The author conflates sugar/honey etc (pure carbs - glucose, fructose) and artificial sweeteners like stevia and erythritol which don't have any effect on your blood glucose and really are completely different. I fully agree with the premise of minimizing sugar consumption but I don't think encouraging people to avoid certain artificial sweeteners like stevia etc is helpful - and in fact it's hurting because certain products with these non blood glucose contributing substitutes help people avoid sugar.
Note that although artificial sweeteners like stevia and erythritol don't raise the blood glucose at all and have GI index of zero or near zero - some artificial sweeteners actually do raise blood glucose, like maltitol etc, and these sweeteners are unfortunately often found in sugar-free candy. You can try a web search for "GI index artificial sweeteners" to see a list of sweeteners that have low GI score.
Something else to keep in mind is that over consumption of very carb heavy products like bread or pasta will have the exact same effect on your blood glucose as just eating sugar.
I can't remember where I read it. But there apparently is a link between something tasting sweet and your bodies insulin response. The study seemed to suggest that our upper intestines have similar cells as our tongue and can actually taste food. The result is that eating sweet tasting things that are not sweet cause a insulin serge, which the body then registers was not needed due to the lack of actual glucose increase. The bodies intenral feedback loop is adjusted for this and over time you end up getting little to no response to eating sweet tasting stuff regardless if it had glucose in it or not.
You also have to step back and ask your self why so many people who avoid sugar but use artificial sweeteners are having problems with diabetes.
That study shows lowering sugar and replacing it with alternatives helps loose weight. My post says using those alternatives cause diabetes in the long run -- nothing about weight loss or weight gain.
> You also have to step back and ask your self why so many people who avoid sugar but use artificial sweeteners are having problems with diabetes.
That is a very weak argument as the products with artificial sweeteners are made for people with diabetes... Nevertheless, a source for the first part of your argument would be very helpful.
Things being made for people never means is also a weak argument. Last I checked artificial sweeteners are not distributed by any medical organization and the recommendation for those with some types of diabetes is to stay away from sugar -- not to use something else -- but stay away. I was really not using that as a proof of anything though, it was more of something to think about as it is known we have a diabetes epidemic on hand despite all of our efforts.
That being said I wish I could find the original paper I read. I have found other studies that suggest the same thing simply by searching for "artificial sweeteners cause insulin resistance". The paper I am referring to seems to go into the why of the subject a bit more than anything I have found. If I had more time -- I don't -- I would look more. Should I ever find it I will try and send it your way although replies might be locked by that time :p
The article is specifically talking about added sugars, and their net effect.
> Big Sugar has paid researchers to conduct misleading — if not false — studies about the health effects of added sweeteners.
The core issue is not the type of sugar, but the nature of it being basically everywhere in packaged foods.
The author also mentions that it's not worth trying to quantify the amount of sugar:
> Don’t agonize over the sugar content of every single thing you eat.
I find the best rule of thumb is to "eat around the outside" -- most American supermarkets push produce, meat, dairy, etc., to the outer walls of the market, and design stores to make you criss-cross the packaged goods aisles in the center. If you focus shopping on fresh foods, you generally will eat better (with a slightly more expensive grocery bill).
When you say "slightly more expensive grocery bill", what are you comparing it to? I find that it's generally cheaper if you buy fresh meat and produce and make meals yourself, whether you compare it to eating at restaurants (a lot more expensive) or prepared/boxed meals in supermarkets (slightly more expensive than the same amount of food in fresh grocery).
I suppose if you compare it to junk food, like eating chips and cookies for subsistence, I can see how fresh meat and produce can be slightly more expensive. (Or you may be considering time it takes to prepare meals from fresh ingredients as an expense?)
In fact, one of my first realizations when I began to cook meals myself, after college, was that eating healthy was surprisingly cheap. You can consistently eat healthy and get all your nutritions for under $5 a meal.
The article mentions getting protein via the forms of bean and rice, eggs, whey protein powder. No wonder you/the author can stay under $2/meal :)
As for myself, I still like to enjoy meat like beef, chicken, pork. Meat is typically the most expensive part of grocery. Even enjoying good quality meat like the ones above, one can easily stay under $5/meal!
You don't have to stay under $2 for every meal as long they average out to that value. It's possible to eat high quality meat while hitting that number - you just can't eat it for every meal.
In general I agree - if you're happy eating just fresh food like meat and veggies I'm happy for you - but I cannot, for practicality reasons. I just tend to keep my processed food very low carb - for some examples: I eat a lot of Quest bars (usually 5g net carbs), Lily's has some great stevia sweetened chocolate (http://lilyssweets.com/), and Fat Snax cookies are amazing (https://fatsnax.com/products/cookies).
I couldn’t read the article, so I will only go off what I imagine the article might say (like pretty much every other nytimes article).
The problem with making food taste more sugary, with or without artificial sweeteners, is that as a society we are growing too accustomed to hyper-stimulating foods. Why can’t people just live with the fact that every food doesn’t need to be loaded with sugar and instead open their palates to the notes that come from natural flavors?
It’s like people want their hair to be blown back every time the fork goes in their mouth.
> instead open their palates to the notes that come from natural flavors
Presumably because people are eating things that, underneath the sugar, are pretty much tasteless.
Consider the American Chinese staple of "sweet and sour pork." What does it taste like, without the sweet and sour sauce? Well... it's deep-fried boiled pork. Would you eat plain deep-fried boiled pork? Even as a side-dish?
If we take away the artificial flavors, a large number of (usually cheaper!) dishes simply cease to exist. Palatable food—especially palatable fast food—would get a lot more expensive. What of the people who work all day, end up too tired to cook, and yet don't end up with enough money for healthy food?
(If the answer is "we don't want those people to be in that situation in the first place", then try solving that problem—if you manage it, I have a feeling it would largely solve America's obesity epidemic as a byproduct.)
5 years ago I went on a diet where the only thing I did was to look at all the ingredients and nutritional values in everything and if they wern't there I didn't buy it (most burger places will supply it if you ask).
It is APPALLING what gets added to everything in order to be just-a-bit-better-tasting than the competition. Your brain doesn't know why brandA is better than brandB. And it's not just sugar, salt and fat are also adjusted.
But you don't NEED those flavors. You have to wean your body off the flavor. Foods have subtle and delicate flavors that get masked by the assault.
You can't hear the sounds of a bird chirping or a trickling stream if you are next to a rock concert.
You're quite right. I have a friend who moved to the US from a small european village. He commented that the food here is very intense -- all of the flavors are exaggerated and nothing tastes real. Too much salt, too much sugar, too much artificial... everything. Even the beef, he said, is intense in its flavor (a consequence of corn fed vs grass-fed cattle?) but ironically, the chicken is quite bland.
It is my own observation that supermarket/farm vegetables are often bland compared to "backyard" varieties. Most people have no idea how flavorful a simple tomato can be until they've had an "ugly" heirloom tomato left on the vine until ripe.
There was an article a few years back in Chemical & Engineering News (C&E News) about food chemistry and how much time and energy, engineering and planning is put into every aspect of processed foods - flavor, texture, dynamics, consistency, etc, etc. Makes sense, from a business perspective. The science of how to design food that makes my brain really really want it. Meanwhile, back to my broccoli.
> on't have any effect on your blood glucose and really are completely different
Source for this? My understanding is that the link between non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) and diabetes is growing increasingly clear. For instance:
First one: an interesting study - but it only applies to mice. Currently we just don't know if this applies to humans.
Second one: I haven't read the whole study but they categorize fruit juice which is chock full of sugar along side artificially sweetened drinks - which is a red flag to me. Also, I don't think people who swap sugary drinks for diet drinks and changes no other aspect of their diet will have a better outcome in regards to type 2 diabetes. It doesn't mean that diet sodas contribute or cause type 2 diabetes.
They’re not all one category; some artificial sweeteners cause an insulin response and some do not. This would make sense as to why it can lead to diabetes; your body is constantly getting signals to release insulin to break down sugar, but then there’s no sugar. Eventually your body “learns” to not produce as much insulin in the presence of all sweeteners, and that’s diabetes in a nutshell.
I’d be interested to see if these studies hold with sweeteners like Stevia that don’t produce an insulin response.
Stevia is not artificial, its an extract from a plant like sugar is from cane or sweet potato. I think its always a good idea to don't encourage people to eat processed stuff, even fructose can have bad side effects, but when eaten the whole plant its not bad, the body process sucrose differently when eating a cane for example.
I think the author is also concerned with the psychology of “all food must be sweet”. I personally found that if I simply replaced sugared food with non-sugar sweeteners, I still ended up eating too much. It wasn’t until I made a conscious effort to cut down on sweetened foods that I started having success.
Under the scientific consensus (as presented in the book reviewed here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-...), I believe the logic is that "chronic exposure" to the sensory experience of sweetness itself does something to the brain involving the body's leptin set-point.
It's definitely something that needs to be proven experimental to apply to these artificial sweeteners as well (and there's already research saying that e.g. artificial sweeteners don't cause the brain to mask tiredness from exercise in the way real sugar does.)
Note that although artificial sweeteners like stevia and erythritol don't raise the blood glucose at all and have GI index of zero or near zero - some artificial sweeteners actually do raise blood glucose, like maltitol etc, and these sweeteners are unfortunately often found in sugar-free candy. You can try a web search for "GI index artificial sweeteners" to see a list of sweeteners that have low GI score.
Something else to keep in mind is that over consumption of very carb heavy products like bread or pasta will have the exact same effect on your blood glucose as just eating sugar.