two days, great.
If you get a personalized gallon sized mug with a straw filled with diet soda every day to work and are also already morbidly obese, maybe the drink won’t help.
The second statement I’ve seen so many times in Texas :(
If you get a personalized gallon sized mug with a straw filled with diet soda every day to work and are also already morbidly obese, maybe the drink won’t help.
The second statement I’ve seen so many times in Texas :(
Very true. But if they’re morbidly obese as it is, it’s pretty likely they have a brain chemistry which responds very positively to sugary drinks, so without the diet soda it’s possible their health would be even worse.
I’ve never met an obese person who liked being obese, but I’ve met lots who have a really challenging relationship with food which slowly brought them to the point they’re at now. I’m an addict as well, it’s just not as visible.
I’ve never met an obese person who liked being obese, but I’ve met lots who have a really challenging relationship with food which slowly brought them to the point they’re at now. I’m an addict as well, it’s just not as visible.
>they have a brain chemistry which responds very positively to sugary drinks
I'm convinced this can be changed! I used to love sugary drinks, however after being on keto my brain adjusted and now if I even taste a real coke I'm disgusted by how sweet it is
I'm convinced this can be changed! I used to love sugary drinks, however after being on keto my brain adjusted and now if I even taste a real coke I'm disgusted by how sweet it is
Sweets are habit forming, like cigarettes. If you avoid them for a year, for example on strict keto, it’s hard to go back because the taste is so extreme.
I don't think this works for cigarettes, actually, because even if the taste is extreme the craving is still there. I know people who can't be around certain cigarettes when lit even years after they quit because it's their preferred brand or something.
What works for you doesn't work everyone. My wife did keto and still loved her soda afterwards.
Some questions: did she go low sugar in that period? How many sodas did she drink before she backslid?
I would drink at least 48oz per day. I stopped eating things with added sugar. Now a lemonade is too sweet for me. But if I drink 3-4 sodas I’m right back to where I was wanting to drink it all the time.
I would drink at least 48oz per day. I stopped eating things with added sugar. Now a lemonade is too sweet for me. But if I drink 3-4 sodas I’m right back to where I was wanting to drink it all the time.
> low sugar
Can't go into ketosis while eating sugar/starch
Can't go into ketosis while eating sugar/starch
Maybe not keto, but wouldn't eating nothing but potatoes for a month reset anyone's taste buds?
That's not keto then.
No true Scotsman could like soda after doing keto!
You can't be in ketosis if you drink coke. Period.
The convo you’re replying to is about taste preferences reverting or not after doing the keto diet. Most caloric restriction diets limit or forbid sugary drinks while you’re on the diet, so it’s no surprise the keto diet is similar in this regard.
I think OP was talking about still enjoying a soda after a sustained ketosis period.
Yeah, this is what I meant. It wasn't a regular thing.
Agreed. When I was in my early 20s I would drink a 2 liter bottle a day of diet coke. Today I had a fountain drink with my daughter while she was having lunch, I was hoping for iced tea but they only had sodas. I got a Coke Zero, first soda I've had in, geeze, I don't even remember. It was so sweet I had to water it down with half soda water.
> If you drink a can every two days, great.
If you drink a can of regular Coke every two days, for most people it should be okay.
If you drink a can of regular Coke every two days, for most people it should be okay.
A can of soft drink every two days seems highly unhealthy to me.
If you look at the statistics you can see that the countries consuming the most softdrinks per capita (US and Mexico) come in around 2 cans per capita per day.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/505794/cds-per-capita-co...
So, 1 can per every other day is 1/4 the average consumption. It would be strange to call such a consumption level highly unhealthy.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/505794/cds-per-capita-co...
So, 1 can per every other day is 1/4 the average consumption. It would be strange to call such a consumption level highly unhealthy.
Why would calling 1/4 of extremely unhealthy consumption "highly unhealthy" that strange?
It is just a question of calibration of terms.
This has two dimensions:
First, I would consider something extremely unhealthy which leads to a reduction of life expectancy which is similar to other extremely unhealthy consumption such as with the opiod epidemic. I haven't of any study which would suggest that a can of soda or juice every other day would inflict a strongly negative health outcome (at least if counter-balanced by other healthy behaviors).
Second, it is strange to use extreme terms for behavior which is already endemic and normal in a population. You would want to use terms such as highly and extreme for instance for those who consume half a gallon or a gallon of soda per day.
This has two dimensions:
First, I would consider something extremely unhealthy which leads to a reduction of life expectancy which is similar to other extremely unhealthy consumption such as with the opiod epidemic. I haven't of any study which would suggest that a can of soda or juice every other day would inflict a strongly negative health outcome (at least if counter-balanced by other healthy behaviors).
Second, it is strange to use extreme terms for behavior which is already endemic and normal in a population. You would want to use terms such as highly and extreme for instance for those who consume half a gallon or a gallon of soda per day.
I agree to some extent. But it doesn't strike me as strange to use such terms for a behavior which is endemic in a country with a very bad rate of morbid obesity which could well be linked to such behavior.
Ehh? That's nowhere near the "highly unhealthy" level. A pack of cigarettes a day... now we're gettin somewhere.
It isn't healthy, but life is about pleasure too. Gotta pick your battles.
What if it wasn’t actually pleasurable, but what you are doing is feeding certain species in your microbiome that control you by telling you it is pleasurable so you continue to feed them at the expense of your own health.
What if you don't actually want to be alive, but your bio-chemistry has been evolved over millennia to make chemical reactions that cause you to fear death, crave reproducing, and strive for a culture of preventing death of your species?
if you don’t want to be alive drinking cokes is pretty inefficient, but it’s a good way to get all kinds of chronic health conditions
What's wrong with a little obesity, tooth decay, acid reflux, or insulin tolerance? The only people who complained to me about those symptoms were quitters. So maybe quitting soda is the REAL culprit, huh.
That's a conclusion that's pretty much contrary to the best available science.
Color me curious. Can you furnish any links to some health research that vindicates sugary sodas?
Oh sorry, I misunderstood you and thought you were talking about the diet sodas.
Of course sugary sodas are a "bad idea".
Of course sugary sodas are a "bad idea".
Is your microbiome not "you"? It's as active a participant in your hormone balance as any other organ in your body.
You might say "I'm hungry", but it's not your rational brain deducing it's time to be hungry. Is an "I'm happy" triggered from the gut any less valid?
You might say "I'm hungry", but it's not your rational brain deducing it's time to be hungry. Is an "I'm happy" triggered from the gut any less valid?
> Is your microbiome not "you"? It's as active a participant in your hormone balance as any other organ in your body.
Your microbiome is definitely not "you". You can take antibiotics and nuke your entire microbiome, and you'll be mostly fine. Nuke "any other organ in your body" and you're gonna have much bigger problems.
The tenants in an apartment are not the apartment. You're the apartment, you're letting the microbiome stay as tenants as long as they pay their rent (break difficult foods to your advantage). Unruly tenants get thrown out. Of course it takes some effort to evict - this is the craving for particular foods that must be overcome to consciously stop eating those foods.
Your microbiome is definitely not "you". You can take antibiotics and nuke your entire microbiome, and you'll be mostly fine. Nuke "any other organ in your body" and you're gonna have much bigger problems.
The tenants in an apartment are not the apartment. You're the apartment, you're letting the microbiome stay as tenants as long as they pay their rent (break difficult foods to your advantage). Unruly tenants get thrown out. Of course it takes some effort to evict - this is the craving for particular foods that must be overcome to consciously stop eating those foods.
When my wife and kids are happy, I’m happy. When my microbiome is happy, I’m happy. Certainly when my microbiome is unhappy, I’m unhappy.
If you endure the unhappiness generated against you by your microbiome, you can change it. Eat what you know is good regardless of microbiome happiness, and you'll cultivate a microbiome that is happy when you eat that.
Your microbiome alters the very taste of foods in your mouth. It was hard for me to stop eating meat and start eating plants because the plants tasted like shit, but after some time sticking with it everything flipped - plants started tasting amazing, meat not so much anymore.
Well, why would you deliberately endure discomfort? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species: Our ability to consciously delay gratification to achieve better long term results.
Your microbiome alters the very taste of foods in your mouth. It was hard for me to stop eating meat and start eating plants because the plants tasted like shit, but after some time sticking with it everything flipped - plants started tasting amazing, meat not so much anymore.
Well, why would you deliberately endure discomfort? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species: Our ability to consciously delay gratification to achieve better long term results.
If you starve your microbiome of sugar, then certain bacteria will die or go dormant.
Notwithstanding how you, or I, define “you”, once that change is made to your microbiome, you won’t find that coke to be very pleasurable.
I don’t think it’s about being less valid, but if you were to find out you were not making decisions for yourself rather someone or something else was controlling your decision making processes, would you make simple changes to take back control?
Notwithstanding how you, or I, define “you”, once that change is made to your microbiome, you won’t find that coke to be very pleasurable.
I don’t think it’s about being less valid, but if you were to find out you were not making decisions for yourself rather someone or something else was controlling your decision making processes, would you make simple changes to take back control?
Would need a proof of that.
To each their own, but the thought of having 2 soft drinks a day is utterly revolting to me.
Sounds desperate to me. I have always intended to live way better than this.
Do you have any evidence for the statement that 1 can every two days is OK, but ~7 cans every day is not OK (other than anecdotal)?
I think there's ample evidence supporting the "already obese" part.
Unless I am misunderstanding your point and you're saying there's evidence supporting the negative effects of non-sugar sweeteners for obese people, isn't this a classic case of correlation vs. causation, where observation X is seen as "ample evidence" of causation while it's merely correlated?
The kind of person that'll happily drink a bucket of soda (diet or otherwise) is likely the kind of person that has an unhealthy relationship with food in the first place, with a stomach (appetite?) capable of ingesting a lot of food and liquid. Which is a category morbidly obese people fall under.
The kind of person that'll happily drink a bucket of soda (diet or otherwise) is likely the kind of person that has an unhealthy relationship with food in the first place, with a stomach (appetite?) capable of ingesting a lot of food and liquid. Which is a category morbidly obese people fall under.
Can you show us such evidence?
Here is some evidence:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/
There's close to an ounce of dissolved refined sugar in a can of soda. Hell, a can of ginger ale has almost 40 grams of sugar in it. Drinking that much sugar at once will spike your blood sugar levels and can potentially set you up for pre-diabetes if you make it a habit.
Insulin tolerance is not that well known in the public sphere. But it's sure a measurable effect, and among the bigger reasons I cut way back on sugar.
I don't think that's a balanced summary of the study.
"Results from prospective cohort studies suggest the possibility of long-term harm in the form of increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality."
And regarding the short-term weight loss, the confounding factor of reduction in sugar and overall energy intake seems to be the explanation.
The "Concluding Remarks" section of the paper is a good, and very brief, encapsulation of the results.
"Results from prospective cohort studies suggest the possibility of long-term harm in the form of increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality."
And regarding the short-term weight loss, the confounding factor of reduction in sugar and overall energy intake seems to be the explanation.
The "Concluding Remarks" section of the paper is a good, and very brief, encapsulation of the results.
Lets add that some of these are really old food additives
* 1965/1983 - Aspartame
* 1976/1991 - Sucralose
* 1879/1884ish - 1960s - Saccharin
* 1965/1983 - Aspartame
* 1976/1991 - Sucralose
* 1879/1884ish - 1960s - Saccharin
I've been reading some old (early 1900s) diabetic recipe books from archive.org and it was a bit of a surprise to see how many recipes used saccharin back then (and almond flour, bone broth, etc.). I remember seeing saccharin tablets everywhere as a youngster, then they all suddenly went away. As it turns out, researchers found a higher incidence of bladder cancer in rats fed a diet of saccharin (20x the expected human dose, I think), which caused the production of saccharin to drop off dramatically. Up until that point, it was cheap, relatively easy to produce and plentiful.
Further research eventually proved that saccharin reacted with a compound in rat urine that caused crystals to form in the urine, which 'scraped' the bladder wall, causing injury, increased cell repair, and (therefore) an increased incidence of bladder cancer in rats. The researchers proved that this compound did not exist in human urine and crystals did not form, therefore the increased incidence of cancer should not exist in humans - and analysis of bladder cancer rates for lifelong saccharin users backed-up the new findings.
Still, the damage to saccharin had been done and I think there's only one plant in Europe that still produces it. I'm not sure how large the artificial sweetener market is (it seems to be growing exponentially), but every decade an old sweetener appears to fall out of favour and is replaced by a new one (or is added in combination with others). I'm not sure we're much further ahead than we were in the early 1900s!
Further research eventually proved that saccharin reacted with a compound in rat urine that caused crystals to form in the urine, which 'scraped' the bladder wall, causing injury, increased cell repair, and (therefore) an increased incidence of bladder cancer in rats. The researchers proved that this compound did not exist in human urine and crystals did not form, therefore the increased incidence of cancer should not exist in humans - and analysis of bladder cancer rates for lifelong saccharin users backed-up the new findings.
Still, the damage to saccharin had been done and I think there's only one plant in Europe that still produces it. I'm not sure how large the artificial sweetener market is (it seems to be growing exponentially), but every decade an old sweetener appears to fall out of favour and is replaced by a new one (or is added in combination with others). I'm not sure we're much further ahead than we were in the early 1900s!
The Sweet 'N Low pink packets in my "sugar" bowl contain saccharin. You can still buy saccharin in tablet form, too (Amazon, of course).
Probably a high percentage of diabetics, type 1 and 2.
This is so frustrating. Because you know this is the tip of the iceberg.
Nah… this stuff happens, unfortunately.
There’s no need to blast off into conspiracy space.
There’s no need to blast off into conspiracy space.
I just wish they'd also avoided the phosphoric acid in it! Might not be full of sugar, but it's still bad for teeth.
From what I've understood, the phosphoric acid is also a problem for the gut flora. With regular daily intake it will apparently kill certain bacterial cultures over time, and with that comes a set of new problems.
Unlikely. Phosphate is ubiquitous in the body. Your metabolism basically runs off phosphate ions. And your stomach is far more acidic than phosphoric acid.
If phosphate ions are present in abnormally high concentrations, could that cause issues for some species of bacteria? AFAIK our phosphate is usually contained within our cells, and I'm definitely not an expert on the digestive process so I'm not sure how phosphate gets absorbed, at what rate, or if any enzymes would mess with it
Phosphate is present in every cell of your body and in extracellular fluid. Your kidneys keep phosphate levels within a very narrow range.
Right, so what happens if the concentration is too high in the intestines? What is the absorption rate compared to the concentration in coke zero?
Would it take slamming 6 coke zeros in a row on an empty stomach to hit concentrations that would be bad for the previously mentioned species?
Would it take slamming 6 coke zeros in a row on an empty stomach to hit concentrations that would be bad for the previously mentioned species?
It won't be too high by the time it hits your intestines. It'll be absorbed and excreted in the urine.
You should get together with the doctor I fired. He doesn't know internal medicine, either.
Not nursing the drink forever and rinsing your mouth afterwards with water should return the pH to normal relatively quickly, according to my dentist.
Also, chew some xylitol gum after, or just regularly.
Straws also help. Get reusable metal ones.
Straws also help. Get reusable metal ones.
On the same topic, recently learned that erythritol (Swerve) does not contribute at all the plaque as normal sugar/other substitutes do.
The local Pepsi bottler has been distributing Crystal Pepsi (!) in our market the last few weeks. I thought I would have never seen the day.
I would be drinking it more regularly to avoid caramel colour (possible link to microvascular damage that leads to increased likelihood for atherosclerosis, no citation at hand), but also to be ironic.
I would be drinking it more regularly to avoid caramel colour (possible link to microvascular damage that leads to increased likelihood for atherosclerosis, no citation at hand), but also to be ironic.
It's a limited revival, enjoy it while stocks lasts. Or, perhaps, build inventory. But do they have the Max sugar free version in Crystal?
Unfortunately not.
I am wondering if the artificial sweetener scene was different in the 1990s versus now. I think we have sucralose and stevia now that we didn’t have before.
I am wondering if the artificial sweetener scene was different in the 1990s versus now. I think we have sucralose and stevia now that we didn’t have before.
If my wife's caffeine withdrawal is any indication, you might want to be more concerned about your amount of caffeine intake rather than the sweeteners.
Unless you're drinking like 6 a day it's nothing compared to regular coffee drinkers:
12oz coke zero: 34mg caffeine
12oz brewed coffee: 120-240mg depending on beans and strength
Double shot espresso: 60-180mg
I can easily do 2 12oz brewed or doubles in a day and friends drink much more.
12oz coke zero: 34mg caffeine
12oz brewed coffee: 120-240mg depending on beans and strength
Double shot espresso: 60-180mg
I can easily do 2 12oz brewed or doubles in a day and friends drink much more.
Yikes, I had been working with “espresso = 65mg” but now I discover that’s a single, and I drink double. Thanks for the wake up.
(Not sure I even know what a single basket looks like)
(Not sure I even know what a single basket looks like)
OK, but that's like saying there's no reason to watch your alcohol intake unless it's on par with a raging alcoholic.
The difference in the health of a person who doesn't take caffeine, and a caffeine addict is much smaller than the difference between a teetotaler and a raging alcoholic.
It's very common for people to slippery-slope various drugs, but being a 'raging alcoholic' is incredibly damaging to your health.
It's very common for people to slippery-slope various drugs, but being a 'raging alcoholic' is incredibly damaging to your health.
Indeed. There's plenty of benefits to drinking caffeine; studies that talk to the benefits of alcohol consumption tend to be a stretch at best.
I've seen first hand the destructive powers of alcohol, so I may be biased. But I know for a fact that I'm not alone.
I've seen first hand the destructive powers of alcohol, so I may be biased. But I know for a fact that I'm not alone.
I just go cold turkey every few months when my caffeine tolerance gets out of hand.
Two decades ago in response to colleagues' worry that I was drinking too much caffeine I quit for a year. All sources of caffeine; espressos, energy drinks, diet cokes.
I didn't suffer any withdrawals.
However I greatly missed my coffee, so after the year I resumed (sans the energy drinks) and will be having my coffee until the day I die.
Quit alcohol nearly two years ago; that's a habit that can stay gone. Definitely feeling the benefits of ditching even what was a relatively modest consumption.
In a way, diet cokes (Coca Cola No Sugar) are my naughty drinks now - so I can see from this study I should probably limit it somewhat day in-out, and as long as I do it should be ok.
I primarily drink filtered water and filtered Sodastream water for my fluids.
I didn't suffer any withdrawals.
However I greatly missed my coffee, so after the year I resumed (sans the energy drinks) and will be having my coffee until the day I die.
Quit alcohol nearly two years ago; that's a habit that can stay gone. Definitely feeling the benefits of ditching even what was a relatively modest consumption.
In a way, diet cokes (Coca Cola No Sugar) are my naughty drinks now - so I can see from this study I should probably limit it somewhat day in-out, and as long as I do it should be ok.
I primarily drink filtered water and filtered Sodastream water for my fluids.
The way I got past caffiene withdrawl was to control it. I did it over 4 weeks with using caffeine pills. Never got a head ache, each week I just went down 25% until I hit 0%
Caffeine withdrawal is easy to avoid and not at all dangerous. It's unpleasant, sure.
Yes I always figured if there is something, it's on the order of 10%-20% "bad outcome" vs being a sugar teetotalar. However since I avoid as much sugar as possible and have some splenda in my coffee and coke zero pretty much guilt free.
Your teeth will be affected. I spent a year drinking as much coke as I wanted. The teeth issues that resulted made me never drink the stuff again.
If I could go back and tell my younger self one thing.. stay away from the coca cola.
If I could go back and tell my younger self one thing.. stay away from the coca cola.
If I may suggest... you should try to get into tea. There are teas for all tastes including fermented tea, and related beverages like yerba mate, guarana, etc.
Yerba mate puts me in the best mood. I have no idea why. Maybe the MOAIs?
What a blessed day! I'll take those odds as well.. not that I haven't so far either way.
Large amounts of sugar are so bad for you that it would be pretty obvious statistically if sweeteners were anything like as bad and they'd be banned.
Somewhat like how if cars were invented today they'd be deemed insanely dangerous.
Somewhat like how if cars were invented today they'd be deemed insanely dangerous.
Not exactly true.
If eat a whole orange, the fiber in the orange slows down sugar uptake whereas if I drink juice the sugar hits bloodstream much faster.
And generally Phenylalanaline is better than some of the others. Why? Well because it's one step away from L-DOPA which is one step away from dopamine
If eat a whole orange, the fiber in the orange slows down sugar uptake whereas if I drink juice the sugar hits bloodstream much faster.
And generally Phenylalanaline is better than some of the others. Why? Well because it's one step away from L-DOPA which is one step away from dopamine
> And generally Phenylalanaline is better than some of the others. Why? Well because it's one step away from L-DOPA which is one step away from dopamine
L-Phenylalanine is first converted to L-Tyrosine, which is then converted to L-DOPA, which is then converted to Dopamine.
However, it's very misleading to reduce the body to basic formulas like this because these pathways from dietary amino acids to neurotransmitters are all regulated within the body at many different stages, so adding a little extra Phenylalanine to a meal isn't going to give you a dopamine boost. You consume a lot of Tyrosine in a standard protein like chicken breast (multiple grams, potentially) and nobody is getting high off of standard protein. The body is very good at regulating these things.
L-Phenylalanine is first converted to L-Tyrosine, which is then converted to L-DOPA, which is then converted to Dopamine.
However, it's very misleading to reduce the body to basic formulas like this because these pathways from dietary amino acids to neurotransmitters are all regulated within the body at many different stages, so adding a little extra Phenylalanine to a meal isn't going to give you a dopamine boost. You consume a lot of Tyrosine in a standard protein like chicken breast (multiple grams, potentially) and nobody is getting high off of standard protein. The body is very good at regulating these things.
Right, but "large amounts" of sugar. 250ml of juice (and yes, I know the suggest serving size of orange juice is much less than that, but it's very easy to drink a normal glass of it) is quite a few oranges.
Sugar is, like everything except plutonium, fine in moderation. But "in moderation" is not how sugar occurs in many modern diets.
Sugar is, like everything except plutonium, fine in moderation. But "in moderation" is not how sugar occurs in many modern diets.
Every orange juice I’ve seen here in the US lists a serving size of 8oz or 237ml, which I wouldn’t consider “much less” than 250ml.
It's 150ml in the UK (6 servings per litre).
Unsure if that's because they don't want to write 25g of sugar on the "traffic light" label (it's about 1g per 10ml), or they want people to think the packs are bigger in terms of servings.
Unsure if that's because they don't want to write 25g of sugar on the "traffic light" label (it's about 1g per 10ml), or they want people to think the packs are bigger in terms of servings.
It's sugar that should be banned, or at least restricted content in food by the law.
>Somewhat like how if cars were invented today they'd be deemed insanely dangerous.
The cars we have today are insanely dangerous.
Cars kill about as many people as guns in the US. That's to say, they are as effective in killing people as the tools made to kill people.
The cars we have today are insanely dangerous.
Cars kill about as many people as guns in the US. That's to say, they are as effective in killing people as the tools made to kill people.
To be fair, there are far, far more daily users of cars than firearms.
To be fair, citation needed.
33% of American households own firearms; and there are far, far more firearms owned than cars[1].
Even assuming 100% car ownership, the statement that cars kill people at 33% efficiency of tools whose sole purpose is killing people should give you a pause.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
33% of American households own firearms; and there are far, far more firearms owned than cars[1].
Even assuming 100% car ownership, the statement that cars kill people at 33% efficiency of tools whose sole purpose is killing people should give you a pause.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
The reason I'm calling it a bad comparison is that you don't (typically) get into a car with the intention of killing someone.
If every firearm owner decided that they were going to step outside and kill someone, millions would be dead.
Deaths resulting from improper operation isn't something you can reasonably compare to using a firearm with lethal intent.
If every firearm owner decided that they were going to step outside and kill someone, millions would be dead.
Deaths resulting from improper operation isn't something you can reasonably compare to using a firearm with lethal intent.
One doesn't buy a gun with the intention to kill someone either — deterrence is a commonly cited reason for gun ownership.
And if every car owner decided they were going to step outside and run over someone, millions will be dead.
Vehicular deaths are written off as deaths resulting from "improper operation" bevause it's profitable to treat them as such. If they did that in aviation, everything would be "pilot error", and we'd be at 1920s level of safety.
Current traffic fatalities are by design. Vehicles are inherently dangerous to operate.
Remarkably, the US treats both gun amd traffic fatalities as unsolvable problems stemming from "improper use" (driver error / crime), which is little more than an excuse to throw hands up in the air and solve the problems (with strong towns approach to urban planning / regulation and addressing social issues that lead to crime, respectively).
And if every car owner decided they were going to step outside and run over someone, millions will be dead.
Vehicular deaths are written off as deaths resulting from "improper operation" bevause it's profitable to treat them as such. If they did that in aviation, everything would be "pilot error", and we'd be at 1920s level of safety.
Current traffic fatalities are by design. Vehicles are inherently dangerous to operate.
Remarkably, the US treats both gun amd traffic fatalities as unsolvable problems stemming from "improper use" (driver error / crime), which is little more than an excuse to throw hands up in the air and solve the problems (with strong towns approach to urban planning / regulation and addressing social issues that lead to crime, respectively).
Interesting, that from my reading it looks like using non-sugar sweeteners caused -570 calories daily intake reduction, but somehow just -0.71kg of body weight..
Edit: it is 570 kJ = 136 calories.
Edit: it is 570 kJ = 136 calories.
You need -500 calories every day for a week in order to lose 1 pound.
* +/- up to 20% deviation (some people absorb more or less calories in their food)
* until your metabolism adapts to consistent calorie deficit, which causes up to 50% decrease in weight loss
Maintenance Phase had a fascinating episode about calories being significantly more complicated than we expected.
* until your metabolism adapts to consistent calorie deficit, which causes up to 50% decrease in weight loss
Maintenance Phase had a fascinating episode about calories being significantly more complicated than we expected.
I think it is -0.71kg of total body weight loss, not just per one week.
This is the punchline of every keto book. The whole ‘you just need to eat less calories to lose weight’ thing that has been pushed since post-WW2 despite having almost no solid evidence supporting it for long term weight loss.
The best one that destroys the woo-y history of calorie (and fat) obsessed health science (or lack of science) is the book “The Case for Keto” by the author who wrote “The Case Against Sugar” and “Good Calorie Bad Calorie”.
The best one that destroys the woo-y history of calorie (and fat) obsessed health science (or lack of science) is the book “The Case for Keto” by the author who wrote “The Case Against Sugar” and “Good Calorie Bad Calorie”.
Gary Taubes (the author of those books) is about as far from a serious scientist, or even science communicator, as one can get without being an obvious charlatan.
Saying 'the science got it all wrong!' while citing pop-sci books from Amazon is a bit ironic.
Saying 'the science got it all wrong!' while citing pop-sci books from Amazon is a bit ironic.
Do you have a specific complaint here? Or what specifically he got wrong in his books? Or some studies you can point me to connecting a low calorie diet with sustained weight loss?
Or is this just a pithy attack on reading books by journalists who summarizes scientific research?
I’m always open to be shown wrong. Otherwise I don’t really care about defending this specific author. I found his to be the best summary on the subject among multiple books, articles, and studies.
Or is this just a pithy attack on reading books by journalists who summarizes scientific research?
I’m always open to be shown wrong. Otherwise I don’t really care about defending this specific author. I found his to be the best summary on the subject among multiple books, articles, and studies.
> Or some studies you can point me to connecting a low calorie diet with sustained weight loss?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19246357/
> Results: At 6 months, participants assigned to each diet had lost an average of 6 kg, which represented 7% of their initial weight; they began to regain weight after 12 months. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0 and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Among the 80% of participants who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets; attendance was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). The diets improved lipid-related risk factors and fasting insulin levels.
This is just one example, there's a lot more (you can start from looking at related studies on the linked page, for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15181047/). The first big study was already done in 60s and it was never refuted AFAIK: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002604...
But the findings aren't fashionable or convenient, so people tend to ignore them and cherry-pick any study that has more convenient results with miracle diets.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19246357/
> Results: At 6 months, participants assigned to each diet had lost an average of 6 kg, which represented 7% of their initial weight; they began to regain weight after 12 months. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0 and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Among the 80% of participants who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets; attendance was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). The diets improved lipid-related risk factors and fasting insulin levels.
This is just one example, there's a lot more (you can start from looking at related studies on the linked page, for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15181047/). The first big study was already done in 60s and it was never refuted AFAIK: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002604...
But the findings aren't fashionable or convenient, so people tend to ignore them and cherry-pick any study that has more convenient results with miracle diets.
A few points after reading:
- "The four diets [1] also allowed for a dose–response test of carbohydrate intake that ranged from 35 to 65% of energy."
A keto diet is "5-10%" carbs, so that's a very significant difference. I doubt you could get into ketosis with a 35% carb diet and they didnt even bother measuring ketosis since there wasn't actually a specific low-carb group.
- "Carbohydrate-rich foods with a low glycemic index were recommended in each diet."
Always good but a recommendation is super difficult to do in practice unless you rigidly sequester carbs youre going to fail. Other keto studies provided the actual food, these people were just given percentages.
Finally the low fat vs high fat not making a difference is actually still in line with Keto diets. The idea is you shouldn't overly worry about fat content. So even if high fat did nothing for weight loss that's not a problem.
[1] The diet groups (note how none are low carb):
- Low-Fat, Average- Protein Group (N = 204) = 65% carbs
- Low-Fat, High-Protein Group (N = 202) = 55% carbs
- High-Fat, Average- Protein Group (N = 204) = 45% carbs
- High-Fat, High-Protein Group (N = 201) = 35% carbs
- "The four diets [1] also allowed for a dose–response test of carbohydrate intake that ranged from 35 to 65% of energy."
A keto diet is "5-10%" carbs, so that's a very significant difference. I doubt you could get into ketosis with a 35% carb diet and they didnt even bother measuring ketosis since there wasn't actually a specific low-carb group.
- "Carbohydrate-rich foods with a low glycemic index were recommended in each diet."
Always good but a recommendation is super difficult to do in practice unless you rigidly sequester carbs youre going to fail. Other keto studies provided the actual food, these people were just given percentages.
Finally the low fat vs high fat not making a difference is actually still in line with Keto diets. The idea is you shouldn't overly worry about fat content. So even if high fat did nothing for weight loss that's not a problem.
[1] The diet groups (note how none are low carb):
- Low-Fat, Average- Protein Group (N = 204) = 65% carbs
- Low-Fat, High-Protein Group (N = 202) = 55% carbs
- High-Fat, Average- Protein Group (N = 204) = 45% carbs
- High-Fat, High-Protein Group (N = 201) = 35% carbs
Thanks I’ll dig into it. Looks like a decent study.
So the sample neither exercised enough nor reduced their caloric intake, so it neither supports nor discredits caloric restrictions? Sounds about par for the course.
> The whole ‘you just need to eat less calories to lose weight’ thing
CICO, or "calories in, calories out", is obviously real.
If you don't eat food, you will lose weight and eventually starve to death.
CICO, or "calories in, calories out", is obviously real.
If you don't eat food, you will lose weight and eventually starve to death.
There’s a difference between consumption tied to metabolic rate and satiation. Carbs make you consume more calories, proteins and fats are better at moderating your caloric consumption closer to your metabolic rate.
A can of Coke doesn’t satiate your, but it’s almost 300 calories with almost no nutritional value, so you’re going to consume more calories than you otherwise would.
A can of Coke doesn’t satiate your, but it’s almost 300 calories with almost no nutritional value, so you’re going to consume more calories than you otherwise would.
But we should start there and everything else should just say "this will help you feel less hungry with less calories". If you had the willpower to just drink 1500 calories of Coke for a day, you would lose weight, you'd also feel hungry all the time (and die eventually but that's beside the point).
(p.s. they say it's 140)
(p.s. they say it's 140)
I’m mistaken. As I review the 12 Fl oz Mountain Dew can in my fridge, it appears it’s 170 calories. I was remembering the same bottle closer to 23 oz I picked up at the gas station for someone earlier today.
Anything that states that an entire macronutrient is more satiating than another macronutrient is crank science and you should dismiss it. High fibre "carbs" for example are incredibly satiating.
I'm pretty sure that is one of those things that varies by person, or perhaps bt gut flora. Which foods spike blood sugar can vary widely by person. One lady in study became an outlier because the way her gut processed a normal tomato made her bloodsugar react like she had been doing shots of HFCS. I eat a wholesome bowl of steelcut oats and immediately crave carbs and sugar, I'm assuming because my bloodsugar spikes and crashes. But if I have a fried egg on some broccoli I'll be full for hours. I don't do keto. But fiber alone doesn't make me feel satiated because the signal saying my insides are full is getting overridden by the one saying my blood sugar is low. I'm not diabetic or hypoglycemic either, or at least the doc says I'm not.
"What is glycemic index?"
This isn't "crank science". This is just lack of knowledge. High fibre "carbs" have a lower glycemic index. Fats have essentially none, and protein is low.
Food -> glucose -> insulin release -> glycogen update by liver/muscles -> leptin release for satiety
Simultaneously:
lower blood sugar -> ghrelin release -> hunger
This is just the difference between burning gunpowder and charcoal.
This isn't "crank science". This is just lack of knowledge. High fibre "carbs" have a lower glycemic index. Fats have essentially none, and protein is low.
Food -> glucose -> insulin release -> glycogen update by liver/muscles -> leptin release for satiety
Simultaneously:
lower blood sugar -> ghrelin release -> hunger
This is just the difference between burning gunpowder and charcoal.
> CICO, or "calories in, calories out", is obviously real.
But it's a very bad proxy for anything related to weight. Water is 8.8lbs per gallon and yet has 0 calories so you ignore your entire water maintenance cycle in the accounting. It also assumes that every single molecule of calorie-bearing food is metabolized homogeneously in your body which isn't the case. Your digestive system will happily pass unwanted calories without absorption (especially fat) and tends to store extra water along with carbohydrates (4x by weight).
It's a very simplistic idea that is only true in absolutes. It's a restatement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which applies to literally everything and is so general and vague as to be useless.
But it's a very bad proxy for anything related to weight. Water is 8.8lbs per gallon and yet has 0 calories so you ignore your entire water maintenance cycle in the accounting. It also assumes that every single molecule of calorie-bearing food is metabolized homogeneously in your body which isn't the case. Your digestive system will happily pass unwanted calories without absorption (especially fat) and tends to store extra water along with carbohydrates (4x by weight).
It's a very simplistic idea that is only true in absolutes. It's a restatement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which applies to literally everything and is so general and vague as to be useless.
Doesn't the Atwater-based system used by the USDA for calculating calories use a database with "apparent digestibility" taken into account? [1:p9]
So, for example, the protein from eggs vs the protein from oatmeal have different coefficients for the resulting kcals. [2:p25]
Of course, there's individual factors that matter and if you alter the food (cook it) you can also change digestibility and thus available calories. [3]
But I would think, based on how the USDA reference reads, that the disparity in digestibility between carbs and fats is somewhat accounted for?
[1] https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400535/DATA/sr13/sr1...
[2] https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400525/Data/Classics...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4272645/
So, for example, the protein from eggs vs the protein from oatmeal have different coefficients for the resulting kcals. [2:p25]
Of course, there's individual factors that matter and if you alter the food (cook it) you can also change digestibility and thus available calories. [3]
But I would think, based on how the USDA reference reads, that the disparity in digestibility between carbs and fats is somewhat accounted for?
[1] https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400535/DATA/sr13/sr1...
[2] https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400525/Data/Classics...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4272645/
The core issue of CICO as you pointed out is that it's a truism that ignores key aspects of a diet that usually come with a restriction in caloric intake - hunger can lead to poor food choices (decrease in TEF) and leads to lethargy (decrease in NEAT) which can account for up to 500 kcal/day (don't quote me on this, just trying to remember the papers I had read a long time ago) and completely negate the dieting effort. That's not even accounting the approximations of CI.
There are essentially zero papers which show anything even remotely resembling this. In basically every controlled environment, CICO more or less works, albeit not with perfect efficiency. It's not until prolonged starvation periods or massive overfeeding periods that any sort of genetic/epigenetic limiters come in (overfeeding tends to be prisoner studies, the MN starvation experiment is the most commonly cited/most data from long-term starvation).
If dieting works in controlled environments, the obvious conclusion is that dieting does not work in uncontrolled environment precisely because of the poor food choices, and because we, as humans, tend to discount the amount of calories in small things through out the day, nor do we rigorously measure.
All a "NEAT decrease" is saying is "people are more lethargic when dieting". It would be unsurprising if this were due to crash dieting, but this cannot "negate" a diet. Reduce calories further until the scale starts to move. Or be more active, despite lethargy.
If dieting works in controlled environments, the obvious conclusion is that dieting does not work in uncontrolled environment precisely because of the poor food choices, and because we, as humans, tend to discount the amount of calories in small things through out the day, nor do we rigorously measure.
All a "NEAT decrease" is saying is "people are more lethargic when dieting". It would be unsurprising if this were due to crash dieting, but this cannot "negate" a diet. Reduce calories further until the scale starts to move. Or be more active, despite lethargy.
It's almost like your body has a bunch of internal processes to maintain homeostasis around crucial functions, and maintaining the appropriate osmotic pressure is essential to life. Yes, this feedback loop has a little lag, so you can die from water intoxication, and/or hold water weight from a particularly salty meal (or one with a lot of carbohydrates if you don't often consume them, since cell volume is largely water, and increased glycogen storage will knock it out of balance for a bit). Assuming your diet is reasonably homogenous, your body is not packing on 400% of the weight of carbohydrates in added water. It's using the carbohydrates to replenish glycogen stores in your liver and muscles via insulin. If those stores are not depleted, it'll get converted into fatty acids via de novo lipogenesis. When you're asleep or between meals, glucagon will take glycogen back out of your liver for use, and if that depletes, some catecholamine will trigger lipolysis to do it from stored triglycerides made from the fatty acids.
It does not assume that every molecule is metabolized homogenously, nor that your body is perfectly efficient, and not even that everyone's body has the same level of efficiency.
It more or less means "track how many calories you are eating to get a baseline number. If you want to lose weight, decrease that number. If you want to gain weight, increase that number. Continue tracking until you establish a baseline number for whatever weight you wantwhen you have reached it".
Your digestive system generally does NOT "happily pass unwanted calories without absorption". Ingested fat is broken down into long chain fatty acids, which can be stored directly in adipose tissue with no further metabolic changes. If you consume a ton of fats at one time, there flat-out may not be enough bile salts released to emulsify it all down, and/or not enough pancreatic lipase released to turn all of the emulsified fats into fatty acids, and/or not enough time for them all to be absorbed in your small intestine. Statements like that are more or less like saying "Battletoads players will happily smash into barriers on bikes/surfboards/planes/clinger-winger", or "internal combustion engines will happily pass unburned fuel". It's a system in motion with a limited point of insertion (the common bile duct at the beginning of the duodenum), and hopefully long enough to finish the job. The fact that this is not always true just means that the system has been overloaded.
Gluconeogenesis from proteins is such a metabolically expensive process that your body does actually try to avoid that one, but it will if it has to, which is why rabbit starvation is true.
This post is peak overconfidence based on an amazingly shallow depth of knowledge.
It does not assume that every molecule is metabolized homogenously, nor that your body is perfectly efficient, and not even that everyone's body has the same level of efficiency.
It more or less means "track how many calories you are eating to get a baseline number. If you want to lose weight, decrease that number. If you want to gain weight, increase that number. Continue tracking until you establish a baseline number for whatever weight you wantwhen you have reached it".
Your digestive system generally does NOT "happily pass unwanted calories without absorption". Ingested fat is broken down into long chain fatty acids, which can be stored directly in adipose tissue with no further metabolic changes. If you consume a ton of fats at one time, there flat-out may not be enough bile salts released to emulsify it all down, and/or not enough pancreatic lipase released to turn all of the emulsified fats into fatty acids, and/or not enough time for them all to be absorbed in your small intestine. Statements like that are more or less like saying "Battletoads players will happily smash into barriers on bikes/surfboards/planes/clinger-winger", or "internal combustion engines will happily pass unburned fuel". It's a system in motion with a limited point of insertion (the common bile duct at the beginning of the duodenum), and hopefully long enough to finish the job. The fact that this is not always true just means that the system has been overloaded.
Gluconeogenesis from proteins is such a metabolically expensive process that your body does actually try to avoid that one, but it will if it has to, which is why rabbit starvation is true.
This post is peak overconfidence based on an amazingly shallow depth of knowledge.
So CICO, but make sure to eat "clean" and a variety?
More like CICO, but make sure to eat high satiety carbs, a variety of vegetables, a lot of protein, enough good fats, and have a way to estimate your overall activity level and keep it constant or even slightly higher than usual (e.g. a step counter) to account for NEAT decrease.
I feel like the "CO" part of this gets overlooked a lot.
E.g. "I'm eating fewer calories but in an unhealthy fashion and am now tired all the time and so I'm more sedentary" sorta things.
Is there a really reliable way of estimating total calories burned in a day that's based on direct individual observation vs averages and such?
E.g. "I'm eating fewer calories but in an unhealthy fashion and am now tired all the time and so I'm more sedentary" sorta things.
Is there a really reliable way of estimating total calories burned in a day that's based on direct individual observation vs averages and such?
Track how many calories you are eating. If your weight is stable, you are burning that many. It is literally that simple. If you reduce calories, you will lose weight. If you increase them, you will gain weight.
Individual metabolism makes a difference here, as does body composition.
Individual metabolism makes a difference here, as does body composition.
Yeah... nah. Simply on CICO (well more just monitoring CI) I have lost 40Kg/90 Pounds over the last 5 years. It does work.
Right... its more likely our bodies are probably some miraculous, fuel-less generators capable of producing energy (and fat) from thin air.
Meanwhile, in my own anecdotal, completely unscientific personal study, I went to eating one meal a day 6 weeks ago and have lost 10 pounds, despite eating all sorts of stuff you are not supposed to eat (sugar) during that one meal each day.
Meanwhile, in my own anecdotal, completely unscientific personal study, I went to eating one meal a day 6 weeks ago and have lost 10 pounds, despite eating all sorts of stuff you are not supposed to eat (sugar) during that one meal each day.
Why do you think there is no evidence that if you reduce calorie intake you lose weight?
Are you saying that if your calorie intake was 0 you would remain fat?
Why are anorexic people skinny then?
If I'm not mistaken, essentially the conclusion is shit we already knew: Unless you change your eating habits (decrease volume of calories and increase quality of food), you're probably going to be stuck where you're at.
Drinking 24x cans of diet soda every day isn't going to you there.
Drinking 24x cans of diet soda every day isn't going to you there.
decrease volume of calories
I calculate about 2400cal savings, and if CICO is legit, I think that would get them there.
This misses the point. People are using Diet soda as an excuse to consume excessively (Hence Quality of food statement above). _anything_ in excess is bad for you
I wonder if it's just that a single 20oz of diet/zero sugar soda doesn't make a big enough difference one way or another. Likely not so good for you but not as addictive and statistically significant as say, alcohol, nicotine or fatty and sugary foods.
They analyzed all studies about any of the different non-sugar sweeteners...
I bet there are some that are bad and some that are good, I'm waiting for more precise results.
In particular, it seems that stevia based sweeteners are rather innocuous or even good (e.g. lowering blood pressure).
I bet there are some that are bad and some that are good, I'm waiting for more precise results.
In particular, it seems that stevia based sweeteners are rather innocuous or even good (e.g. lowering blood pressure).
[deleted]
I'd play it safe and eat only natural sweeteners like inulin/stevia/xylitol. Gut microbes haven't evolved to
expirience the whole array of artificial sweeteners.
Why would you ever want to fool your body into thinking you're eating something you're not? If you want to taste sweet then eat sugary foods. If you don't want to eat sugary foods, why in the world are you eating artificial lab-created pretend-sugar?
As much as you should aspire to be truthful in your life, you should also be truthful in your diet. Eat actual food. Artificial sweeteners are a scam.
As much as you should aspire to be truthful in your life, you should also be truthful in your diet. Eat actual food. Artificial sweeteners are a scam.
Because I'm not an automaton and I enjoy. Drinking isn't really good for you but moderate drinking isn't that bad and can be quite fun in the right company. I like having a couple of coke zeros a day and they are apparently nutritionally neutral or a slight bit bad for me. The amount of cola and sugar in coffee that I used was much worse and provably so. Also none of us get out of this alive.
Refined sugars are also a scam, fooling our palates into thinking we are getting the micronutrients of fruit.
What makes you think you are fooling your body with artificial sweeteners ?
And whats 'actual food' ?
If artificial makes it bad then is stevia fine ?
And whats 'actual food' ?
If artificial makes it bad then is stevia fine ?
The foods are not fake sweet, they are actually sweet. Being sweet doesn’t mean being sugar.
Sweetness is a taste we literally evolved over millenia to find sugar.
Whats your point ?
Artificial sweeteners are by definition fake sweet. They are lab-discovered chemicals that short-circuit our sugar-detection mechanism, the taste of sweetness, which explicitly evolved to detect sugar, which artificial sweeteners are not.
Can you explain how it short circuits our sugar detection mechanism ?
Your body detects sugar by the beta cells of the pancreatic islets, causing them to increase the release of insulin into the blood .
Non of the common sugar substitutes do this
Your body detects sugar by the beta cells of the pancreatic islets, causing them to increase the release of insulin into the blood .
Non of the common sugar substitutes do this
Not deeper than a surface level understanding of evolutionary biology, no. Apparently nobody knew how sweetness works until 2001 when researchers found the specific protein that detects sweetness, and then 2012 when the receptors for that protein were figured out.
Just think about that. Until ten years ago, nobody even knew how sweetness works, yet artificial sweeteners have been in use for 50.
Just think about that. Until ten years ago, nobody even knew how sweetness works, yet artificial sweeteners have been in use for 50.
Besides the obvious "Safer for diabetics": You could ask the same question regarding anything with food coloring. Or any butter substitute.
Yes! Personally I always select to purchase food with the least fake stuff in it, be it fake taste, fake color, or unnecessary preservative.
The increased use of non-sugar sweeteners in soft drinks means that I now drink a lot more beer, because I can no longer drink soft drinks. I don't know what sort of health effect that has.
Glucose index effect can play a large role in weight gain and retention. A lot of the NSS products have a worse GI effect than straight cane sugar, especially the sugar alcohols.
Can you support your claim by any evidence?
Stevia for example has 0 GI, while sugar has 80 GI: https://www.va.gov/WHOLEHEALTHLIBRARY/docs/Understanding-Swe...
[deleted]
I looked it up and:
- Aspartame Glycemic Index 0
- Stevia Glycemic Index 0
- Sucralose Glycemic Index 0
- Allulose Glycemic Index 0
What are you trying to claim here?
- Aspartame Glycemic Index 0
- Stevia Glycemic Index 0
- Sucralose Glycemic Index 0
- Allulose Glycemic Index 0
What are you trying to claim here?
[deleted]
I don't think there's any robust evidence for glycemic index/load mattering at all, unless you're diabetic of course.
I think you better do some more reading if you think stressing your insulin mechanism daily with far more sugar than humans evolved to partake of is "ok". There's pretty good evidence for 30-35% of humans not handling it well at all...
I'm being a killjoy here, sorry:
Just drink water. Much healthier. Carbonated, if you like. With some lemon or lime juice, maybe.
Just drink water. Much healthier. Carbonated, if you like. With some lemon or lime juice, maybe.
Who said anything about soft drinks? They're putting artificial sweeteners in "unsweetened" sauces and condiments these days. They're getting about as hard to escape as sugar was in the "fats bad" era.
This to me seems less of a problem where I come from, Italy.
It's true that most Italians indulge in sugar when drinking coffee (which it's a terrible practice, we should instead push for better specialty-grade coffee that doesn't need sugar).
At the same time what Americans call "condiments" it's basically just olive oil, some salt and pepper for 95% of our dishes.
A traditional mediterranean diet, made primarily of grains, legumes and vegetables with some occasional meat and fish is what me and most of my friends' families would have for dinner.
Of course, there's the ice cream, the cakes, the BBQ with friends, etc. But I'm just thinking about the normal daily diet here. And the standard seems pretty healthy, with most sugars coming from seasonal fruit.
> unsweetened
Unsweetened generally still means it. The weasel words I usually see are "no added sugar". The ingredients will then list juice concentrates, stevia, or monkfruit.
Unsweetened generally still means it. The weasel words I usually see are "no added sugar". The ingredients will then list juice concentrates, stevia, or monkfruit.
Good point. I say, have the regular stuff (w/sugar) but just go easy with it.
The thing that's crazy is that even the "regular" items sometimes have artificial sweeteners now. You basically cannot assume any product category, with any labeling, with not have it. You have to check the ingredient list yourself (and make sure you're familiar with all the names these things go under).
At this point my main strategy is to minimize number of ingredients (e.g., two ingredient peanut butter) because otherwise it's just too easy to miss something getting slipped in there. It's insane.
At this point my main strategy is to minimize number of ingredients (e.g., two ingredient peanut butter) because otherwise it's just too easy to miss something getting slipped in there. It's insane.
>You basically cannot assume any product category
Picked up a loaf of bread on sale the other day and, because it wasn't the brand I normally get, I scanned the ingredients. Surprised to find that it contained sucralose.
It wasn't listed as "lite" or similar. Just "regular" bread. With sucralose.
Picked up a loaf of bread on sale the other day and, because it wasn't the brand I normally get, I scanned the ingredients. Surprised to find that it contained sucralose.
It wasn't listed as "lite" or similar. Just "regular" bread. With sucralose.
Does the place you shop not sell fresh bread? In European supermarkets that’s the norm. Anything branded (i.e. shelf stable and sold in a plastic bag) is to be treated with suspicion.
Supermarkets in the U.S. will frequently have a bakery, but they tend to sell other baked goods, such as cakes, pastries, etc. Whatever bread they do sell is generally more "specialty", like baguettes or sourdough. If you're looking for "standard" loaved bread, that's generally relegated to the shelf stable type, of which there is a substantial selection.
Some of the shelf stable stuff is better than others WRT ingredients, and it's possible to make relatively decent selections. The cheaper stuff tends to be more awash in garbage ingredients.
OTOH, it's also not necessarily the case that the in-store bakery stuff is free of garbage ingredients, to include artificial flavors, etc.
Some of the shelf stable stuff is better than others WRT ingredients, and it's possible to make relatively decent selections. The cheaper stuff tends to be more awash in garbage ingredients.
OTOH, it's also not necessarily the case that the in-store bakery stuff is free of garbage ingredients, to include artificial flavors, etc.
Everything in moderation.
If you only drink soda, you've got problems. If you only drink water, you're not having any fun.
It's OK to pick a point somewhere in the middle.
If you only drink soda, you've got problems. If you only drink water, you're not having any fun.
It's OK to pick a point somewhere in the middle.
Sweetened beverages, including no calorie, fall on the extreme end of the sweetness spectrum. If you consume such sweet things even in moderation, you are recalibrating your sense of sweetness.
Personally, I’ve avoided all added sugars and sweeteners for a few years now. I used to find apples bland and boring, but now they taste like indulgent candy. The same goes for pretty much all fruit. I can taste sweetness in vegetables that I used to find bitter. Lightly cooked carrots, beets, squash are all deliciously sweet treats. The bottom line is that I get a lot more enjoyment out of “healthy” foods now.
When I’ve recently tried “normal” sweets like cake or soda, they taste sickeningly sweet. However, I imagine that if I drank even a no calorie sweetened drink like Coke Zero “in moderation”, my sweetness scale would recalibrate and I would start gravitating more towards sweeter things, and be less able to sense the sweetness of mildly sweet things.
The same concept applies to other flavor profiles. Salty, umami, starchy, fatty. Eating processed foods even in moderation reduces your enjoyment of whole foods and consequently makes you less likely to eat them.
Personally, I’ve avoided all added sugars and sweeteners for a few years now. I used to find apples bland and boring, but now they taste like indulgent candy. The same goes for pretty much all fruit. I can taste sweetness in vegetables that I used to find bitter. Lightly cooked carrots, beets, squash are all deliciously sweet treats. The bottom line is that I get a lot more enjoyment out of “healthy” foods now.
When I’ve recently tried “normal” sweets like cake or soda, they taste sickeningly sweet. However, I imagine that if I drank even a no calorie sweetened drink like Coke Zero “in moderation”, my sweetness scale would recalibrate and I would start gravitating more towards sweeter things, and be less able to sense the sweetness of mildly sweet things.
The same concept applies to other flavor profiles. Salty, umami, starchy, fatty. Eating processed foods even in moderation reduces your enjoyment of whole foods and consequently makes you less likely to eat them.
This is something that a lot of people claim with a universally authoritative tone, but it's counter to my own experience. I don't consume regularly candy, sweets, etc., but I do drink diet soda and zero-sugar energy drinks and when I (rarely) have fruits or make mixed drinks with fruit components they are really sweet to my palate. When I've cut diet soda out for long periods, fruits taste no sweeter. Cooked starches and tubers are already sweet-tasting and always have been for me; diet soda doesn't affect those, either.
Moderation might not be fine for you. It seems to work for me.
Moderation might not be fine for you. It seems to work for me.
Not to contradict you at all, but worth noting that those fruits probably are extremely sweet, having been selectively bred precisely to compete with the sweetness of other foods people regularly consume. Something of a sugar arms race.
This is a good point, yeah--of course they're bred for it. That they taste similarly relatively-sweet irrespective of artificial sugar consumption is orthogonal to how much sugar is actually in them.
Honestly, I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, and I did the same "recalibration" on myself years ago. But a while back I started allowing myself to eat junk food again and it has not at all diminished my taste for "bland," natural foods.
ymmv, but some (many? most?) people are able to drink a can of diet soda a day and not totally abandon eating vegetables as a result.
ymmv, but some (many? most?) people are able to drink a can of diet soda a day and not totally abandon eating vegetables as a result.
How does watermelon taste for you?
> If you only drink water, you're not having any fun.
That's a very strange thing to say...
It's only in the last two generations that other beverages have supplanted water. Prior to that it was a rare thing.
When I first switched to water only 7 years ago, it was actually hard because I'd had a lifetime of flavor overload, and it takes awhile for your sense of taste to adjust to normality. American food in general is over-salted, and over-flavored. Eating most things there is like a punch in the face after eating normal food again (England has the opposite problem).
Drinking carbonated water with a twist of lime helped a lot, and then after awhile I came to appreciate the subtle nuances between different water types. Tap water in San Francisco has a harsh overtone to it. Tap water in Western Oakland tastes a little muddy. Tap water in Vancouver and Leipzig is actually quite tasty. The best water I've ever had is hands down in the tiny town of Nagasasa in Japan. We actually dumped out all of our water bottles and brought 20 litres of the stuff back with us to Nagoya (where the tap water tastes terrible).
That's a very strange thing to say...
It's only in the last two generations that other beverages have supplanted water. Prior to that it was a rare thing.
When I first switched to water only 7 years ago, it was actually hard because I'd had a lifetime of flavor overload, and it takes awhile for your sense of taste to adjust to normality. American food in general is over-salted, and over-flavored. Eating most things there is like a punch in the face after eating normal food again (England has the opposite problem).
Drinking carbonated water with a twist of lime helped a lot, and then after awhile I came to appreciate the subtle nuances between different water types. Tap water in San Francisco has a harsh overtone to it. Tap water in Western Oakland tastes a little muddy. Tap water in Vancouver and Leipzig is actually quite tasty. The best water I've ever had is hands down in the tiny town of Nagasasa in Japan. We actually dumped out all of our water bottles and brought 20 litres of the stuff back with us to Nagoya (where the tap water tastes terrible).
> It's only in the last two generations that other beverages have supplanted water. Prior to that it was a rare thing.
It's only in the last six generations that water has supplanted beer (typically "small beer") as a beverage. Prior to that it was a dangerous thing to drink water unless you lived far out in the countryside.
It's only in the last six generations that water has supplanted beer (typically "small beer") as a beverage. Prior to that it was a dangerous thing to drink water unless you lived far out in the countryside.
I doubt this very much. Beer costs money to make, and very few people would have been able to afford it.
We also see much more recently that 3rd world countries didn't do this, either. People drank water.
We also see much more recently that 3rd world countries didn't do this, either. People drank water.
Why doubt it? People made beer at home from barley and water and mugworth, it was decidedly not expensive.
Today the Czech Republic is the country with the highest beer consumption per capita, at 140 liters per person per year. Germany clocks in at 99, and the US is at 72. In the late middle ages, the average in Britain was 300 liters per person per year.
In 1830, Americans over the age of 15 consumed more than 31 liters of pure alcohol per year. If that was all in 7% beer, it corresponds to 1.2 liters of strong beer every day. Probably quite a bit was also in whiskey, which was cheaper than milk back then.
Today the Czech Republic is the country with the highest beer consumption per capita, at 140 liters per person per year. Germany clocks in at 99, and the US is at 72. In the late middle ages, the average in Britain was 300 liters per person per year.
In 1830, Americans over the age of 15 consumed more than 31 liters of pure alcohol per year. If that was all in 7% beer, it corresponds to 1.2 liters of strong beer every day. Probably quite a bit was also in whiskey, which was cheaper than milk back then.
Very true. People did drink a lot more back then (even John Adams had some hard cider with breakfast), but also, the alcohol content of their wine or beer was probably pretty low.
I haven't been to Japan, so I'm not arguing. Just curious: have you been to Mt. Shasta in northern CA? Their water is awesome.
I have fun drinking coffee, tea, and alcohol. I have no desire to drink sweet liquids. But point well taken, moderation is key to a happy life.
How much cocaine a day would still be "in moderation" ? I mean, we are talking everything, and everything includes cocaine too.
A fascinating question. Are you worried?
> If you only drink water, you're not having any fun.
I have plenty of fun only drinking water thanks.
I have plenty of fun only drinking water thanks.
Drinking soda is no fun
I tried that, but my cakes just don't come out the same.
Water doesn't mix well with rum.
Sure, you can do it, the British Navy did it for centuries, but "can" isn't "should".
Sure, you can do it, the British Navy did it for centuries, but "can" isn't "should".
That study cannot be complete if it isn't covering Xylitol - period
Consuming anything that has aspartame in it gives me a severe migraine.
Everyone I know who constantly harps on aspartame, sucralose, MSG, etc. also drinks an alcoholic beverage 5 or more times per week and never exercises beyond an occasional meandering neighborhood walk. The latter is astronomically more likely to harm them, but it's easier to think that they're being "healthy" simply by avoiding artificial sweeteners.
The real danger with people constantly harping on aspartame is that they bore others to death. All you can do is try to limit your exposure.
All of those taste unbelievably vile, which is why I avoid them. I don't care about the health effects, I care about them making everything taste like antifreeze.
what's the complaint with msg? have never heard anyone complain about that, although as a kid with all the "no msg" signs at Chinese restaurants and no other context I thought of it as something similar to MDMA or LSD.
There is nothing bad about it. The reason why it was attacked is another story
https://youtu.be/E-POAKKH5IM
https://youtu.be/E-POAKKH5IM
[deleted]
The issue is only partly about whether non-sugar sweeteners have negative effects. The more important question is whether regular & processed sugars produce an overall worse impact than substitutes consumed at comparable levels, with stratification by consumption level.
E.g., non-sugar sweeteners may have a similar danger profile at both low and high levels of consumption while sugar's negative impacts may be more linear. Or so other balance. In a situation like that, the proper advice to individuals looking to become healthier may vary, especially given that immediate and rapid wholesale change if a person's behavior is not usually possible.