Ask HN: Is there evidence that artificial sweetener is bad for you?
I eat a low-carb diet and enjoy good results. I basically function in keto all the time. The thing is, a lot of people are so aggressive against artificial sweeteners - do they have any solid evidence to fall back on?
A common argument I hear is 'I have normal coke because at least my body knows what to do with the sugar!'
This to me is narrow minded. The human body didn't evolve in conditions including an abundance of high-fructose corn syrup so No. Your body does not know what to do with it. Type 2 diabetes is a fine example of the body not knowing what to do with it.
I don't want to let go of my artificially sweetened coffees - any solid empirical evidence in either direction would be much appreciated!
12 comments
[ 6.2 ms ] story [ 29.3 ms ] threadIs THERE evidence...
Yes, there is lots of evidence. Both against artificial sweetener and also regular sugar for the body.
Could you link me to anything you found definitive against artificial sweetener?
Sugar, on the other hand, is one of the most toxic substances we know, with proven links to diabetes, alzheimers, and other ailments. I'll take my chances with Aspartame!
My family and I have been on a low carb diet for years now. I frequently do literature searches on the topic, and the scientific evidence remains less than perfect for just about anything nutrition related.
In talking to metabolism people over the years, the bad artificial sweeteners theories go something like this. When you taste something sweet, your body prepares itself for true sugar. When you don't input the sugar to the body, you become hungry faster. Additionally, when you repeatedly use artificial sugars, you may decrease your sensitivity to the actual sweet taste. Thus, once again, subconsciously you end up eating more sweet things (and thus more calories) to make things taste better.
Anecdotally, I believe I see this. When I drink a diet beverage, I end up getting very hungry soon afterwards. Additionally, when I drop all diet beverages for a while, I notice that things such as veggies taste sweeter. But you asked for empirical evidence. Here are the latest articles that I've noticed...
Diet beverages increased risk of diabetes in middle-aged men. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575771
fMRI shows the process of taste is altered in chronic diet soda drinkers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583859
Sugar and diet sodas associated with stroke. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22492378
in exchange a recipy:
cut a lemon into wedges, sprinkle a pack of stevia, eat said lemon. It's a great dessert!
I can say for myself I had felt the bad effects of diet soda and now keep clear of it. Maybe it varies based on different folk's physiology? I know people who chug the stuff at work and seem to do well. But it's good to be aware of the symptoms in case you start feeling sick.
In addition to those, substances like sodium cyclamate and aspartame have been linked to cancer after being considered 'safe' for decades. Who knows when they'll declare the same for neotame and other new sweeteners? If only xilitol made from bark was cheaper...
I think the conclusion is that there is no magic formula for eating sweets without the consequences, avoiding refined sugar, high-fructose and similar stuff is the way to keep healthy and out of trouble.
ps: stevia is probably safe, but I find it has too much of a bitter aftertaste.
That's the example that led me to weaken my heuristic skepticism of nontraditional agriculture. I don't have a gaian spiritual attachment to traditional food production, but I'm skeptical that the testing of pesticides and fungicides used in farming, and the drugs given to farm-raised animals, is sufficiently stringent and long-term. I am okay with those in principle, but I would like them to be introduced more conservatively than today.
At the store, the choice is between organic and regular food. So I can't buy my preferred choice of food, which would use novel drugs and chemicals but conservatively and after extensive testing. One heuristic, given that choice, is to prefer organic food. Not for the reasons most organic-food pushers are pushing it, but because organic food errs on the side of economic inefficiency, while regular food errs on the side of toxicity. Since I'm thankfully doing fairly well economically, my personal risk function prefers the first kind of error.
But sadly that doesn't work. Due to aflatoxin being everywhere, organic food can be more carcinogenic than standard food is, depending on the specific food, climate, and distribution. In some cases it may be heuristically better to ingest even insufficiently tested chemicals if the organic alternative has higher levels of aflatoxin. And that's true even if money is no object.
There are other examples, but that's the one that's common enough to have shot a hole in my purchasing heuristic. I would still prefer the in-between option, a class of food that does use pesticides and other drugs, but phases them in more conservatively, based on solid proof of their safety. Alas, there doesn't seem to be a profitable market halfway between regular and organic food.
Here are 2 studies:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/9/1654.full?ijkey=ac...
http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/40.full
My honest humble opinion is don't worry about. Drink your sweetened coffee and Diet Coke if you enjoy it. I believe I read some where that sweeteners are the most studied elements in the world and if there was a problem, a serious problem, I think it would have been known by now.