
Ask HN: Is there evidence that artificial sweetener is bad for you? - BookPage
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?<p>A common argument I hear is &#x27;I have normal coke because at least my body knows what to do with the sugar!&#x27;<p>This to me is narrow minded. The human body didn&#x27;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.<p>I don&#x27;t want to let go of my artificially sweetened coffees - any solid empirical evidence in either direction would be much appreciated!
======
davak
MD (but not an endocrinologist) here.

My family and I have been on a low carb diet for years now. I frequently do
literature searches on the topic, and the scientific evidence remains less
than perfect for just about anything nutrition related.

In talking to metabolism people over the years, the bad artificial sweeteners
theories go something like this. When you taste something sweet, your body
prepares itself for true sugar. When you don't input the sugar to the body,
you become hungry faster. Additionally, when you repeatedly use artificial
sugars, you may decrease your sensitivity to the actual sweet taste. Thus,
once again, subconsciously you end up eating more sweet things (and thus more
calories) to make things taste better.

Anecdotally, I believe I see this. When I drink a diet beverage, I end up
getting very hungry soon afterwards. Additionally, when I drop all diet
beverages for a while, I notice that things such as veggies taste sweeter. But
you asked for empirical evidence. Here are the latest articles that I've
noticed...

Diet beverages increased risk of diabetes in middle-aged men.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575771](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575771)

fMRI shows the process of taste is altered in chronic diet soda drinkers.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583859](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583859)

Sugar and diet sodas associated with stroke.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22492378](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22492378)

------
dylanhassinger
I've looked into it and couldn't find any hard evidence linking artificial
sweetener to cancer, alzeimers, or other problems. Sure there may be side
effects, but so far they are undocumented.

Sugar, on the other hand, is one of the most toxic substances we know, with
proven links to diabetes, alzheimers, and other ailments. I'll take my chances
with Aspartame!

------
ricardobeat
Recent and past research has linked sweeteners to obesity, diabetes, and even
heart disease. Some studies show it results in larger weight gain than
consuming sugar.

In addition to those, substances like sodium cyclamate and aspartame have been
linked to cancer after being considered 'safe' for decades. Who knows when
they'll declare the same for neotame and other new sweeteners? If only xilitol
made from bark was cheaper...

I think the conclusion is that there is no magic formula for eating sweets
without the consequences, avoiding refined sugar, high-fructose and similar
stuff is the way to keep healthy and out of trouble.

ps: stevia is probably safe, but I find it has too much of a bitter
aftertaste.

~~~
tptacek
Things can come from bark and still be carcinogenic; that's an invocation of
the naturalistic fallacy. Recent example: fish oil.

~~~
mjn
Aflatoxin is another one, notable for turning up nearly everywhere (including
bark, sometimes).

That's the example that led me to weaken my heuristic skepticism of
nontraditional agriculture. I don't have a gaian spiritual attachment to
traditional food production, but I'm skeptical that the testing of pesticides
and fungicides used in farming, and the drugs given to farm-raised animals, is
sufficiently stringent and long-term. I am okay with those in principle, but I
would like them to be introduced more conservatively than today.

At the store, the choice is between organic and regular food. So I can't buy
my preferred choice of food, which would use novel drugs and chemicals but
conservatively and after extensive testing. One heuristic, given that choice,
is to prefer organic food. Not for the reasons most organic-food pushers are
pushing it, but because organic food errs on the side of economic
inefficiency, while regular food errs on the side of toxicity. Since I'm
thankfully doing fairly well economically, my personal risk function prefers
the first kind of error.

But sadly that doesn't work. Due to aflatoxin being everywhere, organic food
can be more carcinogenic than standard food is, depending on the specific
food, climate, and distribution. In some cases it may be heuristically better
to ingest even insufficiently tested chemicals if the organic alternative has
higher levels of aflatoxin. And that's true even if money is no object.

There are other examples, but that's the one that's common enough to have shot
a hole in my purchasing heuristic. I would still prefer the in-between option,
a class of food that does use pesticides and other drugs, but phases them in
more conservatively, based on solid proof of their safety. Alas, there doesn't
seem to be a profitable market halfway between regular and organic food.

------
LarryMade2
There's the documentary Sweet Misery, that goes into some first hand accounts
and history of aspertaime's effects and shady approval...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owtF2nt2VX4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owtF2nt2VX4)

I can say for myself I had felt the bad effects of diet soda and now keep
clear of it. Maybe it varies based on different folk's physiology? I know
people who chug the stuff at work and seem to do well. But it's good to be
aware of the symptoms in case you start feeling sick.

------
b3b0p
I wouldn't worry about. Personally, I drink Diet Coke (nectar of the gods). I
don't think there has ever been a study on humans with a link to any cancer or
specific issues. They have shown in rodents a link to cancer. However, the
amount relative to body weight that the rodents were given was extreme.
Anything in the extreme amounts in the studies is bound to cause problems. As
they say, too much of anything is a bad thing. I bet they could link cancer to
any chemical, mineral, supplement, etc in such quantities.

Here are 2 studies:

[http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/9/1654.full?ijkey=ac...](http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/9/1654.full?ijkey=ac6c97b1ce31ada1c45888d3101fd0b9d5901fe7)

[http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/40.full](http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/40.full)

My honest humble opinion is don't worry about. Drink your sweetened coffee and
Diet Coke if you enjoy it. I believe I read some where that sweeteners are the
most studied elements in the world and if there was a problem, a serious
problem, I think it would have been known by now.

------
flavmartins
There.

Is THERE evidence...

Yes, there is lots of evidence. Both against artificial sweetener and also
regular sugar for the body.

~~~
BookPage
Thanks - I swear to god I know the difference.

Could you link me to anything you found definitive against artificial
sweetener?

------
shail
Stevia?

~~~
makerops
I also am in keto, and use stevia, although sparingly. Anyone have any info
regarding its safety?

in exchange a recipy:

cut a lemon into wedges, sprinkle a pack of stevia, eat said lemon. It's a
great dessert!

