And it's not for no reason, it's because recipes rely on the physical properties of sugar (i.e. to aerate butter) not just the sweetness and so a granular sweetener that can be substituted 1-1 by volume is pretty much necessary.
Source: I bake for my family members that have diabetes.
> Now, there have been studies that showed that erythritol is apparently toxic to fruit flies.
In fruit flies. Totally irrelevant, and it's stunning the author thinks they can use this to suggest anything about human physiology. Even mammal models of other species can't definitely tell us anything about humans.
> But we seem to have spotted a toxic effect now.
seem != does
> In initial untargeted metabolomics studies in patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment
Unfortunately, these are studies evaluating patients who have preexisting cardiovascular conditions, so at most we have correlation and perhaps some causative data specifically for those already at risk for cardiovascular events.
Maybe there's something to this, but the tone of this article isn't scientific.
> if your clotting behavior is normal to start with, you really, really, do not want to go around activating your platelets.
That depends on the degree. Alcohol affects blood clotting, so I guess we'd better not have one sip ever under any circumstance.
> That seems to be a risk under normal erythritol consumption, as determined by separate blood level measurements
Seems, for those who are already at risk of CVD.
It may very well turn out that erythritol increases risk of CVD events in otherwise healthy people, but that's not what any of the data mentioned actually indicates. The only exception may be how erythritol has been observed to affect patelet activation in vitro, but there are many things that seem significant in vitro that aren't medically relevant in vivo.
I don't understand your facetious and, frankly, spurious attempt to dismiss this report from Derek Lowe. Lowe has spent decades informing lay audiences about pharmacology and biochemistry. A facile dismissal of his reporting as "not scientific" is not a credible counterargument.
The core finding, which is what you are ultimately trying to find fault with, is this:
In 1,157 patients volunteers undergoing three-year longitudinal evaluation,
the patients in the highest quartile of plasma erythritol concentration were
very strong outliers for CV events. That correlation holds up after
controlling for all sorts of other dietary and physical variables (weight,
age, gender, known cardiovascular risk factors, and more). And on top of
that, the authors demonstrate a surprising but extremely plausible
explanation for these findings: erythritol, in both in vitro and in vivo
assays, enhances platelet aggregation.
> Lowe has spent decades informing lay audiences about pharmacology and biochemistry.
So? Why should I care whether a report is written by David Lowe? This guy has already drawn a conclusion about erythritol despite how inadequate the evidence is for how harmful it is to those without CVD, and is even willing to tease the reader with some data on fruit flies as if that matters. It doesn't matter what his background is; I don't find this article becoming of someone in the field of research.
> A facile dismissal
Yet all you did was cite the fact the article was written by David Lowe and paste an excerpt as if you think I hadn't already read it.
Facetious, because I chose to read beyond that piece of abstract? Because I pointed out that invertebrate physiology is a nonsequitor as to whether a substance is medically relevant to human being? Because I don't agree that correlation of data in a study with inherent confounders can be so easily used to interpret risk in healthy individuals?
There's a difference between correlation and causation, and especially in regards to judging medically relevant risk.
If I was being facile and facetious, I'd be claiming there's no problem with erythritol. That's not what I'm saying at all. There's no good reason people should be consuming artificial sweeteners or sugar. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily a meaningful cardiovascular risk.
Your dismissal is facile because you focused on parts of the report that are a part of the background, but you instead presented as germane to the report's overall credibility.
As one example, you started by dismissing the finding of adverse effect in fruit flies, as if the author was presenting it as being relevant to humans.
In reality, Lowe writes that the fruit fly result is a curiosity. The specific finding from human medicine that he is actually reporting on is far more relevant and concerning.
I posted Lowe's summary of the abstract because you preferred to focus on tangential minutia and ignored what is actually the novel and significant finding here.
I care that the report is by Derek Lowe because he has spent literally years convincing me of his scientific expertise, industry experience, and journalistic bona fides. You have done nothing to show that you have any of these, and your choice of what you focused on makes me think the opposite.
I am typically extremely skeptical of food-related studies generally, but Derek Lowe taking it seriously is enough to make me a bit concerned, too. Derek (not David as the other person said) indeed has a stellar reputation as you say.
While I have zero opinion (or awareness even) about erythritol, I find the tendency, especially prevalent on IT-focused HN, to deify Lowe as the herald representative of all things life-sciences to be somewhat problematic.
I too have learned lots from reading him. But that doesn't mean I don't take his pronouncements without a grain of salt. He's as subject to his profession's groupthink as anyone is to their own profession's. I co-wrote a paper challenging a consequential assumption he propagated back in 2020. Explainer version:
I generally expect Lowe to present findings engagingly and as fairly as I can expect to see in the lay press. And that's about it for me.
I literally have a bag of erythritol in my pantry and I am literally eating from it with a spoon. I am eager to see follow-up studies. That said, the fact that the authors found a substantial effect and identified a clear mechanism of action is what makes me pay attention. And I appreciate Derek Lowe bringing it to my layman's attention.
>Totally irrelevant, and it's stunning the author thinks they can use this to suggest anything about human physiology
The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical.
It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology. The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read.
> The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical.
In either case, it's still misleading and irrelevant. Whether people think a chemical is inert doesn't say anything about whether a chemical is dangerous to humans. If one wrote an equivalent article with the thesis that water bottles should no longer be sold, and the author points to the curiosity that thousands of people drown every year, that only serves to persuade gullible readers into believing that drinking a bottle of Aquafina and drowning in a pool are connected in a way that is relevant. If Derek Lowe's point truly was that people should not see erythritol as biologically inert, he should have said something explicit stating as such. The fact that he didn't communicates that his goal was to lead the reader to the conclusion that he's made quite clear in his final paragraph.
> It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology.
It's irrelevant to the point that he is explicitly making, and is no different than an article about weight loss telling people to stop eating so much chocolate and, oh by the way, did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs?! Gee whiz! And you thought chocolate was a harmless treat!
> The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read.
So you read articles for the factoids? I guess there's nothing wrong with that in isolation, but the insertion of factoids into articles is often misleading to those whom are less scientifically minded, which is a problem when an author is acting as a science communicator. There's no reason a site called Science.com can't have articles that are written to both fit the parameters of science and be interesting to read.
Starting off with a textbook contextomy is always a sign of a well balanced reply...
> Now, there have been studies that showed that erythritol is apparently toxic to fruit flies. [...] That last effect may have partly been due to starvation, honestly, and it is also believed to cause osmotic imbalance in them. But nothing like that had ever been seen with humans; it has no such effects even in honeybees.
It was mentioned specifically to be dismissed, and the opposite of what you're claiming is what was suggested.
The rest of your comment doesn't really improve from there.
Note that the authors compared blood erythritol level, not _intake_. Erythritol is also a metabolite, which is produced by the pentose phosphate pathway, and has been associated with metabolic dysfunction before.
Verbatim response to that tweet, from a highly qualified friend with relevant scientific expertise:
"idk that critique is pretty dismissive of the actual experimental evidence that they generated in the study… consuming an erythritol sweetened beverage raises the erythritol level in the blood to a level that clearly causes an effect on platelets, and coincides with the difference between the measured levels in the observational study… seems pretty convincing to me".
I'm pretty sure you're referring to the poor health outcomes correlating with high caloric intake, which afaict, come from people's consumption of heating oils (seed oils): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil
There's bound to be mixups what talking about sugars and fats. But these fuel oils are really really bad for us. We've demonized sugars unnecessarily. Right?
The problem with monk fruit is that while it seems relatively benign on its own, many/most commercial products that claim to be "sweetened with monk fruit extract" actually have other cheaper commercial sweeteners mixed in.
If you google "monk fruit extract diarrhea" theres a good amount out there on this.
So you may switch to monk fruit thinking its a better alternative but actually be consuming erythritol anyway.
If you want the lowest risk option and don't experience any of the side effects, aspartame should be your choice. A 'newer' and promising substitute is Allulose, though some people report bowel complaints.
Er... Aspartame is a NMDA receptor antagonist, but at a site where it actually increases NMDA activity. I get super panicky and jittery/feel like my nerves are physically overloaded with Aspartame. My mom would call her reactions "aspartame headaches"
Each sweetener is different and different for different people. Allulose is not metabolized by the body but is free for all those bacteria to eat! Yum! Much much more sugar for the bacteria. It does taste truly lovely though, that said. Stevia glycosides are not bad at all with the taste a bit to get used to. Sucralose is just sucrose IIRC with three chlorine atoms... substituted on it? I think? It's not taken up in your intestine but it does block the transporter in bacteria/yeast that does take it up. So, havoc on the gut flora! I'm pretty sure it kills the bacteria/yeast too. I think.
Acesulfate Potassium is okay but it activates your insulin receptors, so your blood sugar plummets. I can barely stay awake after a single diet cheerwine for that reason.
Glycine is a fun one that's expensive that no one uses. It's literally the opposite of aspartame, even binds to the same receptor at the same receptor site, just... Opposite! It's also like magnesium in which lots of people could use to have it/maybe are deficient in it...I think (don't quote me on that please! D:) I always wanted to try it dusted on a blueberry cake donut. :3
We don't talk about saccharine, but D-ribose (this one is actually caloric) is very expensive but tastes fantastic and is great for your mitochondria to boot! It's a DNA building block as well. I use it when going on ultra-long physical excursions. Blackstrap molasses is great for cutting with any of the above sweeteners for cheap caramelly roasted toasted robust flavor without many calories. Inulin, a digestible fiber is also sweet and worth a shot! (I don't think it's super cheap, but I don't think it's break the bank or no).
Oh, 70% sucralose solution is fun (and cheap!) too. It's 600x sweeter than sugar lol. It tastes almost soapy bitter it activates whatever receptors so strongly lol. I love it. Sometimes it leaks and crystalizes on the outside of the bottle. What a rush it is to have those. Oh, to see my life flash before my eyes like that again....
I use that as my emergency sweetener sparingly. I have a small bottle that's lasted me for years at this point.
Stevia from Trader Joe's is my go to. I add it to beans with molasses and some garlic infused oil and some spicy stuff and such. Yummmmmmm. Gonna have to have some of that soon!
So there you go. There's more of course (like some corn fiber of some kind IIRC), but those are a lot of the main ones. And erythritol. But I say use what's good for you. It's literally different for each person. They're drugs but boy do I like the sweet flavor, and Stevia is a good tradeoff for me that I've come to love so much.
Hope that was interesting, if you made it to this point, thanks for reading and so much love! :)))) <3 <3 <3 <3 :))))
Great write-up! Thanks for putting it all together. Just want to add: Aspartame is extensively studied, the known side effects are very well understood and the probability of undiscovered side effects is extremely low. That's why I wrote lowest-risk. That is, if you don't experience the side effects.
Can't you recommend someone stop drinking alcohol (for behavioral/psychological or physiological health issues) without giving him something that tastes like alcohol and inebriates you like alcohol?
Good point. This paper gets more hype then is appropriate. First it looked at a group of already very sick people:
> Over 40% had already had a heart attack. Over 15% were in heart failure. Over 25% had type 2 diabetes. Over 70% had hypertension. And over 70% had coronary artery disease! [1]
This is important because:
> people with this metabolic profile (Syndrome X) have been shown to have an overactive PPP & likely produce more erythritol (PMID: 20711518) Therefore, it is highly likely that this paper is simply a case of reverse causality. [1]
This gets underscored through:
> the authors’ finding that erythritol levels remain well above the cohort ranges for at least a day after consumption, suggests that none of the cohort patients were consuming erythritol in their diets [2]
Here's a study from 2017 showing that adiposity (basically having a gut and/or being overweight as far as I understand) correlates to elevated levels of Erythritol in the bloodstream. n=264 and the test subjects are all college freshmen so presumably in much better overall health than the subjects of the study that's been getting hyped in the news, so definitely looking like reverse causality here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1620079114
Edit: From the paper -
"Erythritol was shown to be synthesized endogenously from glucose via the pentose-phosphate pathway (PPP) in stable isotope-assisted ex vivo blood incubation experiments and through in vivo conversion of erythritol to erythronate in stable isotope-assisted dried blood spot experiments. Therefore, endogenous production of
erythritol from glucose may contribute to the association between erythritol and obesity observed in young adults."
I think you're thinking of xylitol. ("The study subjects consuming xylitol experienced diarrhea, nausea, and bloating. Those who took erythritol experienced significantly fewer symptoms." -Medical News Today)
One positive information for me here is that I may have a new tool to battle fruit flies which are VERY attracted to organic fertilizers I use to grow in-house veggies.
A bowl of wine with one drop of dish detergent has always cleared my house of fruit flies promptly. Gnats (which live in the soil near plants I think?) seem impossible to get rid of short of tossing out all the house plants.
Wine works well, especially with added fruit peels, but I drink alcohol rarely and most of the wine would spoil. I've seen small bottles of wine in Sweden but not where I live - just these 700-750ml ones. I also drink organic with no added sulfites and these appear to spoil quicker even in the fridge.
Gnats and aphids' larvae and eggs appear to be a delicacy for bees. Whenever I put plant pots on a sunny balcony during early spring daytime, I have dozens of bees tinkering in the soil. They also very efficiently clean up the soil and help aerate the roots[1]. Bees are the awesomest living species I know!
I had an issue with fungus gnats in a couple house plants. To eliminate them, water the plants from the bottom and cover as much of the open top of the pot as you can in flypaper (yes, this can leave a sticky mess behind).
They need both moisture and oxygen to reproduce, which means they only live in a damp top layer of soil. So leaving the top layer of soil dry prevents them from reproducing. And since fungus gnats are dumb and slow they fly right into the flypaper, removing themselves from the gene pool.
You can also replace the top couple centimeters of soil. You'll still want to keep the soil as dry as possible for a week so any remaining gnats stop laying eggs.
Fungus gnats look like fruit flies, but aren't interested in vinegar or other fruit fly traps. They can also be distinguished by their catlike ability to spring back from a slap with "excuse me, I was flying here, do you mind?" insouciance.
I've had success suppressing them with frequent sprays of neem oil, direct to the soil of the pots. Daily for a week or two to break the life cycle and then weekly or more often to keep the inevitable survivors knocked back and feeling unwelcome.
They're also suckers for a candle left lit in a darkened room.
Most other stuff talking about the quality I can find regarding this article seems to be some meme-laden tweets or Instagram Reels. But Medscape [0] has a video with a full transcript, and science media center has interviewed some experts about it.
Recently I was considering buying some erythritol. Never tried it, but I read it was a good and "healthy" sugar substitute.
Now I'm inclined to think that most substitutes won't do me any good. I suppose I'll stick to limiting my sugar and processed carbs intake as much as possible.
My take on fake sugar is, if you use it for weight loss, you've messed up. You'll still crave sugary stuff, and when you don't have fake sugar handy, you'll eat the real thing (in restaurants, etc.). On the other hand, if you don't eat sugar much, you quickly find that apples, oranges and even carrots are actually super sweet, but you it's hard to eat enough of those to gain weight.
The best rule of thumb for weight loss I've found out is: Never drink calories.
It's really easy to drink hundreds and hundreds of calories with calorie-heavy drinks. It's a lot harder to do the same by eating, fiber in the food tells your body to stop pretty fast.
On top of fiber, it's just easier to drink than to eat. Mulching 3 whole oranges and drinking them (fiber and all) is still a lot easier than chewing through them. Also, it takes a bit for the fiber filling you up signal to get to the brain.
If you really like soda water (seltzer) make your own machine, you can carbonate to a much higher pressure and the result is amazing! Also a lot cheaper - around $0.04/bottle for the gas.
I have a sweet tooth. Apparently, genetically. About a year ago I said enough is enough to my excess weight gained during the first pandemic lockdowns. Mind you, I eat generally well but my caloric intake had been pretty high and I was eating too many sugary things.
After trying a few different things, I decided it was time to bring out the big guns so I started calorie counting. Sugar had to go due to its calorie density and how much I would keep craving it afterwards.
My sweet cravings didn't go away. I started with fruit but that wouldn't quite hit the spot, at least not always.
Enter zero calorie sweeteners.
I'd add a bit of them to less sugary fruits (berries, etc) at first. I started adding it to a few other things when I wanted something sweet. It worked great.
It's true that when it wasn't available I would get something with actual sugar, but that would be maybe 5-10% of the time, so I had cut 90-95% of the calories I used to consume from sugar. That's a win.
In time I started weaning it all off. Not completely but I reduced it to a minimum. I still have a zero ginger beer every now and then, and still add a bit of fake sugar to one thing or another. I also consume chewing gums and mints with sugar alcohols.
They have been instrumental in my weight loss journey and now I'm at about 14% body fat. I still want to lose a little to see if it will improve my climbing performance but I'm quite satisfied. I have reintroduced small amounts of sugary foods to my diet, at this point with no abnormal cravings.
Yes, carrots, oranges, beetroots, milk, even berries can be very sweet after you wean off the excess sugar and fake sugars. They can be enough most days. Other days I'll use whatever sweet thing I have at hand, in moderation, in order to beat the craving.
So my take on fake sugar is, if you use it for weight loss, use it conscientiously and in a way that will help you get off sugar first, but also with a plan to slowly get off them as well. They can be an excellent tool if used well.
Good point. Satisfying your cravings, like you have done, seems to be positive, just replacing sugar with zero calorie replacements seems to be a bad strategy though.
I have a friend who drinks about 10 liters of 'sugar-free' fizzy drinks per week, and uses artificial sweeteners for stuff he bakes, all while trying to lose weight (and failing).
Anyone trying to lose weight shouldn't be baking much (assuming they are baking sweets/pastries/etc). Even if you replace the sugar you still are dealing with high calorie items.
My experience has been largely the same. I started eating more fruits, cut off sugary drinks completely, and had an impressive improvement in LDL cholesterol.
Well that leaves aspartame and stevia as the cleanest sweeteners, at least using human data. Thaumatin is another one that should be benign (it’s a large protein, unlike the others), but largely untested.
> Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer.[5][8][10][27][28] This position is supported by multiple regulatory agencies like the FDA[29] and EFSA as well as scientific bodies such as the National Cancer Institute.[30] The EFSA, FDA, and US National Cancer Institute state that aspartame is safe for human consumption.[7][31]
Great sweetener, maybe my only complaint is ... slight minty taste, but be damn careful with it if you or anybody you know has a dog. Even very small quantities are lethal to them.
Also lethal to them. The big issue for dogs is that xylitol is used in several brands of peanut butter (or it was) and that's a common treat or medicine aid for dog owners
I mean, better to be safe than sorry, but it doesn't seem to affect them in this study. Other non-scientific sources are all over the map on the question.
1000x this. The most worried I've even been for my dog was when she got into a pack of gum sweetened with xylitol. She's fine, thankfully. Fun fact: the ASPCA poison control line has a database of products containing xylitol (and presumably tons of other stuff) and the concentration in each. Strongly recommend a call if your dog or cat gets into something dangerous (while you're driving to the vet).
I keep seeing things indicating this is good for your teeth (e.g. chewing gum with xylitol) but can't tell if it is astro-turfing or not (on my list of things to research when I retire).
Iirc it disrupts the metabolism of microbes involves in tooth decay. It seems to also protect against throat infections. From personal experience, after eating/drinking xylitol, my mouth feels fresh as if I had just brushed.
I've asked three different dentists about it and they all said it actively prevents tooth decay, in so many words. Two of them also mentioned hydration being really good during the same conversation fwiw.
(German) wikipedia mentions it is a relatively expensive sugar replacement. Maybe that's why it is less popular. Interesting is that it is pretty common in multiple plants (it sounds more natural at least)
100%. Allulose is the closest thing to sugar. It's also the only one that works well in simple syrup because it doesn't crystalize in storage and keeps the taste consistent for cocktails.
The only problem is its pretty expensive and you have to buy it online since it's realitive new.
Hopefully production ramps up over the next few years.
How is that not new? Especially for a class of sugar, not just a brand. The market is very immature.
You just have to go Amazon to see the availability is limited compared to Erythritol/Stevia. And almost no commercial food/drink products use it in their recipes.
It seems like "newish" is a downside, if you want to avoid dangerous things. How many sweeteners enjoyed positive coverage for a decade or two before we found out they were bad for you?
The worst offending 'fake' Stevia products are the ones packed with maltodextrin. The large bags sold for baking are the ones you always need to check.
Unfortunately, any product designed to be a drop-in replacement for sugar in a baking recipe needs to contain a bulking agent like maltodextrin. It makes the product take up the same volume as sugar, so that you don't need to adjust the ratios of all the other ingredients.
A recipe rewritten to use stevia in the first place won't require such hacks for backward compatibility, but there aren't many of them compared to all the legacy stuff out there.
Right that makes sense. Ideally you have to build your recipes around low carb sugars instead of the inverse. It's probably still better than alternatives and a gateway.
Majority of monk fruit sold online & in stores is actually mixed with Erythritol anyway.
Top 5 hits on Amazon for "monk fruit sweetener" all have Erythritol. Some mention it in the product name, some later on in description, etc. Have to read very carefully.
An anonymous powdered chemical in a plastic bag. Hopefully not imported drop shipped via Amazon from China by the same people that import the phone chargers that catch fire and the fake microSD cards...
Xylitol is not zero calorie, but its metabolism is more like glucose than fructose, and it's beneficial to oral health, both against tooth decay and throat infections. It also has less risk of GI upset than other sugar alcohols. Its main drawback is that it kills dogs.
It not only kills dogs, it only takes a small amount to do so.
I keep some in the house double bagged to use in a neti pot when I’m sick (it’s also a good decongestant!), but there’s no way I’d willingly buy any food with it. It’s just too risky.
I thought that chocolate was only mildly toxic to dogs, and had to be consumed in relatively large quantities to be dangerous. I was very freaked out to find out that this xylitol chemical can kill them in small quantities.
It would take about 10 ounces of milk chocolate to be potentially fatal for my 14 pound dog. In the same dog .7 grams of xylitol could cause hypoglycemia and 3.5 grams could cause liver failure.
I haven't used it as a sweetener per se but it's used in a bunch of products I like. E.g. energy drinks or protein. Those don't list erythritol.
You're right that it's tricky (impossible?) to find on its own. I suppose it needs to hang onto something to get it into crystallized form?
I wonder if they considered that heavy consumer of Erythritol, especially in combination to Sucralose might be on average more overweight that the general population. Excess body weight correlation to bad cardiovascular health is well-known.
RTA. In the article, the author writes the following:
That correlation holds up after controlling for all sorts of other dietary and
physical variables (weight, age, gender, known cardiovascular risk factors,
and more).
On the topic of artificial sweeteners, what is the current cutting-edge research on Aspartame and Acesulfame K which is what Coca-Cola use in Europe. And I drink a lot of it.
My understanding of biochemistry is rather poor but I don't think weight is a factor here:
> When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol ― all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.
> Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants
I thought this was a nice analysis of the study: https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol.... Since our bodies produce erythritol as part of the pentose phosphate pathway (which is activated heavily by many of the same factors which increase the risk of heart disease), it's possible that high circulating levels in our blood are just a marker/signal of other factors.
I have very little knowledge about chemistry and biology, but I have the impression that there is something wrong with almost all artificial sweeteners. Even if there is nothing seriously wrong with them, like with Aspartame, some people still get headaches or similar. I guess that this can't be an accident. Is there a "reason" for it? Why is this such a hard problem to solve, especially since there are gigantic financial incentives for every company that produces sugary goods (which is many - large ones too)?
So anything that tastes sweet isn't just tasting, but being used elsewhere in the body to do sugar related stuff. Probably not a great idea to eat and drink things that strongly bind and mess with key sugar metabolism imo.
Because maybe it's not. Artificial sweeteners are a huge threat to producers of natural sugar, so they worked really hard to get them outlawed, or at least create some FUD around them.
For example, did you know that saccharin causes cancer? Right? I certainly heard that as a kid, but it turns out the study that linked saccharin to cancer was done in rats, and involved a biological mechanism that is not relevant to humans [1].
You'd think a study that was refuted should have no legal implications, right? Well, to this day saccharin is not allowed as a food additive in Canada, specifically because of that rat lab study [2]:
In the 1970s, scientific studies raised concerns that saccharin could be carcinogenic (cancer-causing) in laboratory rats. As a result of these studies, saccharin was not permitted as a food additive in Canada, although restricted use of saccharin as a table-top sweetener has been allowed. Since that time, further studies have revealed that the carcinogenic effect of saccharin in rats does not have the same effect on humans. Health Canada's scientists have thoroughly reviewed the scientific information available and as a result are considering re-listing saccharin in the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations to allow its use as a sweetener in certain foods.
Just look at that: the scientists in Canada are "considering" re-listing saccharin as safe. Now, in 2023, many decades after that study was refuted. I can see the sugar lobbyists getting to their dinners and cigars and still patting themselves on the back for the stunt they pulled half a century ago.
Edit: if you think there is no sugar lobby, here's a riddle for you: what is the biggest agricultural crop in the world? It must be one of rice, corn or wheat, right? No, it is sugar cane. As a piece of trivia, the world produces about the same amount of sugar cane each year as steel: 1.9 billion tons.
I just think there is no "free dessert" when it comes to sweetened foods. You are either consuming a bunch of empty calories (sugar/honey/agave), dealing with unpleasant GI or psychological side effects (sucralose/aspartame), experiencing an undesirable aftertaste (saccharin), risking a cardiovascular event (erythritol, apparently), burning your salary (allulose), or making weird recipe adjustments (stevia).
The best solution is to kick the sugar habit. No soda, no cookies, no cake, no candy. Honestly, what purpose do these foods serve? Pleasing your palate? 30 grams of lightly salted almonds is just as pleasing to my palate as a piece of cake, contains the same amount of calories, and keeps me satiated for hours.
About the only downside to skipping sweets is social acceptance. But that's not that hard to deal with. Co-worker: "hey, my wife made some cookies! Here, take one!". Me, "okay sure! They look great! I'll have that after my lunch." (said cookie then hits the trash can as soon as he gets out of sight).
A healthy diet can easily include occasional sweet foods and drinks. When I was counting calories, I could still include ice cream or cookies as long as I planned for it and did it in moderation. You can easily make a few hundred calories worth of wiggle room for snacks. Unless you are a tiny woman, in which case it seems really really difficult to restrict calories enough to lose weight but still eat a healthy minimum of calories per day.
> A healthy diet can easily include occasional sweet foods and drinks. When I was counting calories
I actually agree with this. From a pure calorie-counting and weight loss standpoint, you can almost always make room for sweets and still achieve your goals. A caloric intake is like any other budget. Sure, I can come up with money for a Burberry hoodie but it means delaying that GPU upgrade for another year (needless to say my clothes do not come from couture houses).
I just find it hard to put sugar calories in my body when those calories could be going to protein for building muscle or fats and low-gi carbs for sustained energy. About the only time I can consume very sugary foods these days is on long and intense cycling workouts, and even then I have to force myself to do it.
> Unless you are a tiny woman, in which case it seems really really difficult to restrict calories enough to lose weight but still eat a healthy minimum of calories per day
Really really difficult is spot on. My SO is a tiny female and managed to drop from 53kg to 45kg. It required an extremely well controlled diet, 600-700kcal workouts 6 days a week, and took around 9 months. Restaurants were all but off the table since you never know where they sneak in calories and even sharing a plate with me might be too much. She sustains at around 46-47kg right now, which does allow some wiggle room in the diet, but the weight loss part itself was definitely beyond what most people are willing to do.
Just some anecdata: I have followed a disciplined keto diet for two-and-a-half years. I eat close to no carbs (apart from fiber). I do, however, like sweet stuff, so I use artificial sweeteners. Lots of them, every day. A mix of stevia, aspartame, sugar alcohols like erythritol, and so on.
I have never had an issue with them (that I am able to notice, of course, not saying they can't have some hidden harmful effects). For those saying that they are a slippery slide to eating more real sugar, I don't think so. At this point I recoil at eating anything with real sugar. It is overwhelmingly sweet, it almost burns in the mouth, and later I get bloated and retain water. I believe this is one of the criticisms of artificial sweeteners - that it lowers your ability to clear blood sugar, since you're just not used to having to produce a lot of insulin at one time. Well I don't actually want to eat a lot of sugar ever, so I'm okay with that.
I'm almost certain that artificial sweeteners have some bad effects somehow, but the bad effects of sugar are plentiful and obvious, so for now the trade-off makes sense, to me.
When I cut up an apple or wash some strawberries for my son, I eat a slice or two or maybe a strawberry. Blueberries work well, etc. It's just a choice to balance your diet a different way (I am not nearly as strict as OP). There's a lot of fibre in fruit, you can make it work, but most people don't realize how much sugar is in fruit and it isn't good for you if you are managing type-2 diabetes, or whatever.
Lots of good points. I still eat fruit under specific circumstances. Rainier cherries, early season white peaches, and home ripened Red d'Anjou pears. All these fruit have this short 2-3 day window when they are beautifully ripe, silky mouth feel and when the fruit warms in your mouth, it releases a perfume that fills your nose with their own unique scent. These are food worth eating.
A close follow-up fruit is the small strawberries you get in Estonia at the end of June. They may also have them in Finland but I don't think I got there in time to try them. Again good texture, mouth feel and that wonderful aromatic strawberry flavor you don't get in most places. Certainly not from American supermarket berries.
Yea a lot of it is that your palate actually changes after a few months. It usually takes 4-6 months for me and then, when I go back, I notice that I don't enjoy the foods as much any more. Instead I've found new favorites to enjoy on my new diet.
Definitely happened with keto. You notice too that even when you get really hungry you don't fantasize about candy any more but about steak :)
Modern fruit isn't "engineered to be low in nutrients", this is straight up FUD. Selective breeding is all about tradeoffs and micro-nutrient density has historically been hard to select for, but your average supermarket apple is bursting with potassium, phosphorus, and vitamins C and E.
Everybody eats wrong until diabetes, treatment resistant epilepsy, mental disease(bipolar, schizophrenia), some type of insulin resistance, overweight, etc (only these come at the top of my head) punches you in the mouth.
Then you have to eat correct. Which is low carb, high fat, low-to-medium protein.
And that is keto diet.
> How is it supposed to improve your health/life?
Lowering carb intake improves your health. While fruits "feel" good, it's mostly just sweets/carbs/fructose.
I just eat a bit of everything without doing any excess while avoiding (not 100% of the time though) processed food. What we call mediterranean diet I think. I am based there anyway. Except from cheese and chocolate I mostly buy only raw ingredients and cook myself. I do think this is the most healthy diet, both physically and psychologically as you don't feel like you need to give up something.
If I have en envy for say, cookies. First I will cook them myself. That leads to 3 things:
1. I need extra motivation, 20 or so minutes + more dishes to wash on top of the rest of the usual daily cooking.
2. I use basic, raw ingredients I control and not something stuffed supplements, fructose, palm oil and other bad shit.
3. I won't eat them all like there is no tomorrow because I know the value of them and I will have to make them again next time I want some.
Having said that I don't refuse the weekly ice cream (but it comes from an artisanal ice cream vendor, not the stuff from the supermarket) and won't give up on the occasionnal restaurant.
Person 2: I just eat <moderate/balanced/adequate/healthy/clean>
This seems to imply to person 1 that person 1 could do the same, which is often not true. Ketogenic diets have a whole bunch of benefit that no amount of moderation/balance will get to a person with those issues.
So ketoers often take issue with such comments when they seem to imply to be just as useful for dealing with said issues.
I was mostly looking for protein. Nobody "eating in moderation" includes 500g of beef/day in there. It's usually just carbs or empty-stuff (salads that are mostly water).
Epilepsy-specific ketogenic diets aren't recommended for people who don't have epilepsy. Their high-fat content far outweighs keto diets for diabetic patients or people on keto diets for general weight loss.
Also, keto diets don't affect someone's schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
Your links generally don't appear to be linking to scientific research groups. Metabolic Mind is funded by a wealthy family whose son claims to be cured of bipolar from a keto diet.
Doctors who do keto for bipolar/schizophrenia basically follow the epilepsy protocols.
----------
Who will pay the studies? Are you gonna wait 40 years for the research to be top notch? There are doctors that have experience and can help you https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/directory
----------
EXAMPLE FROM REAL LIFE FOR YOU: I've taken a med that DOES_NOT_WORK_AT_ALL under 100mg, while for me it worked on 25mg, and even 6mg!!
There is no research for it. What should I do? Wait 40 years for the research to come up at 6mg?
I think fruit is seriously overrated from a health perspective. The main benefit of fruit comes when comparing it to candy, white bread, and desserts. Fruit usually has a bit more fiber. Many modern fruits still have a ton of sugar, and it's absolutely possible to give yourself diabetes just eating too much fruit.
Vegetables are packed with nutrients and fiber, without all the sugars that fruit brings.
I tend to think sugar and flour belongs at the top of a pyramid, fruit in the middle, and veggies is the base. However cutting out fruit altogether probably won't hurt at all.
Fruit juice is generally not healthy because it excludes most or all of the edible fruit pulp, which includes all of the fruit's fiber and much of the fruit's antioxidant content. Whole fruits, on the other hand, have been shown time and time again to be a healthy food choice for most people.
> Our findings suggest that there is significant heterogeneity in the associations between individual fruits and risk of type 2 diabetes. Greater consumption of specific whole fruits, particularly blueberries, grapes, and apples, was significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, whereas greater fruit juice consumption was associated with a higher risk. The differences in the associations between individual fruits were not accounted for by variation in the glycemic index/glycemic load values of individual fruits. Overall, these results support recommendations on increasing consumption of a variety of whole fruits, especially blueberries, grapes, and apples, as a measure for diabetes prevention.
People who look at only the macronutrient ratios (fat, carbohydrates, and protein) while disregarding everything else tend to underestimate the health benefits of fruits. Nutrition is more than just macronutrients.
My understanding is the fiber of the whole fruit is important: it slows absorption of the sugar and adds bulk to aid digestion in general. Typically some or all of it is removed in juices and smoothies. I think of removing fiber as similar to adding sugar.
fwiw, I eat a low-carb diet (up to ~90g of net carbs, so not strict keto). I often eat some fresh or from-frozen fruit: blackberries, raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, orange (half a navel or a whole mandarin), or a few apple slices. I never drink juice. I don't feel fruit gives me any nutrition I can't get elsewhere. I can get vitamin C for example from various vegetables including red peppers, cabbage, and dark leafy greens. I also take a multivitamin because it's hard to get enough of some nutrients (notably vitamin D) that fruit doesn't help with anyway.
I don't have a citation either, but google search reveals the following points:
1) One serving, or one medium apple, provides about 95 calories, 0 gram fat, 1 gram protein, 25 grams carbohydrate, 19 grams sugar (naturally occurring), and 3 grams fiber.
2) Recommended amount of consumed sugar for an adult is 30 grams per day.
3) You can also find a lot of citations how increased sugar consumption increases chances of diabetes.
So two apples already gets you above the recommended amount. An apple is basically 80% sugar in terms of calories: 19 * 4 / 95 = ~80%
Your comment is misleading. About point no. 2, that’s the recommended amount of added sugar, not counting fruits.
There are no studies to my knowledge that show increasing fruit intake increases chances of diabetes. But there are studies that show that the risk of diabetes goes down by increasing fruit intake.
> The government recommends that free sugars – sugars added to food or drinks, and sugars found naturally in honey, syrups, and unsweetened fruit and vegetable juices, smoothies and purées – should not make up more than 5% of the energy (calories) you get from food and drink each day.
But even if the recommendation is added sugar -- what is the real difference between added and "natural" occurring sugar? Does this distinction invalidate my comment above? The point being that it's quite possible and even easy to consume several times, or even order above the reasonable amount of sugar by eating fruits. The apple is not even the sweetest one.
It is a very ridiculous claim. There’s a study (don’t have the link to it as I’m writing from my phone). It says that increasing fruit juice intake leads to an increased risk of diabetes. Whereas increasing fruit intake leads to a decreased risk of diabetes. I hope someone else can find it.
The glycemic load of fruit varies tremendously. You can find undomesticated fruit in the wild that is high-sugar / high-GI, and domesticated fruit (engineered over 1000s of years) that isn't. Fiber, micronutrient and phytonutrient content also varies, but in the main, they all provide health benefits.
> it's absolutely possible to give yourself diabetes just eating too much fruit.
I doubt you could give yourself diabetes from fruit without really trying. The chewing just gets old real quick.
But I also don't think you miss much by cutting fruit out entirely. It's a bunch of sugar, a lot of fiber, and a few vitamins that you can easily get from other places like green, leafy vegetables.
Really nothing unique about fruit unless you just really like fruit.
But I also don't think you miss much by cutting music out entirely. It's a bunch of sounds, a lot of noise, and a few repetitions that you can easily get from other places like your natural environment.
Really nothing unique about music unless you just really like music.
...
But I also don't think you miss much by cutting art out entirely. It's a bunch of brush strokes, a lot of colors, and a few layers that you can easily get from other places like the world around you.
Really nothing unique about art unless you just really like art.
..
But I also don't think you miss much by cutting vision out entirely. It's a bunch of wavelengths, a lot of rod and cones, and a few optic nerve stimuli that you can easily get from other places like your brain itself.
Really nothing unique about vision unless you just really like vision.
...
But I also don't think you miss much by cutting walking out entirely. It's a bunch of muscle stimuli, a lot of breathing, and a few images that you can easily get from other places like moving in place.
Really nothing unique about walking unless you just really like walking.
I can't reply to the child comment, but my main point its ridiculous to reduce down human enjoyment into "nothing is strictly necessary and there is no point to human existence or experience" and "you can get all the component pieces of a thing, so what is the benefit of the combined thing" as an argument for cutting things out. But yes, I don't disagree with "you don't need to eat anything complex really if you don't enjoy it and just care about basic sustenance".
I'm not mad at anyone here, no worries. Mainly just posted originally + here because I think some of the arguments being made are fairly ridiculous as stated, and primarily because I think the claim that you can get diabetes from eating too much fruit is just untrue in practice.
But not in practice, I agree. I was actually fruitarian for a few weeks and man it's HARD to chew enough food to even get your calories in, lol. Plus it's all cold so it's extra annoying cause you never get the thermal heat of cooked food!
Important note that the vast, vast majority of fruits that humans consume are as natural as a chihuahua. Apples, bananas, oranges, etc are unnaturally sweet products of generations upon generations of selective breeding.
Blackberries, blueberries, and certain other fruits that are naturally sweet in the wild are an exception. The quantity of sugar in an apple is something that was rarely, if ever, found in nature before.
I'm not saying diabetics should go out and make banana smoothies. But I tried going fruitarian for 30 days in my 20s and I simply couldn't. I couldn't eat enough food to meet energy balance.
Maybe if you made banana puree all day but it gets real disgusting real quick.
How many net & total grams of carbs a day are we talking here?
> I do, however, like sweet stuff, so I use artificial sweeteners. Lots of them, every day. A mix of stevia, aspartame, sugar alcohols like erythritol, and so on.
Another point of keto is to also remove the carb/sweets addiction over time(I know it's hard, am addicted/recovering myself).
Total grams doesn't matter. The point is the glycemic impact. Some people are very sensitive to carbs and can't eat a banana without throwing off ketosis, and others can have upwards of 30g of net carbs a day and still stay in ketosis. My goal is 20g or less, and my ketones still stay in the 1.5-2.0 range unless I overdo protein instead of fat.
For most people, the starting point is around 15g net carbs a day. If you're serious about keto (and staying healthy while doing so) you'll want a ketone testing mechanism as well as guidance from your doctor about adjusting medications since ketosis mimics a fasting state for a bunch of your metabolic processes.
I think it also depends on the types of sugars. I can seem to tolerate way more lactose and still maintain ketosis, for example.
Plus there are different "levels of ketosis" and I'm not sure there's much research on it. E.g. my Non-24 is in remission even when I eat more of a VLCD. My ketones aren't as high but it works just as good for my purpose. I don't know if that level would be enough for an epileptic, for example, or someone who gets other benefits from keto.
I'm on my 1888th day after I changed my way of eating, and I hate when this happens to me, I mean, losing the ketosis because something I ate had too much sugar. It happens in some asian restaurants where they cook salmon with sugar and they don't tell you, in some places they add sugar to most japanese salads / wakame. I get bloated and retain water, I get out of focus easily, and I'm tired for the most part of the day. One day a friend of mine thought he had vodka (which does not kick you out of ketosis) instead he gave me some transparent licor, very sweet. I had the most profound high on sugar of my life, with just one shot, I had a high rush of feelings and pleasure, increased heart rate, I wanted to go out and party. I had nightmares that night, in the dreams I needed to run or escape. It took me 72h to fully recover. That said, I've written the most creative pieces of code, mostly backends in functional programming while on ketosis
Fellow keto-er here. There is definitely some hidden ultra sugar in some of those restaurant sauces. I've had a similar experience with takeout Chinese that was "just" chicken & vegetables. Two bites and I felt myself catapult out of ketosis, including the sugar rush you describe and even heart palpitations.
Another thing is that some artificial sweeteners instantly kick me out, too. Worse than sugar. I forget which one it is but I grabbed a "sugar-free" energy drink one time. I spit out the very first sip but still got kicked out of ketosis including the heat and sugar rush, that's how strong it was.
That said, stevia and monk fruit are totally fine for me. No effect whatsoever. I slightly prefer the taste of monk fruit.
Not always, but if it's super drastic. Feels like a massive sugar rush (or maybe it is actually just the sugar rush I'm experiencing when I accidentally eat hidden sugar?)
Get super hot, feel like my blood is rushing, heart beats.. not faster but.. louder?
> At this point I recoil at eating anything with real sugar.
It’s amazing what drinking regular coke is like after being off sugar for awhile. I swear the mouth-feel of drinking the syrup they make it with is there.
It's hard to give up the black oil, er, soda. I don't really like plain water. I can't take anything with most artificial sweeteners, they are migraine triggers for me. I bought a SodaStream, a 10 lb. bottle of CO2 and a few BiB syrup cases of Barq's Root Beer and have been lowering the concentration of syrup the past few months. I'm down to 1/4 the normal concentration of syrup. Eventually, I should be acclimated to the taste of fizzy water by itself... still not much of a fan.
> It’s amazing what drinking regular coke is like after being off sugar for awhile.
It's exquisite. I drink one every few months when we go out to a restaurant. Or a Dr Pepper, another favorite of mine. If you drink them every day, they're pretty boring. But once in a while, they're fantastic.
> I'm almost certain that artificial sweeteners have some bad effects somehow, but the bad effects of sugar are plentiful and obvious, so for now the trade-off makes sense, to me.
Unknown bad effects are better than known bad effects? Not sure if thats sound logic.
Anecdotally, this may be because you've decreased your intake and retention of B vitamins, which are water-soluble and essential in metabolizing carbs. Since you retain less water on keto, you have less B vitamins available to digest carbs (and you don't need them, because you're not eating carbs). A lot of people who eat keto feel bloated whenever they eat carbs, to the point that even if they want to quit keto they struggle to do it because carbs make them feel awful. I ate keto for about a year and stopped a couple months ago and experienced this.
So to anyone eating keto who may want to stop but feels awful when eating carbs, supplement your B-vitamins for a month or so, particularly B1/thiamine.
The coorelation of HFCS being put in literally everything since the 1970s (Campbell's soup contained HFCS until last year, most major bread brands use it, etc) and the explosion in weight gain and obesity in America would be one hell of a coincidence.
Between that and growth in sedentary lifestyles you have a pretty good recipe... if the low carb/Keto people are right (and in my personal experience carb sequestration works very well for weight loss and is way more sustainable long term than starving yourself purely for caloric reduction).
The obsession with calories by medical authorities (and disinterested doctors) as the go-to solution for weight loss since the 1970s may have served as a massive distraction.
Erythritol is allowed in food under the FDA GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) program. Curious if anyone with knowledge of that program has a view on whether that designation may be at risk which would require a lot more studies before Erythritol can be sold.
Also curious if anyone on front lines of retail has seen any impact on customer behavior yet out of this study.
My understanding is that GRAS largely is compounds that were in general use before the 50s, and exempted from future research requirements, and newer compounds on the list have been added by interested parties SELF REPORTING a compound as safe, and the FDA mostly takes them on their word.
I think that's the case but wonder what the process is for something coming off the GRAS list. Could cause a big headache for a bunch of companies like Whole Earth Brands who have a lot of capital tied up in Erythritol.
Amazing how many people are coming out of the woodwork cheerleading Erythritol and artificial sweeteners in general.
It is by far the easiest thing to just avoid all of them completely. Use sugar sparingly and stay far away from anything sweetened with HFCS, especially since almost everything sweetened with HFCS tends to contain absolutely outrageous amounts of it.
Easy for me, all these artificial sweeteners taste absolutely disgusting. But I'm also one of those people who just doesn't eat much sweet stuff at all other than fruit.
> Artificial Sweeteners and Heart Attacks: fact or fiction?
The nutrition world was set on fire last week when it was reported that erythritol — a popular sweetener used in protein bars and shakes — was linked to stroke and heart attack. There was just one little problem.
The study didn’t even test erythritol consumption, so the conclusion made by many in the media (that erythritol causes heart attacks) was very misleading (at best) and a dramatic false alarm (at worst).
Here's what you need to know: the researchers examined erythritol levels in the blood. Unlike other substances that only show up in your body if you eat it in your diet, erythritol is naturally produced by your body. And, it increases specifically during stress or body dysfunction. So if you have elevated levels of erythritol, it doesn't necessarily mean you've been having a lot of the sweetener; it could be that you're sick.
And that's what makes this study so problematic. The subjects in this study were not healthy. For example, more than 70 percent had coronary artery disease and hypertension. Which bring up an important question: did the consumption of erythritol cause the high levels in the blood, or was it because the subjects very sick and naturally producing more in their bodies? We don’t know because the study didn’t test those variables.
To be clear, other studies suggest supplementing with erythritol can led to positive health outcomes. If you’re worried about erythritol, it’s pretty easy to avoid. Simply check the ingredient list. Our take: we need more research focusing on healthy individuals while controlling for erythritol consumption to see if there is an association with disease. But, at this point, it's early to panic based on the findings of the study.
I often see this being used as an excuse to say that because we produce it, it isn't bad for you. Thing is that we produce it in tiny tiny amounts... then we take a spoonful of 'monk fruit' and add it to our coffee. There's nothing 'natural' about that.
> If you’re worried about erythritol, it’s pretty easy to avoid.
Look at the first item on the list, it is a bag of erythritol, packaged to be 'monk fruit'.
Almost every single 'monk fruit' product out there is a bag of erythritol. Look at the shelf in your local grocery store. Eventually, people just give up and buy the bag since they have been told 'sugar' is bad.
> I often see this being used as an excuse to say that because we produce it, it isn't bad for you. Thing is that we produce it in tiny tiny amount
There is a reason we say this, if we produce it naturally our body has mechanisms to metabolize the item. For example acetone isn't very toxic because our body produces it naturally and knows how to deal with it.
(Note I am not disagreeing with you regarding amounts, just pointing out it's not such a foolish thing to say.)
Erythritol is cheaper than Stevia or Monk Fruit so they've taken to putting a tiny amount of the natural sweetener and a ton of erythritol in there. You really have to look for the pure stuff and order it specifically.
The reason monk fruit and erythritol are mixed is to make the overall sweetness per volume 1:1 with sugar. Since erythritol is less sweet than sugar and monk fruit is much sweeter, you naturally get more erythritol than you do monk fruit.
However, the paper does offer a compelling causal mechanism. Also, it appears they performed follow-up pilot studies on the effects of erythritol consumption—as opposed to its simple presence in the blood. The following quote from the article is repeated in the linked Science commentary:
"The present studies suggest that following ingestion of an artificially sweetened food harboring typical levels of erythritol as artificial sweetener, plasma levels of erythritol remain elevated for many days, well above the thresholds necessary to enhance stimulus-dependent platelet reactivity, even among healthy volunteers."
I agree with Derek Lowe. I'll be avoiding erythritol until subsequent studies prove that it's safe.
This elevated level for many days, actually suggests it's not an intake problem:
> Witkowski et al. note that the vast majority of their study participants were enrolled prior to erythritol becoming a common sweetener and food additive. This, combined with the authors’ finding that erythritol levels remain well above the cohort ranges for at least a day after consumption, suggests that none of the cohort patients were consuming erythritol in their diets, and that the levels measured in fasting plasma samples were instead the result of endogenous production
It also needs to be compared with the known negative effects of foods saturated in high fructose corn syrup.
I think it's becoming more popular in foods lately b/c of its relative lack of aftertaste but it does cause gastric distress in larger amounts and a healthy gut biome is linked to a bunch of other benefits.
There should always be concern for long term black swan style effects esp for the new hotness but by definition these unknown unknowns can never be fully eliminated.
If you go on subreddit's like /r/trees (I know, I know), you see the side effect of this information. Lots of people assume that smoking through an aluminum pipe will cause alzheimers, which is _not_ what the data showed. https://old.reddit.com/r/trees/search?q=aluminum+alzheimers&...
You are lucky your tongue is "programmed" that way. Not everyone experiences taste the way you do.
For example, by me, if you add even the tiniest bit of sour to the food (lemon juice, or even worse vinegar) that's all I can taste - just sour, there is zero food flavor at all.
Drinking wine tastes exactly the same as drinking vinegar.
But if I add sugar suddenly there are all these amazing flavors in the food! I tried it with wine, I added a bunch of sugar, and then I was able to taste all these flavors people were telling me were in the wine.
I have a rule. I try to stay away from eating a lot of stuff very few other people eat a lot of. I don't want to be a guinea pig.
I do experiment on myself but only after I can reasonably assume whatever I am consuming is relatively safe, and this means there is sizeable enough population that eats it at same or larger quantities that I plan to ingest.
I use table sugar as sweetener. It really isn't that bad for you. A healthy person should be able to eat sweet dessert from time to time with no ill effects (but not every day and not in large quantities). We have pretty good idea of risks of consuming table sugar vs other sweeteners.
I do intermittent keto to build and maintain metabolic flexibility. This means there are longs spans of time with very few carbs and definitely no sweetened stuff which are more than enough to wipe out occasional taste of reasonable amount of sugar.
I find it is easier and better to just cut out desserts and sweetened drinks and learn to eat proper things for your diet. This whole idea of pretending you are not really on keto and doing keto pizzas, keto breads, keto sweet drinks, keto cheesecakes and so on only makes it feel like you are forcing yourself to eat something that is less tasty than the original. There really is no substitute for real bread, pizza or cheesecake. Doing keto intermittently (say 2 months of keto, 2 weeks off keto) means you can still eat what you want, just not all the time. And it is apparently healthier option because you exercise your metabolism in various ways rather than be permanently on keto.
232 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 258 ms ] threadSource: I bake for my family members that have diabetes.
In fruit flies. Totally irrelevant, and it's stunning the author thinks they can use this to suggest anything about human physiology. Even mammal models of other species can't definitely tell us anything about humans.
> But we seem to have spotted a toxic effect now.
seem != does
> In initial untargeted metabolomics studies in patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment
Unfortunately, these are studies evaluating patients who have preexisting cardiovascular conditions, so at most we have correlation and perhaps some causative data specifically for those already at risk for cardiovascular events.
Maybe there's something to this, but the tone of this article isn't scientific.
> if your clotting behavior is normal to start with, you really, really, do not want to go around activating your platelets.
That depends on the degree. Alcohol affects blood clotting, so I guess we'd better not have one sip ever under any circumstance.
> That seems to be a risk under normal erythritol consumption, as determined by separate blood level measurements
Seems, for those who are already at risk of CVD.
It may very well turn out that erythritol increases risk of CVD events in otherwise healthy people, but that's not what any of the data mentioned actually indicates. The only exception may be how erythritol has been observed to affect patelet activation in vitro, but there are many things that seem significant in vitro that aren't medically relevant in vivo.
The core finding, which is what you are ultimately trying to find fault with, is this:
So? Why should I care whether a report is written by David Lowe? This guy has already drawn a conclusion about erythritol despite how inadequate the evidence is for how harmful it is to those without CVD, and is even willing to tease the reader with some data on fruit flies as if that matters. It doesn't matter what his background is; I don't find this article becoming of someone in the field of research.
> A facile dismissal
Yet all you did was cite the fact the article was written by David Lowe and paste an excerpt as if you think I hadn't already read it.
Facetious, because I chose to read beyond that piece of abstract? Because I pointed out that invertebrate physiology is a nonsequitor as to whether a substance is medically relevant to human being? Because I don't agree that correlation of data in a study with inherent confounders can be so easily used to interpret risk in healthy individuals?
There's a difference between correlation and causation, and especially in regards to judging medically relevant risk.
If I was being facile and facetious, I'd be claiming there's no problem with erythritol. That's not what I'm saying at all. There's no good reason people should be consuming artificial sweeteners or sugar. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily a meaningful cardiovascular risk.
As one example, you started by dismissing the finding of adverse effect in fruit flies, as if the author was presenting it as being relevant to humans.
In reality, Lowe writes that the fruit fly result is a curiosity. The specific finding from human medicine that he is actually reporting on is far more relevant and concerning.
I posted Lowe's summary of the abstract because you preferred to focus on tangential minutia and ignored what is actually the novel and significant finding here.
I care that the report is by Derek Lowe because he has spent literally years convincing me of his scientific expertise, industry experience, and journalistic bona fides. You have done nothing to show that you have any of these, and your choice of what you focused on makes me think the opposite.
I could be exactly right about everything. I could not in good faith just believe him because of his name, and even previous work.
In five years, erythritol is still on the market, then maybe he drew the wrong conclusion from the study.
I too have learned lots from reading him. But that doesn't mean I don't take his pronouncements without a grain of salt. He's as subject to his profession's groupthink as anyone is to their own profession's. I co-wrote a paper challenging a consequential assumption he propagated back in 2020. Explainer version:
https://files.theseedsofscience.org/2022/General_antiviral_p... (substack version also online).
I literally have a bag of erythritol in my pantry and I am literally eating from it with a spoon. I am eager to see follow-up studies. That said, the fact that the authors found a substantial effect and identified a clear mechanism of action is what makes me pay attention. And I appreciate Derek Lowe bringing it to my layman's attention.
The author did not suggest anything about human physiology. He mentioned this as a curiosity when informing us that this chemical is generally considered biologically inert. He was giving background on the chemical.
It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology. The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read.
In either case, it's still misleading and irrelevant. Whether people think a chemical is inert doesn't say anything about whether a chemical is dangerous to humans. If one wrote an equivalent article with the thesis that water bottles should no longer be sold, and the author points to the curiosity that thousands of people drown every year, that only serves to persuade gullible readers into believing that drinking a bottle of Aquafina and drowning in a pool are connected in a way that is relevant. If Derek Lowe's point truly was that people should not see erythritol as biologically inert, he should have said something explicit stating as such. The fact that he didn't communicates that his goal was to lead the reader to the conclusion that he's made quite clear in his final paragraph.
> It was not totally irrelevant to an article discussing erythritol but it is irrelevant to human physiology.
It's irrelevant to the point that he is explicitly making, and is no different than an article about weight loss telling people to stop eating so much chocolate and, oh by the way, did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs?! Gee whiz! And you thought chocolate was a harmless treat!
> The article need not be limited to one point. If that were the case most articles would be too boring to read.
So you read articles for the factoids? I guess there's nothing wrong with that in isolation, but the insertion of factoids into articles is often misleading to those whom are less scientifically minded, which is a problem when an author is acting as a science communicator. There's no reason a site called Science.com can't have articles that are written to both fit the parameters of science and be interesting to read.
> Now, there have been studies that showed that erythritol is apparently toxic to fruit flies. [...] That last effect may have partly been due to starvation, honestly, and it is also believed to cause osmotic imbalance in them. But nothing like that had ever been seen with humans; it has no such effects even in honeybees.
It was mentioned specifically to be dismissed, and the opposite of what you're claiming is what was suggested.
The rest of your comment doesn't really improve from there.
Check out this thread: https://twitter.com/Dr__Guess/status/1630548194907021313
"idk that critique is pretty dismissive of the actual experimental evidence that they generated in the study… consuming an erythritol sweetened beverage raises the erythritol level in the blood to a level that clearly causes an effect on platelets, and coincides with the difference between the measured levels in the observational study… seems pretty convincing to me".
There's bound to be mixups what talking about sugars and fats. But these fuel oils are really really bad for us. We've demonized sugars unnecessarily. Right?
If you google "monk fruit extract diarrhea" theres a good amount out there on this.
So you may switch to monk fruit thinking its a better alternative but actually be consuming erythritol anyway.
Each sweetener is different and different for different people. Allulose is not metabolized by the body but is free for all those bacteria to eat! Yum! Much much more sugar for the bacteria. It does taste truly lovely though, that said. Stevia glycosides are not bad at all with the taste a bit to get used to. Sucralose is just sucrose IIRC with three chlorine atoms... substituted on it? I think? It's not taken up in your intestine but it does block the transporter in bacteria/yeast that does take it up. So, havoc on the gut flora! I'm pretty sure it kills the bacteria/yeast too. I think.
Acesulfate Potassium is okay but it activates your insulin receptors, so your blood sugar plummets. I can barely stay awake after a single diet cheerwine for that reason.
Glycine is a fun one that's expensive that no one uses. It's literally the opposite of aspartame, even binds to the same receptor at the same receptor site, just... Opposite! It's also like magnesium in which lots of people could use to have it/maybe are deficient in it...I think (don't quote me on that please! D:) I always wanted to try it dusted on a blueberry cake donut. :3
We don't talk about saccharine, but D-ribose (this one is actually caloric) is very expensive but tastes fantastic and is great for your mitochondria to boot! It's a DNA building block as well. I use it when going on ultra-long physical excursions. Blackstrap molasses is great for cutting with any of the above sweeteners for cheap caramelly roasted toasted robust flavor without many calories. Inulin, a digestible fiber is also sweet and worth a shot! (I don't think it's super cheap, but I don't think it's break the bank or no).
Oh, 70% sucralose solution is fun (and cheap!) too. It's 600x sweeter than sugar lol. It tastes almost soapy bitter it activates whatever receptors so strongly lol. I love it. Sometimes it leaks and crystalizes on the outside of the bottle. What a rush it is to have those. Oh, to see my life flash before my eyes like that again....
I use that as my emergency sweetener sparingly. I have a small bottle that's lasted me for years at this point.
Stevia from Trader Joe's is my go to. I add it to beans with molasses and some garlic infused oil and some spicy stuff and such. Yummmmmmm. Gonna have to have some of that soon!
So there you go. There's more of course (like some corn fiber of some kind IIRC), but those are a lot of the main ones. And erythritol. But I say use what's good for you. It's literally different for each person. They're drugs but boy do I like the sweet flavor, and Stevia is a good tradeoff for me that I've come to love so much.
Hope that was interesting, if you made it to this point, thanks for reading and so much love! :)))) <3 <3 <3 <3 :))))
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/#:~:tex...
Can't you recommend someone stop drinking alcohol (for behavioral/psychological or physiological health issues) without giving him something that tastes like alcohol and inebriates you like alcohol?
> Over 40% had already had a heart attack. Over 15% were in heart failure. Over 25% had type 2 diabetes. Over 70% had hypertension. And over 70% had coronary artery disease! [1]
This is important because:
> people with this metabolic profile (Syndrome X) have been shown to have an overactive PPP & likely produce more erythritol (PMID: 20711518) Therefore, it is highly likely that this paper is simply a case of reverse causality. [1]
This gets underscored through:
> the authors’ finding that erythritol levels remain well above the cohort ranges for at least a day after consumption, suggests that none of the cohort patients were consuming erythritol in their diets [2]
[1] https://www.instagram.com/p/CpQspxwgqgT/ [2] https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol...
Edit: From the paper -
"Erythritol was shown to be synthesized endogenously from glucose via the pentose-phosphate pathway (PPP) in stable isotope-assisted ex vivo blood incubation experiments and through in vivo conversion of erythritol to erythronate in stable isotope-assisted dried blood spot experiments. Therefore, endogenous production of erythritol from glucose may contribute to the association between erythritol and obesity observed in young adults."
Now, if any makes it through the lower intestine without getting absorbed and gets into your colon...
Gnats and aphids' larvae and eggs appear to be a delicacy for bees. Whenever I put plant pots on a sunny balcony during early spring daytime, I have dozens of bees tinkering in the soil. They also very efficiently clean up the soil and help aerate the roots[1]. Bees are the awesomest living species I know!
[1] https://wojteksychut.com/vid/bees.mp4
They need both moisture and oxygen to reproduce, which means they only live in a damp top layer of soil. So leaving the top layer of soil dry prevents them from reproducing. And since fungus gnats are dumb and slow they fly right into the flypaper, removing themselves from the gene pool.
You can also replace the top couple centimeters of soil. You'll still want to keep the soil as dry as possible for a week so any remaining gnats stop laying eggs.
I've had success suppressing them with frequent sprays of neem oil, direct to the soil of the pots. Daily for a week or two to break the life cycle and then weekly or more often to keep the inevitable survivors knocked back and feeling unwelcome.
They're also suckers for a candle left lit in a darkened room.
[0]: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/988721?src=FYE#vp_2
[1]: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-...
Now I'm inclined to think that most substitutes won't do me any good. I suppose I'll stick to limiting my sugar and processed carbs intake as much as possible.
It's really easy to drink hundreds and hundreds of calories with calorie-heavy drinks. It's a lot harder to do the same by eating, fiber in the food tells your body to stop pretty fast.
And, I love ice lattes. But, on a hot day, iced espresso and soda water is the most refreshing drink I’ve ever had.
After trying a few different things, I decided it was time to bring out the big guns so I started calorie counting. Sugar had to go due to its calorie density and how much I would keep craving it afterwards.
My sweet cravings didn't go away. I started with fruit but that wouldn't quite hit the spot, at least not always.
Enter zero calorie sweeteners.
I'd add a bit of them to less sugary fruits (berries, etc) at first. I started adding it to a few other things when I wanted something sweet. It worked great.
It's true that when it wasn't available I would get something with actual sugar, but that would be maybe 5-10% of the time, so I had cut 90-95% of the calories I used to consume from sugar. That's a win.
In time I started weaning it all off. Not completely but I reduced it to a minimum. I still have a zero ginger beer every now and then, and still add a bit of fake sugar to one thing or another. I also consume chewing gums and mints with sugar alcohols.
They have been instrumental in my weight loss journey and now I'm at about 14% body fat. I still want to lose a little to see if it will improve my climbing performance but I'm quite satisfied. I have reintroduced small amounts of sugary foods to my diet, at this point with no abnormal cravings.
Yes, carrots, oranges, beetroots, milk, even berries can be very sweet after you wean off the excess sugar and fake sugars. They can be enough most days. Other days I'll use whatever sweet thing I have at hand, in moderation, in order to beat the craving.
So my take on fake sugar is, if you use it for weight loss, use it conscientiously and in a way that will help you get off sugar first, but also with a plan to slowly get off them as well. They can be an excellent tool if used well.
I have a friend who drinks about 10 liters of 'sugar-free' fizzy drinks per week, and uses artificial sweeteners for stuff he bakes, all while trying to lose weight (and failing).
Legit question, I stopped following these developments a few years ago and things were still pretty much in the air then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Cancer
Plenty of citations there if you need to deep dive any further.
I mean, better to be safe than sorry, but it doesn't seem to affect them in this study. Other non-scientific sources are all over the map on the question.
more profound cooling effect than erythritol (which has some)
more expensive
really, really does not caramelize and cooks very differently
gastrointestinal effects
causes an insulin spike
Yeah Xylitol always caused me problems when I was younger and suffering more from ulcerative colitis.
No problem with the other substitutes that I remember.
The only problem is its pretty expensive and you have to buy it online since it's realitive new.
Hopefully production ramps up over the next few years.
You just have to go Amazon to see the availability is limited compared to Erythritol/Stevia. And almost no commercial food/drink products use it in their recipes.
A recipe rewritten to use stevia in the first place won't require such hacks for backward compatibility, but there aren't many of them compared to all the legacy stuff out there.
Top 5 hits on Amazon for "monk fruit sweetener" all have Erythritol. Some mention it in the product name, some later on in description, etc. Have to read very carefully.
Example:
https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Sweetener-Erythritol-Sugar-Fr...
Look at the list of ingredients.
I keep some in the house double bagged to use in a neti pot when I’m sick (it’s also a good decongestant!), but there’s no way I’d willingly buy any food with it. It’s just too risky.
I don't own a dog, but my God I hope they have warning labels on it!
That’s a pretty stark difference.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36459641/
[1] https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/985861?src=WNL_trdalrt_...
> When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol ― all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.
> Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34960947
So anything that tastes sweet isn't just tasting, but being used elsewhere in the body to do sugar related stuff. Probably not a great idea to eat and drink things that strongly bind and mess with key sugar metabolism imo.
Because maybe it's not. Artificial sweeteners are a huge threat to producers of natural sugar, so they worked really hard to get them outlawed, or at least create some FUD around them.
For example, did you know that saccharin causes cancer? Right? I certainly heard that as a kid, but it turns out the study that linked saccharin to cancer was done in rats, and involved a biological mechanism that is not relevant to humans [1].
You'd think a study that was refuted should have no legal implications, right? Well, to this day saccharin is not allowed as a food additive in Canada, specifically because of that rat lab study [2]:
Just look at that: the scientists in Canada are "considering" re-listing saccharin as safe. Now, in 2023, many decades after that study was refuted. I can see the sugar lobbyists getting to their dinners and cigars and still patting themselves on the back for the stunt they pulled half a century ago.Edit: if you think there is no sugar lobby, here's a riddle for you: what is the biggest agricultural crop in the world? It must be one of rice, corn or wheat, right? No, it is sugar cane. As a piece of trivia, the world produces about the same amount of sugar cane each year as steel: 1.9 billion tons.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Safety_and_health_ef...
[2] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutriti...
The best solution is to kick the sugar habit. No soda, no cookies, no cake, no candy. Honestly, what purpose do these foods serve? Pleasing your palate? 30 grams of lightly salted almonds is just as pleasing to my palate as a piece of cake, contains the same amount of calories, and keeps me satiated for hours.
About the only downside to skipping sweets is social acceptance. But that's not that hard to deal with. Co-worker: "hey, my wife made some cookies! Here, take one!". Me, "okay sure! They look great! I'll have that after my lunch." (said cookie then hits the trash can as soon as he gets out of sight).
I actually agree with this. From a pure calorie-counting and weight loss standpoint, you can almost always make room for sweets and still achieve your goals. A caloric intake is like any other budget. Sure, I can come up with money for a Burberry hoodie but it means delaying that GPU upgrade for another year (needless to say my clothes do not come from couture houses).
I just find it hard to put sugar calories in my body when those calories could be going to protein for building muscle or fats and low-gi carbs for sustained energy. About the only time I can consume very sugary foods these days is on long and intense cycling workouts, and even then I have to force myself to do it.
> Unless you are a tiny woman, in which case it seems really really difficult to restrict calories enough to lose weight but still eat a healthy minimum of calories per day
Really really difficult is spot on. My SO is a tiny female and managed to drop from 53kg to 45kg. It required an extremely well controlled diet, 600-700kcal workouts 6 days a week, and took around 9 months. Restaurants were all but off the table since you never know where they sneak in calories and even sharing a plate with me might be too much. She sustains at around 46-47kg right now, which does allow some wiggle room in the diet, but the weight loss part itself was definitely beyond what most people are willing to do.
I have never had an issue with them (that I am able to notice, of course, not saying they can't have some hidden harmful effects). For those saying that they are a slippery slide to eating more real sugar, I don't think so. At this point I recoil at eating anything with real sugar. It is overwhelmingly sweet, it almost burns in the mouth, and later I get bloated and retain water. I believe this is one of the criticisms of artificial sweeteners - that it lowers your ability to clear blood sugar, since you're just not used to having to produce a lot of insulin at one time. Well I don't actually want to eat a lot of sugar ever, so I'm okay with that.
I'm almost certain that artificial sweeteners have some bad effects somehow, but the bad effects of sugar are plentiful and obvious, so for now the trade-off makes sense, to me.
Being fat is a lot more deadly than not eating fruits.
b. Many fruits are 'keto friendly', like blueberries, strawberries, actually mostly berries :), but also something like water melon, in moderation.
c. A lot of modern fruit is engineered to be high in sugar and water and low in nutrients, so they might not even be so healthy as you think.
d. I can actually eat sweet fruit (although I don't often want to). I was talking more about sugar-crammed stuff like cake and soft drinks.
A close follow-up fruit is the small strawberries you get in Estonia at the end of June. They may also have them in Finland but I don't think I got there in time to try them. Again good texture, mouth feel and that wonderful aromatic strawberry flavor you don't get in most places. Certainly not from American supermarket berries.
Definitely happened with keto. You notice too that even when you get really hungry you don't fantasize about candy any more but about steak :)
Everybody eats wrong until diabetes, treatment resistant epilepsy, mental disease(bipolar, schizophrenia), some type of insulin resistance, overweight, etc (only these come at the top of my head) punches you in the mouth.
Then you have to eat correct. Which is low carb, high fat, low-to-medium protein.
And that is keto diet.
> How is it supposed to improve your health/life?
Lowering carb intake improves your health. While fruits "feel" good, it's mostly just sweets/carbs/fructose.
If I have en envy for say, cookies. First I will cook them myself. That leads to 3 things:
1. I need extra motivation, 20 or so minutes + more dishes to wash on top of the rest of the usual daily cooking.
2. I use basic, raw ingredients I control and not something stuffed supplements, fructose, palm oil and other bad shit.
3. I won't eat them all like there is no tomorrow because I know the value of them and I will have to make them again next time I want some.
Having said that I don't refuse the weekly ice cream (but it comes from an artisanal ice cream vendor, not the stuff from the supermarket) and won't give up on the occasionnal restaurant.
Have you ever calculated the grams of fat/carbs/protein? *I bet* you're under-eating protein.
> What we call mediterranean diet I think.
This is not defined. Many countries do it differently.
Person 1: I do keto
Person 2: I just eat <moderate/balanced/adequate/healthy/clean>
This seems to imply to person 1 that person 1 could do the same, which is often not true. Ketogenic diets have a whole bunch of benefit that no amount of moderation/balance will get to a person with those issues.
So ketoers often take issue with such comments when they seem to imply to be just as useful for dealing with said issues.
Care to expand?
Also, keto diets don't affect someone's schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
Many times you can lower the fat after some time/years even on epilepsy.
> Also, keto diets don't affect someone's schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
You're wrong. I'm not saying it will "fix" it, only sometimes. But definitely improve quality of life. You might need epilepsy-keto though.
See https://metabolicmind.org/ & https://www.youtube.com/@metabolicmind/videos
The thing is a non-profit.
See https://metabolicmind.org/metabolic-therapy-emerging-evidenc...
Or a subreddit for keto science https://old.reddit.com/r/ketoscience/search?q=bipolar&restri...
The top link https://old.reddit.com/r/ketoscience/comments/10bnaoi/ketoge...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266691532...
Or https://brainenergy.com/ book.
Doctors who do keto for bipolar/schizophrenia basically follow the epilepsy protocols.
----------
Who will pay the studies? Are you gonna wait 40 years for the research to be top notch? There are doctors that have experience and can help you https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/directory
----------
EXAMPLE FROM REAL LIFE FOR YOU: I've taken a med that DOES_NOT_WORK_AT_ALL under 100mg, while for me it worked on 25mg, and even 6mg!!
There is no research for it. What should I do? Wait 40 years for the research to come up at 6mg?
Vegetables are packed with nutrients and fiber, without all the sugars that fruit brings.
I tend to think sugar and flour belongs at the top of a pyramid, fruit in the middle, and veggies is the base. However cutting out fruit altogether probably won't hurt at all.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28182058
>it's absolutely possible to give yourself diabetes just eating too much fruit.
[citation needed]
> Our findings suggest that there is significant heterogeneity in the associations between individual fruits and risk of type 2 diabetes. Greater consumption of specific whole fruits, particularly blueberries, grapes, and apples, was significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, whereas greater fruit juice consumption was associated with a higher risk. The differences in the associations between individual fruits were not accounted for by variation in the glycemic index/glycemic load values of individual fruits. Overall, these results support recommendations on increasing consumption of a variety of whole fruits, especially blueberries, grapes, and apples, as a measure for diabetes prevention.
https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5001
People who look at only the macronutrient ratios (fat, carbohydrates, and protein) while disregarding everything else tend to underestimate the health benefits of fruits. Nutrition is more than just macronutrients.
fwiw, I eat a low-carb diet (up to ~90g of net carbs, so not strict keto). I often eat some fresh or from-frozen fruit: blackberries, raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, orange (half a navel or a whole mandarin), or a few apple slices. I never drink juice. I don't feel fruit gives me any nutrition I can't get elsewhere. I can get vitamin C for example from various vegetables including red peppers, cabbage, and dark leafy greens. I also take a multivitamin because it's hard to get enough of some nutrients (notably vitamin D) that fruit doesn't help with anyway.
I don't have a citation either, but google search reveals the following points:
1) One serving, or one medium apple, provides about 95 calories, 0 gram fat, 1 gram protein, 25 grams carbohydrate, 19 grams sugar (naturally occurring), and 3 grams fiber. 2) Recommended amount of consumed sugar for an adult is 30 grams per day. 3) You can also find a lot of citations how increased sugar consumption increases chances of diabetes.
So two apples already gets you above the recommended amount. An apple is basically 80% sugar in terms of calories: 19 * 4 / 95 = ~80%
There are no studies to my knowledge that show increasing fruit intake increases chances of diabetes. But there are studies that show that the risk of diabetes goes down by increasing fruit intake.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/how-does-su...
> The government recommends that free sugars – sugars added to food or drinks, and sugars found naturally in honey, syrups, and unsweetened fruit and vegetable juices, smoothies and purées – should not make up more than 5% of the energy (calories) you get from food and drink each day.
But even if the recommendation is added sugar -- what is the real difference between added and "natural" occurring sugar? Does this distinction invalidate my comment above? The point being that it's quite possible and even easy to consume several times, or even order above the reasonable amount of sugar by eating fruits. The apple is not even the sweetest one.
This does not count sugar in fruits or vegetables, but their juices.
Fearing diabetes is kinda missing the forest for the trees; the laser for the shark; the BED for the banana - it's deranged priority.
But thou asked.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Defence_Against_Fresh_F...
2. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MlroOdP8p2Y
> it's absolutely possible to give yourself diabetes just eating too much fruit.
It isn't, because that's not how it works. You get diabetes from obesity / high-calorie intake, not sugar. Sugar has deleterious effects but it will not in itself make you diabetic. https://www.health.harvard.edu/topics/diabetes#diabetes4 , https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/library/features/diabetes-cause...
But I also don't think you miss much by cutting fruit out entirely. It's a bunch of sugar, a lot of fiber, and a few vitamins that you can easily get from other places like green, leafy vegetables.
Really nothing unique about fruit unless you just really like fruit.
Really nothing unique about music unless you just really like music.
...
But I also don't think you miss much by cutting art out entirely. It's a bunch of brush strokes, a lot of colors, and a few layers that you can easily get from other places like the world around you.
Really nothing unique about art unless you just really like art.
..
But I also don't think you miss much by cutting vision out entirely. It's a bunch of wavelengths, a lot of rod and cones, and a few optic nerve stimuli that you can easily get from other places like your brain itself.
Really nothing unique about vision unless you just really like vision.
...
But I also don't think you miss much by cutting walking out entirely. It's a bunch of muscle stimuli, a lot of breathing, and a few images that you can easily get from other places like moving in place.
Really nothing unique about walking unless you just really like walking.
You like fruit? Great, eat fruit. Enjoy!
If OP was anorexic or undernourished or deprived of some essential nutrient there would be a point in pointing that out. But fruit?
But not in practice, I agree. I was actually fruitarian for a few weeks and man it's HARD to chew enough food to even get your calories in, lol. Plus it's all cold so it's extra annoying cause you never get the thermal heat of cooked food!
Blackberries, blueberries, and certain other fruits that are naturally sweet in the wild are an exception. The quantity of sugar in an apple is something that was rarely, if ever, found in nature before.
I'm not saying diabetics should go out and make banana smoothies. But I tried going fruitarian for 30 days in my 20s and I simply couldn't. I couldn't eat enough food to meet energy balance.
Maybe if you made banana puree all day but it gets real disgusting real quick.
I find fruit pretty self-limiting.
And vegetables. Everything gets selective breeding once it is a crop.
How many net & total grams of carbs a day are we talking here?
> I do, however, like sweet stuff, so I use artificial sweeteners. Lots of them, every day. A mix of stevia, aspartame, sugar alcohols like erythritol, and so on.
Another point of keto is to also remove the carb/sweets addiction over time(I know it's hard, am addicted/recovering myself).
Total grams doesn't matter. The point is the glycemic impact. Some people are very sensitive to carbs and can't eat a banana without throwing off ketosis, and others can have upwards of 30g of net carbs a day and still stay in ketosis. My goal is 20g or less, and my ketones still stay in the 1.5-2.0 range unless I overdo protein instead of fat.
For most people, the starting point is around 15g net carbs a day. If you're serious about keto (and staying healthy while doing so) you'll want a ketone testing mechanism as well as guidance from your doctor about adjusting medications since ketosis mimics a fasting state for a bunch of your metabolic processes.
I aim for >=2 mmol/l for ketones and <=4.5mmol/l for glucose (blood tests).
Plus there are different "levels of ketosis" and I'm not sure there's much research on it. E.g. my Non-24 is in remission even when I eat more of a VLCD. My ketones aren't as high but it works just as good for my purpose. I don't know if that level would be enough for an epileptic, for example, or someone who gets other benefits from keto.
Another thing is that some artificial sweeteners instantly kick me out, too. Worse than sugar. I forget which one it is but I grabbed a "sugar-free" energy drink one time. I spit out the very first sip but still got kicked out of ketosis including the heat and sugar rush, that's how strong it was.
That said, stevia and monk fruit are totally fine for me. No effect whatsoever. I slightly prefer the taste of monk fruit.
Get super hot, feel like my blood is rushing, heart beats.. not faster but.. louder?
It’s amazing what drinking regular coke is like after being off sugar for awhile. I swear the mouth-feel of drinking the syrup they make it with is there.
The taste has been described as being "like sitting next to someone who is thinking about drinking an orange soda/root beer/etc."
It's exquisite. I drink one every few months when we go out to a restaurant. Or a Dr Pepper, another favorite of mine. If you drink them every day, they're pretty boring. But once in a while, they're fantastic.
Unknown bad effects are better than known bad effects? Not sure if thats sound logic.
Anecdotally, this may be because you've decreased your intake and retention of B vitamins, which are water-soluble and essential in metabolizing carbs. Since you retain less water on keto, you have less B vitamins available to digest carbs (and you don't need them, because you're not eating carbs). A lot of people who eat keto feel bloated whenever they eat carbs, to the point that even if they want to quit keto they struggle to do it because carbs make them feel awful. I ate keto for about a year and stopped a couple months ago and experienced this.
So to anyone eating keto who may want to stop but feels awful when eating carbs, supplement your B-vitamins for a month or so, particularly B1/thiamine.
Edit: Aha, from a bit of googling it looks like they are required cofactors for various enzymes.
Chart: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/58862/findings2_fig0...
Between that and growth in sedentary lifestyles you have a pretty good recipe... if the low carb/Keto people are right (and in my personal experience carb sequestration works very well for weight loss and is way more sustainable long term than starving yourself purely for caloric reduction).
The obsession with calories by medical authorities (and disinterested doctors) as the go-to solution for weight loss since the 1970s may have served as a massive distraction.
To see it wasn't sugars fault.
Also curious if anyone on front lines of retail has seen any impact on customer behavior yet out of this study.
It is by far the easiest thing to just avoid all of them completely. Use sugar sparingly and stay far away from anything sweetened with HFCS, especially since almost everything sweetened with HFCS tends to contain absolutely outrageous amounts of it.
Easy for me, all these artificial sweeteners taste absolutely disgusting. But I'm also one of those people who just doesn't eat much sweet stuff at all other than fruit.
> Artificial Sweeteners and Heart Attacks: fact or fiction?
The nutrition world was set on fire last week when it was reported that erythritol — a popular sweetener used in protein bars and shakes — was linked to stroke and heart attack. There was just one little problem.
The study didn’t even test erythritol consumption, so the conclusion made by many in the media (that erythritol causes heart attacks) was very misleading (at best) and a dramatic false alarm (at worst).
Here's what you need to know: the researchers examined erythritol levels in the blood. Unlike other substances that only show up in your body if you eat it in your diet, erythritol is naturally produced by your body. And, it increases specifically during stress or body dysfunction. So if you have elevated levels of erythritol, it doesn't necessarily mean you've been having a lot of the sweetener; it could be that you're sick.
And that's what makes this study so problematic. The subjects in this study were not healthy. For example, more than 70 percent had coronary artery disease and hypertension. Which bring up an important question: did the consumption of erythritol cause the high levels in the blood, or was it because the subjects very sick and naturally producing more in their bodies? We don’t know because the study didn’t test those variables.
To be clear, other studies suggest supplementing with erythritol can led to positive health outcomes. If you’re worried about erythritol, it’s pretty easy to avoid. Simply check the ingredient list. Our take: we need more research focusing on healthy individuals while controlling for erythritol consumption to see if there is an association with disease. But, at this point, it's early to panic based on the findings of the study.
I often see this being used as an excuse to say that because we produce it, it isn't bad for you. Thing is that we produce it in tiny tiny amounts... then we take a spoonful of 'monk fruit' and add it to our coffee. There's nothing 'natural' about that.
> If you’re worried about erythritol, it’s pretty easy to avoid.
Not really. Just a random google...
"MONK FRUIT IN THE RAW"
https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Sweetener-Erythritol-Sugar-Fr...
Look at the first item on the list, it is a bag of erythritol, packaged to be 'monk fruit'.
Almost every single 'monk fruit' product out there is a bag of erythritol. Look at the shelf in your local grocery store. Eventually, people just give up and buy the bag since they have been told 'sugar' is bad.
That's the real tragedy here.
There is a reason we say this, if we produce it naturally our body has mechanisms to metabolize the item. For example acetone isn't very toxic because our body produces it naturally and knows how to deal with it.
(Note I am not disagreeing with you regarding amounts, just pointing out it's not such a foolish thing to say.)
That's what I'm talking about.
Is there a list of sicknesses that elevate erythritol levels naturally.
coronary artery disease and hypertension - these are the two main ones?
"The present studies suggest that following ingestion of an artificially sweetened food harboring typical levels of erythritol as artificial sweetener, plasma levels of erythritol remain elevated for many days, well above the thresholds necessary to enhance stimulus-dependent platelet reactivity, even among healthy volunteers."
I agree with Derek Lowe. I'll be avoiding erythritol until subsequent studies prove that it's safe.
> Witkowski et al. note that the vast majority of their study participants were enrolled prior to erythritol becoming a common sweetener and food additive. This, combined with the authors’ finding that erythritol levels remain well above the cohort ranges for at least a day after consumption, suggests that none of the cohort patients were consuming erythritol in their diets, and that the levels measured in fasting plasma samples were instead the result of endogenous production
[1] https://peterattiamd.com/more-hype-than-substance-erythritol...
I think it's becoming more popular in foods lately b/c of its relative lack of aftertaste but it does cause gastric distress in larger amounts and a healthy gut biome is linked to a bunch of other benefits.
There should always be concern for long term black swan style effects esp for the new hotness but by definition these unknown unknowns can never be fully eliminated.
If you go on subreddit's like /r/trees (I know, I know), you see the side effect of this information. Lots of people assume that smoking through an aluminum pipe will cause alzheimers, which is _not_ what the data showed. https://old.reddit.com/r/trees/search?q=aluminum+alzheimers&...
For example, by me, if you add even the tiniest bit of sour to the food (lemon juice, or even worse vinegar) that's all I can taste - just sour, there is zero food flavor at all.
Drinking wine tastes exactly the same as drinking vinegar.
But if I add sugar suddenly there are all these amazing flavors in the food! I tried it with wine, I added a bunch of sugar, and then I was able to taste all these flavors people were telling me were in the wine.
I do experiment on myself but only after I can reasonably assume whatever I am consuming is relatively safe, and this means there is sizeable enough population that eats it at same or larger quantities that I plan to ingest.
I use table sugar as sweetener. It really isn't that bad for you. A healthy person should be able to eat sweet dessert from time to time with no ill effects (but not every day and not in large quantities). We have pretty good idea of risks of consuming table sugar vs other sweeteners.
I do intermittent keto to build and maintain metabolic flexibility. This means there are longs spans of time with very few carbs and definitely no sweetened stuff which are more than enough to wipe out occasional taste of reasonable amount of sugar.
I find it is easier and better to just cut out desserts and sweetened drinks and learn to eat proper things for your diet. This whole idea of pretending you are not really on keto and doing keto pizzas, keto breads, keto sweet drinks, keto cheesecakes and so on only makes it feel like you are forcing yourself to eat something that is less tasty than the original. There really is no substitute for real bread, pizza or cheesecake. Doing keto intermittently (say 2 months of keto, 2 weeks off keto) means you can still eat what you want, just not all the time. And it is apparently healthier option because you exercise your metabolism in various ways rather than be permanently on keto.