
The Evidence Supports Artificial Sweeteners Over Sugar - toby
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/upshot/the-evidence-supports-artificial-sweeteners-over-sugar.html
======
bunderbunder

      But what about sugar? We should acknowledge that when I, 
      and many others, address sugar in contexts like these, we  
      are talking about added sugars, not the naturally occurring 
      sugars or carbohydrates you find in things like fruit. 
      Those are, for the most part, not the problem. *Added* 
      sugars are.
    

In a world where extremely sugary products such as fruit juice and even _sugar
cane_ juice can claim "no sugar added" prominently on the label, I find this
statement to be problematic.

It seems a little bit akin to implying that you can drink all the applejack
you want without worrying about intoxication because it has "no alcohol added"
\- instead, water was removed. I can guarantee your liver is not playing
pedantic word games around the process by which that beverage got to 40% ABV,
all it cares about is whether you're drinking too much alcohol or not.

~~~
shaneqful
In fairness, this is really down to where you live. If you live in the EU you
will see exactly how much sugar is in the drink by looking at the label
because that's what the law says.

It's up to regulators to hold companies to account. They certainly aren't
going to print things that could possibly harm sales on their labels by
themselves.

~~~
eseehausen
In the USA it's on the label (though on the back, usually) too. They're just
allowed to say that no additional sugar was added. The real push is moving
from something that people in the US can't readily parse (like grams of sugar)
to something they can (like teaspoons of sugar).

~~~
gambiting
For a second I thought you got these backwards. Having it in grams is so much
clearer. I get really annoyed when recipes tell me to add X
teaspons/tablespoons/cups of something - these are not units of measure!

~~~
mbrameld
Yes they are. Just because you're not familiar with them doesn't mean they're
not units of measure.

~~~
gambiting
Are they defined anywhere officially? Like is there a standard which says how
much volume or weight is held by one teaspoon or one cup? Because I have
teaspoons which vary widely in sizes, the same with cups. And even if you use
a teaspoon to measure - is it with the contents flat? Or in a little pile?
It's too ambiguous, and therefore - not a unit of measure.

~~~
eseehausen
It's obvious this is some kind of pet peeve, but a little googling would
answer your own questions. It seems like the NIST is the regulatory body in
the US presiding over official measurements, and they provide a brief overview
here:
[http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/cooking.cfm](http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/cooking.cfm)

Wikipedia has more information on exact conversions and the domestic and
international agreements that set the sizes:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units)

You're welcome to do more research to confirm Wikipedia's assertions. As for
whether it's flat or a little pile, 1 tsp is flat (5ml). What you're thinking
of is the commonly used cooking instruction "heaping tablespoon", because yes,
when cooking you don't have to have everything down to the exact ml.

EDIT: And again, more research done for you:
[https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59711/rounded-
he...](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59711/rounded-heaping-and-
other-types-of-teaspoonfuls)

~~~
gambiting
Alright, I stand corrected. My apologies.

------
zzalpha
_My wife and I limit our children’s consumption of soda to around four to five
times a week._

That's limited?

Once a week, that's limited. Once every weeknight isn't limited, it's a habit.

Given the choice, I'll take a naturally sweetened beverage weekly over an
artificially sweetened beverage daily, if only because of the awful taste of
artificial sweeteners...

~~~
lambda
Why do people think that it's OK to allow kids to drink soda? In fact, why do
people think that drinking soda is something that anyone must do?

I used to drink soda. Gave it up many years ago. Have not missed it. Have much
less of a sweet tooth now; don't eat desserts very often, and when I do, a
very small portion is plenty. I think giving up soda helped with that.

If I want a caffeinated beverage, I drink coffee, black or with cream but no
sugar. If I want a cool, carbonated beverage, I drink beer (which has most of
its sugar fermented out; still has some calories, but not nearly so sweet). If
I just need to be rehydrated, I drink water.

It seems to me that so many people have this idea that sugary drinks, whether
in the form of soda, sweet juices, sports drinks, and so on, but drinking
those on a regular basis is a fairly new thing that I don't thin our bodies
are well adapted for.

Cutting out sugars via drinks are some of the easiest empty carbs to cut out
of your diet.

~~~
StavrosK
Why do people think that it's OK to allow kids to drink coffee? In fact, why
do people think that drinking coffee is something that anyone must do?

I used to drink coffee. Gave it up many years ago. Have not missed it. Have
much less of a caffeine addiction now; don't drink caffeinated drinks very
often, and when I do, a very small portion is plenty. I think giving up coffee
helped with that.

If I want a sweetened beverage, I drink soda, sugarless or with sugar but no
caffeine.

Etc.

~~~
ubercore
I appreciate what you're pointing out how, but it doesn't strictly work since
sugar arguably has a far larger affect on overall health and metabolism than
caffeine. At least in the context of this story.

~~~
StavrosK
Sure, but the GP is arguing against soda, when there's a perfectly good
alternative: sugarless soda. He doesn't provide any argument as to why one
should cut soda completely, he just says "sugar is bad, therefore you need to
cut soda".

I don't even think he's saying that, actually, he seems to be saying "I don't
drink soda so neither should you".

~~~
lambda
What I'm saying is that culturally, we need to shift away from thinking that
sweets are something that should be consumed on a daily basis. Based on my
personal experience, avoiding having sweet drinks on a daily basis can help
you lose your sweet tooth; and thus be less compelled to consume more of other
sweet things.

Having cut out soda, I find I have a lower tolerance for sweet food in
general. I'm less likely to order sweet and sour chicken, or foods that are
glazed, or things with barbecue sauce, or honey-mustard dressings or dips. I
have desserts less often, and when I do, split them more ways.

As others have pointed out in this thread, most people have a sense that
feeding caffeine or alcohol to kids is a bad idea; and even as adults, that
they are things that should be consumed in moderation. They don't have coffee
available in the school cafeteria. However, most people have no such sense
about sugar, giving kids juice boxes, chocolate milks, and putting soda
machines in schools for them to buy whenever they have a little extra
allowance left over.

While sugar-free soda is probably an improvement over soda with sugar in it,
it still leaves you with that sweet tooth, and you're more likely to
subconsciously keep consuming sugars in other forms.

------
0xffff2
I thought the primary argument against artificial sweeteners these days was
that they cause the body to expect a large inflow of sugar without actually
delivering on that promise. This, in turn, leads to the consumer craving sugar
even more, in many cases leading to higher total calorie consumption that if
we just ate the sugar in the first place.

It seems to me that by far the best option would be to limit consumption of
both added sugars and artificial sweeteners.

~~~
ssharp
Is there strong evidence backing that up?

Personally, I've done low-carb diets where things with sugar are almost
entirely off-limits, minus a small amount of fruit, and whatever small
quantities of sugar are present in non-starchy vegetable. During these diets,
I've tried them with and without artificial sugars. Those artificial sugars
would be consumed in either diet drinks/sodas, or with coffee. I had the
occasional desire to consume something with lots of carbs/sugar, but I can't
say it was any strong with artificial sugars than without.

If anything, for me, the artificial sugars worked to satiate the desire for
something sweet.

~~~
malkia
Here is how I fall off the atkins diet.

First I was on strict diet, less than 10 grams a day sugar first two weeks,
then restrict to less than 20 grams and gradually increase... Then one day I
had craving for chocolate, got one with malittol - first a little chunk, then
a bit more, a bit more... Then I had troubles in the loo, more troubles, more
troubles, and... switched back to normal chocolate.

It did not worked for me. But it could the next time...

~~~
Frozenlock
[https://www.reddit.com/r/keto](https://www.reddit.com/r/keto)

------
eastbayjake
It's disappointing this article only addressed cancer risk but avoided
artificial sweeteners' possible impact on gut bacteria.[1][2] I quit Diet Coke
cold turkey after reading several of these studies. I won't extrapolate from
my personal experiences -- I really do wish there were more studies about gut
bacteria's impact on our health -- but I've felt better after avoiding
artificial sweeteners and adding probiotic foods to my diet like greek yogurt
and kombucha.

[1]
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html)

[2] [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-
sweeten...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-
may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/)

~~~
S_A_P
I don't know that there is a way to reliably measure some of the positive
benefits of avoiding artificial sweeteners. I briefly tried switching to diet
drinks before giving up semi regular soda drinking. Even after I got used to
the taste, I seemed to get headaches and/or a general feeling of malaise or
bad feeling. I don't know if it is your body thinking it ate something sweet
and sending out too much insulin or what. It could totally be a psychosomatic
response, but I just feel better when I stick to water, black coffee, or
drinks with real sugar(on the occasion I have something like that) I cant
really see that being easily quantified though.

~~~
axlprose
Do you know if you get that with other sweeteners like sucralose or stevia?
Because if not, you might just be sensitive to the phenylalanine in aspartame.
It can have psychoactive effects in large enough quantities, and can cause
adverse reactions in certain people that are consistent with the symptoms
you're describing.

Personally, I prefer aspertame drinks for this reason; they feel more
stimulating to me, and I suspect it's due to the phenylalanine since it can
potentially get converted into dopamine/norepinephrine/epinephrine, which is
useful for me cause I have adhd. Though the effects from that are minuscule
compared to the effect of the caffeine that aspartame is usually paired with.

For the record (for people downvoting), there's nothing wrong with
phenylalanine, most of the anti-aspartame propaganda labels it as a
"neurotoxin"/"excitotoxin"/whatever, which is just FUD. It's just a
psychoactive amino acid and half of what makes up aspartame (aspartic acid
being the other half). And _a few_ people do have allergic reactions to it.

------
shaneqful
The author has a very good youtube channel if you like getting advice like
this that can be trusted.

[https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage](https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage)

I'd also recommend using [http://examine.com/](http://examine.com/) to
validate studios on what you are going to eat by yourself.

~~~
shaneqful
studies _

------
evanpw
The arguments against artificial sweeteners seem a little like the arguments
against e-cigarettes. Yes, there are plausible mechanisms by which the
substitutes may cause harm. Yes, further research is needed. Yes, cutting out
both the original and the substitute would be better.

But people really like (or "like") sugar and cigarettes, so the most likely
outcome of loudly proclaiming the dangers of substitutes is that more people
stay with the originals, which are almost certainly worse.

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

~~~
adventured
All artificial sweeteners are not created equal.

Check out erythritol, it's superior to most of the others:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol)

~~~
odiroot
My only problem with it is that it's super hard to combine it with other
ingredients (baking for example). It stays in the granulated form no matter
how much liquid you add or how long you stir.

------
hiou
_> In the last few years, I’ve watched a continuing battle among my friends
about which is worse for you: artificial sweeteners or sugar._

And now we are going to watch the same thing on this thread. Why are these
diet fad bits so popular on HN?

~~~
gambiter
Can you really call a discussion about ingredients which have been
studied/discussed for decades a 'fad'?

I think the main point is that there is A LOT of misinformation out there, and
people have made up their minds on things without adequate evidence. Anti-
vaxxers are (rightly) lambasted for this... IMO, anyone who makes public
statements about nutrition without doing adequate research deserves the same.

Articles like this one are important. Even though it still has some opinion
sprinkled in, it has a lot of links to evidence, and that is what people
really need.

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

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

------
vixen99
Problems with sweeteners? "none can be detected with artificial sweeteners"
concludes the author. Plenty of peer-reviewed papers suggest that this is
either not true or the issue is not adequately resolved. Sugar consumed in the
quantities used by many people is certainly dangerous but there is another
option which is that of abandoning sweeteners altogether. Food stripped of
habitual sweetness as in say, tea and coffee, is so much more interesting.

~~~
cheapsteak
Is your argument that people should change their tastes?

------
mixmastamyk
Generally agreed with the article, but I'm surprised when I see parents still
giving their kids soda these days, diet or not.

We generally drink water and it's just fine, when we want something "fancy" we
get the sparkling water at Trader Joe's that has the orange or berry essence.
They are available at other stores as well, no sugar or artificial sweeteners,
and kids still love them.

It may seem like we need everything to be sweetened from habit, but you can
easily start a new habit. Once you get used to something, it becomes the new
normal.

------
doodpants
I don't care which of them is least bad for you, my problem is that all
artificial sweeteners taste terrible!

If I consume something that contains aspartame or sucralose, I can taste it,
and I don't like it. Even Stevia tastes awful.

And what I really hate is that sucralose is now being used in lots of non-diet
beverages that also contain sugar or corn syrup! The Arizona Beverage Company
does this with some of their drinks, for example.

~~~
astrange
Yeah, isn't it weird that nobody in America can sell bottled tea without
trying to make it ridiculously sweet?

Here, try this: [http://www.amazon.com/Teas-Tea-Unsweetened-Green-
Ounce/dp/B0...](http://www.amazon.com/Teas-Tea-Unsweetened-Green-
Ounce/dp/B0017T6S0Y/ref=sr_1_6?rps=1&ie=UTF8&qid=1438026388&sr=8-6&keywords=oi+ocha)

Also available at Costco or any Asian grocery store (at least on the west
coast).

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

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

I know someone whose baby was very active in womb to the point that she
worried about it. And then she read that sucralose was shown to cause
miscarriage in animals so she stopped eating it (it was in something she ate
regularly) and the baby calmed right down. But that's just one datum.

~~~
fpgaminer
Sorry, but anecdotal evidence like that is not a valid counterargument. To the
contrary, anecdotal evidence is oftentimes damaging. It spreads misinformation
and fear, and is a common tool used by those with perverse agendas (I'm not
imply this is the case here).

------
fpgaminer
I feel like people are actively trying to worsen their diets, despite
vocalizations to the contrary. (I'll be speaking from an American perspective
here). I mean, people say they want to eat healthy, but all the actions I see
are in the opposite direction.

First, there was the anti-fat movement. Everyone ran from fat like it was the
plague, believing it to be responsible for heart disease and obesity. Turns
out, neither is true, quite the opposite in fact, and fat is generally good
for you (excepting, e.g. trans fat). What happened, though, was that fat was
replaced by sugar in our diets. Leading to obesity, diabetes, and heart
disease...

Alongside the anti-fat movement came olestra, the fat substitute that solved
the problem that people created with the fat witchhunt. This was their fat
savior, and what was the general response? Everyone was afraid of this scary
chemical, worried that it would cause anal leakage (hint: it doesn't); they
burned it alive and went about their merry lives with a jug of soda in their
hands.

So, now we're knee deep in the consequences of that previous diet, and people
say they want to be healthy again. Science creates artificial sweeteners, so
as to sate the new desire for sugary food and drink. The response is again one
of unfounded and irrational fear.

So people turn to what they view as their last bastion of hope: vegetables.
But no, we couldn't just eat vegetables. We could only eat them if they were
organic. The general thinking being that organic vegetables must be healthier,
and avoid dangerous, scary pesticides (hint: the pesticides on organic food
are worse). Problem is, vegetables were expensive and difficult to use in the
first place (they spoil quickly, requiring frequent market trips). Organics
only made it worse, for both organic and non-organic sources. And to top it
off, people are wailing against GMO, which would have presented a solution to
the insane desire for "organic" foodstuff.

I just don't get it. The average person bemoans their health and cries for a
better diet, but every step they take is towards something worse. A great
example I've found is bacon. I tell people that bacon is good for them; a
healthy choice. Every time I receive puzzled looks and they think I'm joking.
Usually while they stuff their faces with hamburgers. But guess what? That
hamburger comes with a calorie loaded, glucose spiking bun, and sugary sauce.
The beef it's made from has perhaps the worst impact on the global environment
of any animal based food. And people will scarf down their entire 1000+
calorie burger, only to feel hungry enough to eat some fries to top it off. My
bacon? It's a measly 43 calories per slice, with me maxing out at 4 slices on
my best days. I feel full and sated afterwards, with none of that hamburger
bloat. Pork is significantly better for the environment compared to beef. And
I didn't have to put sugary sauce or carb heavy buns on my meal. And all that
fat? Bacon has the same fat content as a hamburger.

~~~
ild
> trans fat

Saturated fats are not good either.

~~~
fpgaminer
For lack of time, I'll just cite examine.com rather than doing my own meta-
analysis: [http://examine.com/faq/is-saturated-fat-bad-for-
me/](http://examine.com/faq/is-saturated-fat-bad-for-me/)

Not that I particularly trust examine.com, but they do cite their sources, so
it's better than nothing, and better than me spouting off unfounded nonsense.
Anyway, here's the relevant bits:

> Looking at reviews and meta-analysis' of controlled trials, there does not
> seem to be much evidence that saturated fat increases risk for
> Cardiovascular Diseases. However, replacing some saturated fat with
> polyunsaturated may reduce risk.

> Saturated fats do increase cholesterol levels relative to polyunsaturated
> fats.[2][8] It should be noted that in any study done on macronutrients
> (fat, carbs, or protein) removal of a macronutrient must be met with
> inclusion of another in order to balance calories out. Many studies replace
> saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats, which tend to reduce cholesterol
> and triglyceride levels.[9][10][11][12] This may lead to the conclusion that
> saturated fats raise them, when the possibility that they are inert is
> viable.

In my opinion, as research stands today, worrying about anything except trans
fat is not worth the effort. Maybe, just maybe saturated fats are worse than
unsaturated fats. But in terms of your healthy it's probably in that 1%.
People need to worry about the 99%. That 99% comes from eating less sugar,
moderating carb consumption (I don't mean Atkins here, I mean replace some
starches like french fries with vegetables and meats, but bread on your
sandwich is fine), and general calorie tracking. Anything more than that will
begin to fall into areas of research that aren't well covered, and, again,
likely only contribute trivially to your long-term health.

~~~
aaxe
Why don't you trust Examine.com?

~~~
fpgaminer
I haven't spent the time to go through and verify their summaries, so I really
have no personal reason to trust them. They also seemed to have a lot of
advertising for their products on their site, at least it seemed that way,
which would be an indication of a conflict of interest. But I've seen the site
mentioned on /r/fitness, and on the surface the site seemed to contain more
sources and information than Wikipedia. That's why I quoted it here.

~~~
aaxe
Crazy that they advertise their own stuff. They should start growing money
trees in their backyard like the rest of us.

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

~~~
adventured
It's surprising you're getting a fullness response from consuming sugar, given
how poor and short lived of an energy source it is. Typically sugar leaves
people feeling a lot less full, which leads to craving more, and comes with an
energy crash shortly thereafter.

Maybe try using artificial sweeteners and supplementing your diet with more
fiber and or protein at the point you consume the artificial sweetener, both
of which will fill you up (or should) drastically more than sugar. That might
compensate for the sensation you're getting regarding removing sugar.

------
larssorenson
It seems that this article also somehow missed entirely the potential link
between some artificial sweeteners and diabetes[1][2]

[1]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095119](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095119)
[2]
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html)

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

