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.
Too true, fruit juice and smoothies can be very bad for you. If you tried to eat the same fruit that was juiced into your drink you would struggle. There is a lot of fibre and other things which limit sugar consumption from unprocessed fruit.
Let us not forget the current asserted risk of kale being an accumulator of thallium - hence panic (however: http://m.snopes.com/kale-not-safe/ )
Wait long enough and every substance we eat will be associated with a study which calls it into question. Then, if chance associates that study with a "slow news day", a relative panic will ensue. As a crusty old medicinal chemist, i offer the best rule of thumb (circa 16th century): [no matter what source it is] the dose makes the poison.
Not to nitpick but this phrasing always bothers me.
Our bodies, most likely, weren't "meant to" do anything by anyone. They've just pondered along adjusting to their environmental stimuli like everything else does.
It's been a common trend to actually add sugar via this method too, using e.g. pear juice concentrate as an ingredient to sweeten the resulting product. This is not really any less "adding sugar" than sweetening a product with sugar concentrated from sugar beets or corn.
This seems like a problem easily fixed by a simple regulation. Any product containing an ingredient which has a higher sugar content than it's natural range may not use the "no sugar added" label. Might have to define the range for various ingredients since I'm sure breeders/engineers would figure out how to increase the brix on a pear.
The problem is that the majority of products with added sugar don't really have a natural range. You might be able to come up with one for apple juice, but what about a blended fruit drink?
This probably stems from the incorrect belief that fruits are somehow "natural" when they are in fact the result of millennia of artificial selection, selecting in particular for sugar content.
I've seen this argued before, but I don't believe it because of blackberries. Blackberries are very rarely "selected"...in fact, they are almost always treated as a scourge because of how they negatively affect other plants in their vicinity, choking them to death. And despite the fact that we have been trying to get rid of them for the better part of a millenia, they are one of the sweetest plants we know of.
... and it's no accident that berries* are favored by low carb dieters for their low sugar content: blackberries have about 5g of sugar per 100g, rapsberries 4.4g, bananas 12g.
*meaning small, tasty, slightly tart, colorful fruits that grow on bushes and tend to be fairly wild, not the botanical definition
You're looking at cultivated blueberries. Wild blueberries have between 5g and 7g sugar per 100g. They're typically smaller than their cultivated cousin. Their flavor is more intense, but their texture is slightly grittier.
Are those cultivated genetically different than wild varieties? Because as far as I can tell, sugar content is wildly affected by photosynthesis, which varies wildly by farm vs wild conditions. I have even more strong doubts that artificial selection is the cause of this.
Nice pun, but the same holds for any other berry or fruit that grows in the wild: by definition humans aren't the primary consumer or propagation vector of wild sweet things, so the idea that fruit sweetness is the product of millenia of phenotype guiding by humans is only very narrowly true.
Of course, not all of fruit sweetness is the product of selection, but cultivated fruits tend to be much sweeter than their wild counterparts. Relatively wild species like blackberries, raspberries, blueberries and their relatively low sugar content actually illustrate that point.
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.
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).
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!
A teaspoon is basically 5ml, which is around 5 grams. Most Americans have experience measuring foodstuffs with teaspoons, not with scales, and even if they did, it wouldn't be in grams.
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.
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
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.
Again, for many Americans, using grams is introducing additional units of measurement. Obviously, the US should've moved to metric forever ago, but we didn't. When addressing a public health crisis, it's good to put things in a way the majority of the public understand.
Yes, but they still manage to sidestep the issue by printing information based on "serving sizes". Yes, Doritos, I clearly meant to eat this medium-sized bag in four sittings!
We should sit down and figure out a way to show nutritional information without these cheap tricks. For example, you have to show the nutritional information per unit of wrapping. That way, a bag can't be thought of as four servings, one bag = one serving.
>That way, a bag can't be thought of as four servings, one bag = one serving.
How is that any better, really? You still have to do the same basic math if you eat less than the full package. Knowing that a large bag of chips is 1200 calories is irrelevant to the serving size I'll actually be eating.
Probably untrue for any of the larger sizes of bags. I routinely buy the one pound bags of tortilla chips because they're cheaper, but I have never once consumed the whole thing in one sitting.
It gets even more ridiculous for other foods. Do you eat/drink gallons of milk, whole watermelons, quarts of chicken stock or several pound bags of rice in one sitting?
Are you seriously arguing for arbitrary units rather than consistent ones, because "you buy larger sizes of bags"? Every piece of food has nutritional information at the back, with columns for 100 grams and one serving.
You're arguing that the serving size should unrealistically small, rather than the whole bag, because it doesn't work for every case? For every coke bottle this fails, I have five cans it succeeds for. Nobody drinks a third of a can of coke.
>>Are you seriously arguing for arbitrary units rather than consistent ones,
Actually, no, that's what you're doing. You said that that whatever amount is in the container should be "one serving." That's clearly ridiculous and arbitrary in many cases, which was my point. I would contend that they (manufacturer, regulator, whoever) should choose some reasonable, non-arbitrary size and stick with it. Then at least I can compare two different-sized packages with a hope of figuring out what's going on. Using 100 grams would actually be a reasonable idea, but is not what you actually said in your prior messages.
>>You're arguing that the serving size should unrealistically small, rather than the whole bag, because it doesn't work for every case?
You're arguing that the serving size should be unrealistically large, rather than a some reasonable size, because you think everyone always eats the entire package?
Incidentally, I'm curious - when they sell a 24-pack of Coke, are they supposed to show the values for the individual cans, or for the entire case? You keep saying that people consume the entire unit - so that would be the entire case, right? What about for 2-liter bottles? What about for things that aren't junk food?
Accurate nutrition labels are also required in the US, and there are requirements that other statements be true, and there are rules banning certain types of true statements, there just aren't rules banning every stupid true statement.
I'm speaking from the USA, where food also has to be labeled. But nobody really pays attention to the back of the package, and there's very little regulation over what you're allowed to say on the front of the package.
Considering how little we know about nutrition, you should try to eat food that is as little processed as possible because that's what our bodies have adapted to for thousands of years. So an apple is better than apple juice which is better than apple drink (which is a processed food item that may or may not have anything to do with apples).
In spite of our desire to reach for the stars, humans are not isolated creatures, they are figures in a landscape. Remove the landscape and you remove the human (or in this case, the heath of the human).
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...
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.
My kids get an Izzy (a 10-oz can of juice-sweetened soda) as a treat about once a month or so, and a "Zevia" soda (no sugar or calories of any kind) a couple more times a month.
One kid gets a (small) chocolate milk a 1-3 times a week. That's probably the most sugar either gets (outside of birthday parties and sugar-based holidays); the other will drink water even when she has the option of free soda.
Funny thing is that we don't restrict sugar. There's a container of candy in the cupboard that they can eat when they want (they typically ask first, but we rarely say no), but it frequently goes weeks without being touched. Sometimes they'll have a square of chocolate or two, but it's not a regular thing.
It turns out that if you "allow" kids to do most anything they want, but give them the tools to think clearly about what is healthy and why, they are perfectly capable of making good choices. I think it's the very restrictions that parents place on kids that makes them crave the same things those parents restrict.
> 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.
Why do people feel the need to hold a personal choice as something everyone else must do?
Because moderate social pressure can be a good way to change habits? If you regularly see people drinking soda on a daily basis and hear nothing against it, it's a lot easier to fall into the habit. If you hear about people who stopped drinking soda and don't miss it, it might inspire you to do the same.
I'm not saying that no one should ever drink soda; just that more moderation should be encouraged, people should start treating it as a choice that you should make as a responsible adult and use in moderation, like caffeine or alcohol, rather than a default that everyone does starting as a kid and continues doing whenever they feel like.
Most people seem to either not realize it's bad for you, or not care because they are so used to it.
I significantly cut back on soda last year, and haven't had any at all for months. I drink mainly water. I don't miss soda; doesn't even sound appealing any more.
Well, caffeine is addictive, and many sodas have caffeine in them, so it is not a 'used to it' thing, it's very physical[0]. When you order that diet coke with lunch everyday, you develop a habit that is very hard to break for a lot of folk. Also, enjoying a Dr. Pepper is not terrible, you just have to know you are drinking a lot of sugars.
As an aside, the sugar profile of most sodas is made to mimic that of honey closely. So much so, that 'stretching' honey is a cause for concern in apiarist communities as it is quite easy to do so [1].
Keeping children off of sugar is rather challenging. We had our young kids on a nearly zero sugar diet for a couple years, but they had really strong behavioral reactions to even small amounts of sugar (e.g., three starbursts) given to them by friends or adults. We have slightly increased their sugar consumption (e.g., maple syrup on pancakes) and they don't have the same reaction to small amounts of sugar. Not our favorite trade-off though.
You know, there's no (non-psychological) link between sugar and hyperactivity- it's basically the same as giving kids fizzy applejuice, saying it's beer and watching them get "drunk". They act hyperactive because they expect that sugar will make them hyper; thus they do.
> I drink beer (which has most of its sugar fermented out; still has some calories, but not nearly so sweet).
Beer is better, but it's still got a surprising amount of sugar, depending on the brew. A can of Coke has 39 grams of sugar [1]. A Sierra Nevada Bigfoot has 30.3 [2]. Of course, that's the worst offender. Popular "craft" or "imports" seem to be around 10-15 (Anchor Steam is 14.2, Beck's is 9, Guiness is 14, Killian's is 14.8, etc.).
American light beers are around 3-5, which is much better than a can of Coke.
If you're switching from soda to anything but "light" beers, you're cutting some carbs, but not by about 1/2 or 2/3.
That number is the total carbs, not sugar specifically. Most beers have relatively low sugar content; your link actually claims 0g of sugar for the Sierra Nevada Bigfoot. Calories in beer come partly from alcohol and partly from complex carbs (hence "liquid bread"). That doesn't make them healthy, but 30g of complex carbs is a lot less bad for you than 30g of simple sugars.
Ah, sorry, reading fail on my part. I've been trying to watch my carb/sugar intake recently so I pay attention to those numbers, but I've yet to figure out which matters more for my own body chemistry.
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.
> Why do people think that it's OK to allow kids to drink coffee?
Actually, most people I know don't consider coffee to be an acceptable drink to give to kids; but they don't think twice of serving them soda with the same amount of caffeine, or just lots of sugary drinks like non-caffeinated sodas, sweetened juices, "low fat chocolate milk" (as if the fat, rather than the sugar, is the problem there), etc.
> In fact, why do people think that drinking coffee is something that anyone must do?
Caffeine (and the various forms it's consumed in, like coffee or tea) has both health benefits and health risks. As far as I can tell, based on all of the data I have seen, sugary drinks are much, much worse for you.
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.
I learned this from my doctor (who is a diabetic specialist), some years ago we were talking about how to form good habits for kids and my wife and I were avoiding caffeine beverages for the kids, but letting them have apple juice etc. His opinion based on the evidence is that he would much rather have our kids drink caffeine every day but stay away from the sugar. His specific point was that people on the internet point to unknown risks with aspartame or caffeine, but ignore the mountain of known risks associated with sugar.
It was an eye opening discussion to say the least.
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".
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.
> Because it is "okay". Why do people think it's okay to tell others what is okay?
Culturally, we consider coffee and alcohol to be things that should generally only be consumed by adults, and in moderation. Alcohol we have serious laws about; coffee not as much, but I know very few parents who would feed their children coffee on a regular basis.
However, we have no such cultural taboo about sugary drinks, despite the increasing amount of research showing that they are actually much more problematic when consumed regularly than caffeine or alcohol consumed in moderation.
And to be fair, my comment doesn't change the basic premise of the article: that if you're going to drink a sweetened beverage, artificial sweeteners have fewer negative health effects than sugar.
I just found the statement odd. It seems the author's and my ideas of "reduced intake" don't align with one another... I mean, I can't imagine anyone would say a bag of candy every day constitutes "reduced intake". But for some reason it's acceptable when it comes to beverages.
A bag of candy daily isn't a usual occurrence. In the US, multiple sodas a day is pretty usual.
One by itself at some point in the day, one with lunch, and often times once with dinner as well.
That's how my teenage years went and I wasn't alone. As an adult I "limit" myself to 1 a day - although more typically I limit it to 2 or 3 a week. Which I still feel is too much.
Water all the time is "boring", I'm lactose intolerant so milk is out of the picture, juice makes me more thirsty. I often have tea, but I dislike chilled tea and hot tea during a hot summer isn't pleasant.
I feel like my dislike of having "plain old water" all the time is my only issue with consuming less soda. If I could get over that hurdle I'd be fine.
I also dislike drinking "plain old water", but cold water with a little fresh lemon squeezed into it is delicious. Also try taking fruit juice and watering it down by 2/3. At this point I can't even drink straight-up fruit juice any more; it's too syrupy.
I think the difference between having a bag of candy every day and a diet pop every day is that it isn't healthy to have candy that often. As far as we currently know, there isn't anything wrong with that level of diet pop consumption.
I am in the same boat, I probably have 4-5 diet pop drinks per week. However, if it was naturally sweetened pop I wouldn't consider it OK to drink more than one a week. Everything in appropriate moderation. Although, to be fair, I don't consider the level of pop I drink to be "reduced", but it's less than what some children will drink if left unmoderated.
Yeah, but keep in mind, the author of the article isn't saying daily intake is okay because of the artificial sweeteners.
I read it to mean, the kids are going to drink pop 4-5 times a week. We give them artificially sweetened pop so that it's "healthy".
Contrasting this again with candy: if a parent said "I give my kids candy every day with their dinner, but I make sure it has sucralose in it", I'd still find it odd, because candy shouldn't be a daily occurrence.
I read it as that all of quantity, sugar content, and caffeine content are concerns, so the parents have:
1. Limited overall quantity of soda permitted to less than is typical for the age range,
2. Limited most of the consumption within that limited quantity to caffeine-free options,
3. Limited most of the consumption within that limited quantity to sugar-free options.
I don't see anything to suggest that sugar-free soda is perceived as positively "healthy", only that it is a mitigation of one of the sources of unhealthiness (as is the caffeine-free limitation), but that other concerns exist, hence the overall quantity limitation.
> I just found the statement odd. It seems the author's and my ideas of "reduced intake" don't align with one another... I mean, I can't imagine anyone would say a bag of candy every day constitutes "reduced intake".
"Reduced" means "at a level lower than it was previously".
If you are eating two bags of candy every day, one bag of candy a day is reduced intake of candy.
If you aren't eating any candy before, then one piece of candy a day is increased intake of candy. What level of intake is "reduced" depends on what the starting point is.
Well, limited compared to a national average, sure, but the national average is terrifying.
Is it better? Well, yeah.
But it's still a daily habit, which still doesn't seem great, particularly as it sets the tone for the kids that soda every day is a perfectly fine and normal thing.
One has to consider the amount. 5 micro cans is equal to 1 standard 20 oz. (at least in US sizes). Both of these pale in comparison to having it once a week at a restaurant where you get refills and likely lose count.
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.
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.
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...
You shouldn't swear off artificial sweeteners because of the stigma around them, especially since there's such an abundance of research around them debunking all the purported ill effects (except for maybe laxative effects and bad reactions in phenylketonurics) – you can have your artificially sweetened cake and eat it too.
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.
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.
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.
Gut bacteria should be pretty stable inside you if you're not taking antibiotics, so constantly eating probiotics seems like it wouldn't do anything long-term (<- didn't look this up).
Greek yogurt is good for you because it has so much protein, but all the popular brands have added tons of sugar since it became popular - except they call it "evaporated cane syrup" in the ingredients. Hope you're eating plain yogurt.
> all the popular brands have added tons of sugar since it became popular
This is a huge pain if you're not careful. I stick to FAGE or Safeway's store brand, both have no added sugar and only two ingredients: milk and active bacteria cultures.
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.
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?
I can't speak for all the science behind sugars and sweeteners, but this guy does a really good job of explaining how different sugars are metabolized (and the implications of those processes) here:
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.
I think everyone started out assuming they had no other effects. Recently, though, evidence has shown up [0] that suggests that they have some unexpected effects on gut bacteria. I don't think anyone has figured out why.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
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).
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.
It's the human belief that we can optimize everything and forestall death with better living. I'm sure everything we eat has tradeoffs and we'll never know all of them. I'm also sure that 50 years from now people will look back at us and laugh at what we believe about nutrition - both the harms and benefits, and what can possibly be achieved with nutrition relative to genetics and environment.
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.
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.
Saturated fats are not good. We went through a phase of substituting trans fats for saturated fats. That was a disaster - very many people died as a result. Far more than if we'd just stayed with unhealthy saturated fats.
I have more than 3 years eating almost satured fats (bacon, coconut oil, butter) and I have never felt this good in my life. Mostly fats and very very low carbs
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.
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.
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.)
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.