Posted on 07/18/2009 7:54:31 AM PDT by Publius804
Sugar Substitutes: Healthy or Deadly?
"Why do things taste so good? I'm telling you why, NutraSweet is why…" So went the song in a 1990 television advertisement.
The video backed it up with images of family fun, male bonding, and cute kids - all consuming or presumably on the verge of drinking a diet soda. Sweeteners like aspartame would usher in an era of thin and happy.
Barry Sears, the biochemist who came up with the Zone diet, says it's not that simple.
"We now know data from Harvard Medical School in children who consume diet sodas gain weight," Sears told CBN News. "Well, how can that be? There are you know, no calories."
Increase Obesity?
Sears is far from alone in noting that more and more research shows that this empty sweetness makes the body expect food. When it doesn't arrive, you actually get hungrier. He explains in simple terms that the more sugar-free soft drinks you drink, the fatter you become.
And not only may artificial sweeteners - found in a staggering number of grocery products - increase obesity, but many experts say they're bad for you in other ways. That could be demonstrated in your own kitchen by pouring an aspartame-based diet soda into a hot pan.
The heat simulates what your body does when you consume aspartame - breaking it down into toxic formaldehyde. But don't try this as it could give you a migraine.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
All fermented foods and beverages will contain some methanol. It's these kinds of misunderstanding that are responsible for the irrational fear of food. That fear is very helpful to those trying to extract more of the tax money you send to the fedgov.
Other than wild seafood, very little food sold is natural. For millions of years humans ate mostly wild deer, bears, tiny wild berries, nuts, and seeds, roots. The giant fruits and vegetables in stores are heavy modified from their natural state. They are man-made and not natural foods. Most of these creations haven't been around long at all.
Not exactly the same thing as non-caloric, granted; but not all of the concern over what we are eating and drinking is necessarily a grasp for grant money, or liberal fear-mongering.
If you have concerns with Sears, please, post a link for me -- I've found the biochem in "The Zone Diet" to be legit.
Cheers!
Even though sucrose and HFCS are made up of the same two chemicals? What are the "legitimate" concerns you see? Rather than send me through more than a hundred posts and all sorts of links why not share your concerns here and I'll be glad to respond.
Not exactly the same thing as non-caloric, granted; but not all of the concern over what we are eating and drinking is necessarily a grasp for grant money, or liberal fear-mongering.
Not all research is driven only by grant money. I never said that. However, far too much research today is junk and is driven by the quest for money. Researchers are under a tremendous amount of pressure to obtain grant money.
I've seen Sears call three fatty acids "hormones" including arachidonic acid. The only way you could determine whether or not this idea is based on good research would be to study the available research on these three fatty acids that he calls hormones; and find out what evidence there is for the physiological effects he claims. He's never managed to offer the research supporting his conclusions. In my day, there was no evidence that arachidonic acid had hormonal activity. Maybe that's changed but we'll never know it from Barry.
Well, there's this post of yours.
I agree that price-driven considerations flood us with HFCS by the way, and that major agribusiness is more concerned with cost and shelf-life than the salubrious (see Calvin and Hobbes) quality of our food.
A couple of other points which I have never seen addressed satisfactorally...
1) Sucrose is 50-50 fructose-glocose; HFCS is 55% fructose. Is that 5% significant biochemically (i.e. does it flood a chemical pathway, or switch on other pathways for some reason)?
2) Does the body break up the HFCS into the monomers at a different rate than it does sucrose?
No hand waving, please. Has anyone bothered to look? And is the biochemical response different in the thin, the slightly overweight, the obese?
I've seen Sears call three fatty acids "hormones" including arachidonic acid. The only way you could determine whether or not this idea is based on good research would be to study the available research on these three fatty acids that he calls hormones; and find out what evidence there is for the physiological effects he claims. He's never managed to offer the research supporting his conclusions.
There I think Sears is engaging in "marketing" either to sensationalize, sell books or make his material more accessible to the public. I've lent out my copy of The Zone but IIRC he shows that arachidonic acid is a precursor to a number of inflammatory messengers, and so he takes the liberty of saying it behaves like a hormone.
I thought he was doing well enough on the writing/lecturing/consulting circuit that he didn't need to grub for grants, btw.
Also, have you read the book Mastering Leptin by Richards and Richards? The library had a recall on it before I could absorb all its contents, but it seemed to say the timing of different types of meals influence the release of leptin, and hence, one's hunger (in addition to the insulin, glucagon, etc. etc.)
Cheers!
Unfortunately, where there's smoke there's fire in a whole lot of ways. The rumors re aspartame have been around since 1984, at least, and there was one that a whistle-blower got paid off. There were enough of them in the 80's that I've stayed away from the stuff. I also know a lot of people who have bad reactions to it. I just don't trust digesting alot of anything that is developed in a lab.
So, according to you, consuming a steak with a baked potato and green beans, and downing it with a glass of red wine, is akin to poisoning yourself.
Don't put words in my mouth, please. I guess it would depend on how much butter and sour cream you put on the baked potato and whether or not the cow was grain or grass fed. Seriously, that's a little ridiculous considering that the discussion is on lab created molecules vs. God-created.
Everything has a balance, but in real food there's at least nutritional value. Artificial sweeteners have none. Period. But, then, I don't care for everything sweet, so I have no reason to use them.
Yes, carbonyls are highly reactive and could play a role in diabetes. Ho may have found something important here. Then again, maybe not. We'll have to wait to find out. And, as you know, most research ends up being meaningless. In the meantime, let's deal with what we know to be factual.
I agree that price-driven considerations flood us with HFCS by the way, and that major agribusiness is more concerned with cost and shelf-life than the salubrious (see Calvin and Hobbes) quality of our food.
I don't agree with this statement at all. You've offered absolutely no evidence that the food industry is more concerned with cost and shelf life than with the "salubrious." This is fact free nonsense. If you could prove there was anything unwholesome about HFCS, as a replacement for sucrose, you'd prove it here. Conclusion without evidence.....and you were a scientist?
A couple of other points which I have never seen addressed satisfactorally...
1) Sucrose is 50-50 fructose-glocose; HFCS is 55% fructose. Is that 5% significant biochemically (i.e. does it flood a chemical pathway, or switch on other pathways for some reason)?
Significant biochemically? Please. Are you aware that there is another commercialized form of HFCS that's only 42% fructose? Is that one better for you than the 55% fructose product? Fructose is cleared by another pathway, as opposed to glucose, but they both reach the Krebs cycle at the same level (3x2 carbon fragments).
2) Does the body break up the HFCS into the monomers at a different rate than it does sucrose?
Why would this even matter? The Glycemic Index for sucrose and HFCS fall in the 55-60 range. The satiation profiles of both, for the purposes of this discussion, are the same.
No hand waving, please. Has anyone bothered to look? And is the biochemical response different in the thin, the slightly overweight, the obese?
There I think Sears is engaging in "marketing" either to sensationalize, sell books or make his material more accessible to the public. I've lent out my copy of The Zone but IIRC he shows that arachidonic acid is a precursor to a number of inflammatory messengers, and so he takes the liberty of saying it behaves like a hormone.
That's a polite way of saying Sears is lying. Creating fear by misrepresenting the results of "research", or the research itself, must help him sell his books.
Also, have you read the book Mastering Leptin by Richards and Richards? The library had a recall on it before I could absorb all its contents, but it seemed to say the timing of different types of meals influence the release of leptin, and hence, one's hunger (in addition to the insulin, glucagon, etc. etc.)
Why would that even matter? We're discussing whether or not aspartame is the poison you claim it is.
Unfortunately, where there's smoke there's fire in a whole lot of ways. The rumors re aspartame have been around since 1984, at least, and there was one that a whistle-blower got paid off.
Aspartame is the most tested ingredient in history. Sometimes a rumor is just a rumor. Now answer the question: If the three components of aspartame aren't poison when consumed as steak, green beans and wine (or apple juice if you're allergic to beer and wine) how are they dangerous to you in a can of diet coke?
There were enough of them in the 80's that I've stayed away from the stuff. I also know a lot of people who have bad reactions to it. I just don't trust digesting alot of anything that is developed in a lab.
And you can prove their reactions were caused by this ingredient? Then they must have the same reaction when they consume the components from individual sources like steak, vegetables and beverages. There's no way around it. Maybe they suffer from PKU. It doesn't matter whether it is made in a lab or comes from natural sources. That's nonsense. You consume ingredients every day that weren't made by nature, naturally. I see that you are in fact still alive.
I guess it would depend on how much butter and sour cream you put on the baked potato and whether or not the cow was grain or grass fed. Seriously, that's a little ridiculous considering that the discussion is on lab created molecules vs. God-created.
Butter and sour cream?!? Whatever are you talking about? Grain vs. grass fed? What the.....? Sorry to be the one to break it to you but almost every piece of food you consume has been genetically modified in some way.
Everything has a balance, but in real food there's at least nutritional value. Artificial sweeteners have none
Uh, they're supposed to give consumers sweetness without any calories or nutritional value. That's their very purpose. You seem very confused.
Thanks grey_whiskers.
It turned me into a newt!
Stevia IS that substitute. It does not cause insulin to peak and is sweet. It is from the leaves of a tree. It is a substitute without being artificial. It is perfect for diabetes.
“It is all natural. NO worries.”
I always chuckle when people say that.
My cigars are all natural too.
I was getting toasted to a crisp from both sides in a crevo flamewar.
That, and I'm still "digesting" (har!) your posts.
I appreciate your taking the time to look up stuff from the peer-review lit (and it looks like talking to professional chemist friends).
Cheers!
You type so well for a newt!
You probably weren't able to access those abstracts since it's a pay site. The company I work for subscribes to these kinds of sources for us and many times I link them not thinking others will be unable to view them. I've cited those particular studies many times on the forum.
My grad degree was in biochem with a food science focus. I spent about 10 years in the lab before setting myself free. We have several PhD's in our lab but only one really knows his stuff. He's a top flavorist that doesn't have time for anything like this. The others?...Well, I guess you get what you pay for. However, they'd all agree that Sears plays fast and loose with the facts for his own personal financial gain. There's a lot of that going on out there and some of them are accomplished charlatans.
They’ll take my artificially sweetened Coke Zero when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Coke Zero tastes wrong to me ... I’ll always be loyal to Tab!
They still make Tab? I haven’t seen that in ages. Coke Zero tastes more like real Coke to me, outside of real Coke, of course.
I don’t know if they make Tab anymore. When I was in college, longer ago than I care to recall now, there was one soda machine on campus that sold Tab, and a group of about 10 girls who were there before their first morning class!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.