Tagatose and psicose are amazing -- tagatose, in fact, tastes better than sugar (the sweetness level is similar, gram for gram, but it's smoother, somehow "cooler," and has absolutely zero aftertaste,) and psicose bakes and browns exactly like real sugar.
The trouble is that they seem extremely expensive to make and sell, so they're not terribly viable as mass-market sugar replacements, and few people are even aware they exist.
There was a tagatose-based sweetener available called "tagatesse" which was unbelievably good, but it was withdrawn from the market about a decade ago. It resurfaced some time ago, but they changed the formula and it now contains a lot of sucralose...
Anyway, to the point, there's lots of evidence to suggest that tagatose and psicose are actively healthy. They inhibit alpha-glucosidase, stimulate the release of GLP-1, boost glycogen storage in the liver, and are highly fermentable by beneficial gut bacteria. Definitely healthier than sugar.
This topic is the perpetual motion machine of journalism: every few months I see an article about how artificial sweeteners are bad and then another article that states the opposite.
Makes me want to make sure my body is donated to science as a data point to help settle this.
That's why for this one, I will have to think for myself, if the fake sugar can fool my tongue, it surely may also fool my digestives organs and that should not be good.
I think people need to realize instead that moderation is a better answer than continuing to be gluttanous over dubiously "better" alternatives. There are plenty of people who have a healthy relationship with sugar. One might ask why they can't be one of those people instead of trying to find a compound that avoids having to face the music with a behavioral change.
Then again if such an idea were so widespread, there would be no market for weight loss drugs. People would just fast to desired weight as their willpower would be ironclad.
I find it emptier than the calories you condemn. And of worse character than the people you so impugn upon.
Why? Why not make a more enjoyable world? Why insist in denial? It's so confusing to me that such bitterness and aggressive zeal, such negative energies, go so unchecked. And for what?
I hate to drag an innocent into my countrr-tirade, but Paul Ford writing about mounjaro/glp-1 was a great article for raising this issue that medicine has fixated upon a correction of disease, leaving it adrift at dealing with the questions of what happens if biotechnology can make us better. Not just correct the wrong, but give us that better living through chemistry (etc). It's so tiring that the progressive possibilities we encounter out there always spark such fierce negative clawing us backward condemnations. It's all a hill of supposition, a politics of fear & scaring.
https://www.wired.com/story/new-drug-switched-off-appetite-m...
I do think there are amazing human characteristics of restraint & measure, that have to be developed. But I don't necessarily know that projecting that onto our food or how we manage our weight is particularly an important load bearing piece of that human character. I don't think anyone knows that. And it seems like we're back at this constantly repeating juncture: we can improve how enjoyable life is for many, and, "this has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -DA
"Sugar substitutes are a mixed sachet. They include synthetic concoctions (such as aspartame, saccharin and sucralose) and substances derived from plants, including a family of carbohydrates known as sugar alcohols (such as erythritol, maltitol, sorbitol and xylitol) and stevia."
So they're all completely different substances, with completely different effects on the human body. Surely the article will address that critical piece of info?
"a number of large, long-term observational studies have found the opposite: people with higher consumption of sugar substitutes—some of whom may be using these to replace sugar in their diets—end up putting on more weight than those who consume the least."
Nope. There's barely even an article there, and it just makes a giant sweeping generalization. They might as well have written an article about how food is bad for humans, because they studied several kinds of food (including poisonous mushrooms) and some people got sick.
The "Well Informed" column is a weekly series of very short articles (half a page, or even just a column) on health issues. You can hardly expect a very deep dive.
> Nope. There's barely even an article there, and it just makes a giant sweeping generalization
The article mentions both RCTs that show the benefit, as well as long-term observational studies that show the disadvantages of sugar substitutes, and furthermore clarifies that "proving causality through such observational studies is difficult". That strikes me as fairly nuanced.
Two things can be true at the same time. Sugar substitutes can be bad for you and still be less bad for you than the equivalent sugar.
It's been shown over and over again that sugar consumption significantly increases obesity, metabolic syndrome, cancer, strokes, cardiovascular disease, chronic inflammation, high blood pressure, bad cholesterol, and probably more things that I'm forgetting. Natural sugar advocates absolutely love to ignore and forget this.
Anything talking about the harms of sugar substitutes needs to always be in relation to the harm definitively known to be caused by equivalent sugar intake. This article does not do that. It only pretends to in a very misleading way.
> In some randomised controlled trials (typically lasting 4-12 weeks) substituting other sweeteners for sugars did admittedly result in lower weight gain. But a number of large, long-term observational studies have found the opposite: people with higher consumption of sugar substitutes—some of whom may be using these to replace sugar in their diets—end up putting on more weight than those who consume the least.
These two statements are orthogonal to each other but they're misleadingly positioned to trick you into thinking otherwise.
Claim A: People who consume sugar substitutes instead of sugar gained less weight than the people who consumed equivalent sugar.
Claim B: People who consume more sugar substitutes in general, with zero relation to equivalent sugar replacement, had more problems than people who consumed less sugar substitutes. But this says absolutely nothing about what health problems would occur if those people had instead consumed sugar equivalent to the greater sugar substitute intake.
People who consume more sugar also experience more health problems than people who consume less sugar. The question is whether consuming sugar substitutes is worse than consuming the equivalent sugar, not whether consuming sugar substitutes is worse than consuming no sweetener at all.
Not to mention the problem of lumping all sugar substitutes together as though biochemistry is a function of flavor perception.
All ingredients should be regulated for public health and safety. That means sugar too, but where are all the articles titled "Are sugars healthier than the substitutes? We share some bitter truths"? Eh? Eh?
If you are going to be drinking 6 cans of soda a day, then diet soda is going to be better for you based on all available evidence today. By a large margin.
Drinking zero cans of soda is quite obviously better than either of those options.
Those who tend to indulge in large amounts of these substances typically have other unhealthy eating (and other) habits so good luck figuring out causation here.
I lost 100lbs coming from close to morbid obesity. Diet soda is the single vice I refuse to give up for mental health reasons. Of all the vices (eating, drinking, substances, etc.) I had before, this seems like the least concerning. Some people don't need that mental blowoff valve, but if I'm going to maintain the rest of my healthy habits I've found I require such a thing.
It is easy to get off soda once you get off it already and drink water. As when you do eventually get back to it and go "Maybe I'll have a coke" what you will find will be severely disappointing. Mouthfeel is terrible. Every sip you try and get that taste in your imagination of what you think is coke but you end up just tasting fructose concoction and carbonation. Makes you feel dehydrated after, like you have to chug a pint of water just to make your saliva not so viscous. The only sugary drink I tolerate now is lemonade I make myself. And I'm drinking it partially for carb load.
So really, get off the soda. It isn't even a great mental reward. Have a piece of chocolate instead. There are gut health benefits with chocolate.
Emphatically, no. These are industrial experiments, in a similar vein to various Canola oils but much worse.
You probably heard of aspartame but there are worse things. A chemical byproduct of sucralose known as sucralose-6-acetate has been identified as highly genotoxic, meaning it breaks down DNA and may increase cancer risks. Found in common sucralose-based sweeteners, it causes a "leaky gut" by damaging intestinal walls and poses serious health risks, even at low, allowed consumption levels.
Heart Attacks (Erythritol): The sweetener erythritol, common in "keto-friendly" drinks, has been linked to increased blood clotting, potentially doubling the risk of heart attack or stroke.
Sugar-free drinks are increasingly linked to serious health risks, with studies suggesting they are not harmless alternatives. Key concerns include a 20% higher risk of AFib (irregular heartbeat), increased stroke and cardiovascular disease risks, and potential links to type 2 diabetes. They may also trigger digestive issues, gut microbiome disruption, and tooth decay.
The artificial sweeteners may not even do the very thing people choose them for. Contrary to their purpose, some studies show artificial sweeteners may raise type 2 diabetes risk by up to 38%.
Other Potential Dangers: Research has linked consumption to metabolic syndrome, kidney disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and potential gut bacteria disruption.
Dental Damage: Acidic components can cause enamel erosion despite the absence of sugar.
Xylitol and Stevia may be exceptions, but they are also more naturally occurring. People sometimes try to use xylitol gum to stave off caries bacteria, but frankly, a diet rich in animal fats (butter etc) can do a lot more for teeth and bones.
>These are industrial experiments, in a similar vein to various Canola oils but much worse.
Ah, a "seed oil" guy. This is the indication to everyone what level of discourse and scientific fact you're bringing to the table.
In fact, I'll just cite one single bit in your claim-
>Contrary to their purpose, some studies show artificial sweeteners may raise type 2 diabetes risk by up to 38%
This suffers from the same "aha!" nonsense as the garbage submission (and it is garbage). The "study" you are citing was an observational, epidemiological study. And wow, crazy and hard to believe, but it turns out that people with weight problems (and all that comes with that) are more likely to have partaken of "at least one" sugar substitute drink. This is similar to studying people who chew nicotine gum and for obvious reasons finding a higher rate of lung cancer, so then declare that nicotine gum causes lung cancer. It is so staggeringly stupid it belies belief, but it makes for a headline to fool some rubes.
To address your point:
Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases
multiple studies have shown various side effects associated with the use of these sweeteners. These side effects include gastrointestinal symptoms [9], neurologic [10] and taste perception changes [11], allergic reactions [12], insulin and metabolic effects [13], and cardiovascular effects [14]. In addition, ASs have been shown to affect the gut microbiota that may mediate certain side effects [15]. Most importantly, many researchers have assessed the potential effect of ASs on the cancer risk of people who consume these products [16,17].
and
Human studies performed by Suez et al. evaluated the impact of ASs on the human microbiome. A total of 381 individuals without diabetes who self-reported regular consumption of ASs, as determined by a food frequency questionnaire, were included. The study demonstrated a significant association between the consumption of ASs and the development of central obesity, elevated fasting blood glucose levels, increased hemoglobin A1c levels, impaired glucose tolerance, and elevated alanine aminotransferase levels. In addition, a subgroup analysis was conducted to compare those who consumed higher amounts of ASs with those who did not consume any ASs. The results of this analysis revealed a statistically significant elevation in hemoglobin A1c levels, even after controlling for body mass index.
Both studies directly and outright measure only correlation. There is no magical confounding variables adjustment.
They outright state this. The first directly says that their higher sugar substitute group had a higher BMI, lower activity, less fibre, and so on.
"To address your point: Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases"
I've actually read the study (given that certain sorts cite it constantly), and do you know what "limited" that bias? Nothing. Literally nothing.
It is a correlation study. People with weight problems are more likely to utilize sugar substitutes. Reversing the causation is the root of an enormous amount of idiot science, though.
And just to be clear, researcher who post this bunk know exactly what they're doing, and usually it is to yield a "more research should be done" conclusion. It's when laymen start building their little notepad.exe listing of everything that supports their nonsense that it becomes a problem.
Nowadays? These sorts of tosser articles have been the norm for many decades. And if you think this is bad, boy you should see how wellness influencers twist fact into some massively distorted nonsense to sell gullible rubes their books/powders/etc.
Tagatose and psicose are amazing -- tagatose, in fact, tastes better than sugar (the sweetness level is similar, gram for gram, but it's smoother, somehow "cooler," and has absolutely zero aftertaste,) and psicose bakes and browns exactly like real sugar.
The trouble is that they seem extremely expensive to make and sell, so they're not terribly viable as mass-market sugar replacements, and few people are even aware they exist.
There was a tagatose-based sweetener available called "tagatesse" which was unbelievably good, but it was withdrawn from the market about a decade ago. It resurfaced some time ago, but they changed the formula and it now contains a lot of sucralose...
Anyway, to the point, there's lots of evidence to suggest that tagatose and psicose are actively healthy. They inhibit alpha-glucosidase, stimulate the release of GLP-1, boost glycogen storage in the liver, and are highly fermentable by beneficial gut bacteria. Definitely healthier than sugar.
Why was it pulled?
This topic is the perpetual motion machine of journalism: every few months I see an article about how artificial sweeteners are bad and then another article that states the opposite.
Makes me want to make sure my body is donated to science as a data point to help settle this.
That's why for this one, I will have to think for myself, if the fake sugar can fool my tongue, it surely may also fool my digestives organs and that should not be good.
I think people need to realize instead that moderation is a better answer than continuing to be gluttanous over dubiously "better" alternatives. There are plenty of people who have a healthy relationship with sugar. One might ask why they can't be one of those people instead of trying to find a compound that avoids having to face the music with a behavioral change.
Then again if such an idea were so widespread, there would be no market for weight loss drugs. People would just fast to desired weight as their willpower would be ironclad.
Your comment:
> people need to realize instead that moderation is a better answer than continuing to be gluttanous over dubiously "better" alternatives.
The article:
> The prudent thing to do is eschew these products altogether.
Modern culture seems to encourage "hacking" more than cultivating self-discipline.
A moral position made with no argument.
I find it emptier than the calories you condemn. And of worse character than the people you so impugn upon.
Why? Why not make a more enjoyable world? Why insist in denial? It's so confusing to me that such bitterness and aggressive zeal, such negative energies, go so unchecked. And for what?
I hate to drag an innocent into my countrr-tirade, but Paul Ford writing about mounjaro/glp-1 was a great article for raising this issue that medicine has fixated upon a correction of disease, leaving it adrift at dealing with the questions of what happens if biotechnology can make us better. Not just correct the wrong, but give us that better living through chemistry (etc). It's so tiring that the progressive possibilities we encounter out there always spark such fierce negative clawing us backward condemnations. It's all a hill of supposition, a politics of fear & scaring. https://www.wired.com/story/new-drug-switched-off-appetite-m...
I do think there are amazing human characteristics of restraint & measure, that have to be developed. But I don't necessarily know that projecting that onto our food or how we manage our weight is particularly an important load bearing piece of that human character. I don't think anyone knows that. And it seems like we're back at this constantly repeating juncture: we can improve how enjoyable life is for many, and, "this has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -DA
Bitter truths: https://archive.is/Oti1j
Tangential, are there any sweeteners which are confirmed to not affect intermittent fasting? Would love to sweeten my black coffee.
What issues do you experience with the currently available sweeteners?
What a terrible article!
"Sugar substitutes are a mixed sachet. They include synthetic concoctions (such as aspartame, saccharin and sucralose) and substances derived from plants, including a family of carbohydrates known as sugar alcohols (such as erythritol, maltitol, sorbitol and xylitol) and stevia."
So they're all completely different substances, with completely different effects on the human body. Surely the article will address that critical piece of info?
"a number of large, long-term observational studies have found the opposite: people with higher consumption of sugar substitutes—some of whom may be using these to replace sugar in their diets—end up putting on more weight than those who consume the least."
Nope. There's barely even an article there, and it just makes a giant sweeping generalization. They might as well have written an article about how food is bad for humans, because they studied several kinds of food (including poisonous mushrooms) and some people got sick.
I believe the point is the effects are seen, despite the underlying chemical makeup of the sweeteners. So that’s the point
The "Well Informed" column is a weekly series of very short articles (half a page, or even just a column) on health issues. You can hardly expect a very deep dive.
> Nope. There's barely even an article there, and it just makes a giant sweeping generalization
The article mentions both RCTs that show the benefit, as well as long-term observational studies that show the disadvantages of sugar substitutes, and furthermore clarifies that "proving causality through such observational studies is difficult". That strikes me as fairly nuanced.
Two things can be true at the same time. Sugar substitutes can be bad for you and still be less bad for you than the equivalent sugar.
It's been shown over and over again that sugar consumption significantly increases obesity, metabolic syndrome, cancer, strokes, cardiovascular disease, chronic inflammation, high blood pressure, bad cholesterol, and probably more things that I'm forgetting. Natural sugar advocates absolutely love to ignore and forget this.
Anything talking about the harms of sugar substitutes needs to always be in relation to the harm definitively known to be caused by equivalent sugar intake. This article does not do that. It only pretends to in a very misleading way.
> In some randomised controlled trials (typically lasting 4-12 weeks) substituting other sweeteners for sugars did admittedly result in lower weight gain. But a number of large, long-term observational studies have found the opposite: people with higher consumption of sugar substitutes—some of whom may be using these to replace sugar in their diets—end up putting on more weight than those who consume the least.
These two statements are orthogonal to each other but they're misleadingly positioned to trick you into thinking otherwise.
Claim A: People who consume sugar substitutes instead of sugar gained less weight than the people who consumed equivalent sugar.
Claim B: People who consume more sugar substitutes in general, with zero relation to equivalent sugar replacement, had more problems than people who consumed less sugar substitutes. But this says absolutely nothing about what health problems would occur if those people had instead consumed sugar equivalent to the greater sugar substitute intake.
People who consume more sugar also experience more health problems than people who consume less sugar. The question is whether consuming sugar substitutes is worse than consuming the equivalent sugar, not whether consuming sugar substitutes is worse than consuming no sweetener at all.
Not to mention the problem of lumping all sugar substitutes together as though biochemistry is a function of flavor perception.
All ingredients should be regulated for public health and safety. That means sugar too, but where are all the articles titled "Are sugars healthier than the substitutes? We share some bitter truths"? Eh? Eh?
It's harm reduction.
If you are going to be drinking 6 cans of soda a day, then diet soda is going to be better for you based on all available evidence today. By a large margin.
Drinking zero cans of soda is quite obviously better than either of those options.
Those who tend to indulge in large amounts of these substances typically have other unhealthy eating (and other) habits so good luck figuring out causation here.
I lost 100lbs coming from close to morbid obesity. Diet soda is the single vice I refuse to give up for mental health reasons. Of all the vices (eating, drinking, substances, etc.) I had before, this seems like the least concerning. Some people don't need that mental blowoff valve, but if I'm going to maintain the rest of my healthy habits I've found I require such a thing.
It is easy to get off soda once you get off it already and drink water. As when you do eventually get back to it and go "Maybe I'll have a coke" what you will find will be severely disappointing. Mouthfeel is terrible. Every sip you try and get that taste in your imagination of what you think is coke but you end up just tasting fructose concoction and carbonation. Makes you feel dehydrated after, like you have to chug a pint of water just to make your saliva not so viscous. The only sugary drink I tolerate now is lemonade I make myself. And I'm drinking it partially for carb load.
So really, get off the soda. It isn't even a great mental reward. Have a piece of chocolate instead. There are gut health benefits with chocolate.
Emphatically, no. These are industrial experiments, in a similar vein to various Canola oils but much worse.
You probably heard of aspartame but there are worse things. A chemical byproduct of sucralose known as sucralose-6-acetate has been identified as highly genotoxic, meaning it breaks down DNA and may increase cancer risks. Found in common sucralose-based sweeteners, it causes a "leaky gut" by damaging intestinal walls and poses serious health risks, even at low, allowed consumption levels.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/a-chemical-found-i...
Heart Attacks (Erythritol): The sweetener erythritol, common in "keto-friendly" drinks, has been linked to increased blood clotting, potentially doubling the risk of heart attack or stroke.
https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/are-artifi...
However, high levels of fructose have been engineered in many formerly natural foods, which is also dangerous (though far less so).
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/13ecikd/til_...
Sugar-free drinks are increasingly linked to serious health risks, with studies suggesting they are not harmless alternatives. Key concerns include a 20% higher risk of AFib (irregular heartbeat), increased stroke and cardiovascular disease risks, and potential links to type 2 diabetes. They may also trigger digestive issues, gut microbiome disruption, and tooth decay.
The artificial sweeteners may not even do the very thing people choose them for. Contrary to their purpose, some studies show artificial sweeteners may raise type 2 diabetes risk by up to 38%. Other Potential Dangers: Research has linked consumption to metabolic syndrome, kidney disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and potential gut bacteria disruption. Dental Damage: Acidic components can cause enamel erosion despite the absence of sugar.
Xylitol and Stevia may be exceptions, but they are also more naturally occurring. People sometimes try to use xylitol gum to stave off caries bacteria, but frankly, a diet rich in animal fats (butter etc) can do a lot more for teeth and bones.
Zookeepers determined modern fruits are harming their animals https://qz.com/1408469/humans-have-bred-fruits-to-be-so-high...
>These are industrial experiments, in a similar vein to various Canola oils but much worse.
Ah, a "seed oil" guy. This is the indication to everyone what level of discourse and scientific fact you're bringing to the table.
In fact, I'll just cite one single bit in your claim-
>Contrary to their purpose, some studies show artificial sweeteners may raise type 2 diabetes risk by up to 38%
This suffers from the same "aha!" nonsense as the garbage submission (and it is garbage). The "study" you are citing was an observational, epidemiological study. And wow, crazy and hard to believe, but it turns out that people with weight problems (and all that comes with that) are more likely to have partaken of "at least one" sugar substitute drink. This is similar to studying people who chew nicotine gum and for obvious reasons finding a higher rate of lung cancer, so then declare that nicotine gum causes lung cancer. It is so staggeringly stupid it belies belief, but it makes for a headline to fool some rubes.
Just for everyone to make up their own minds based on the data, here are multiple studies:
2025: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S126236362...
2023: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10465821/
To address your point: Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases
2023: Clinical review https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10822749/
multiple studies have shown various side effects associated with the use of these sweeteners. These side effects include gastrointestinal symptoms [9], neurologic [10] and taste perception changes [11], allergic reactions [12], insulin and metabolic effects [13], and cardiovascular effects [14]. In addition, ASs have been shown to affect the gut microbiota that may mediate certain side effects [15]. Most importantly, many researchers have assessed the potential effect of ASs on the cancer risk of people who consume these products [16,17].
and
Human studies performed by Suez et al. evaluated the impact of ASs on the human microbiome. A total of 381 individuals without diabetes who self-reported regular consumption of ASs, as determined by a food frequency questionnaire, were included. The study demonstrated a significant association between the consumption of ASs and the development of central obesity, elevated fasting blood glucose levels, increased hemoglobin A1c levels, impaired glucose tolerance, and elevated alanine aminotransferase levels. In addition, a subgroup analysis was conducted to compare those who consumed higher amounts of ASs with those who did not consume any ASs. The results of this analysis revealed a statistically significant elevation in hemoglobin A1c levels, even after controlling for body mass index.
Both studies directly and outright measure only correlation. There is no magical confounding variables adjustment.
They outright state this. The first directly says that their higher sugar substitute group had a higher BMI, lower activity, less fibre, and so on.
"To address your point: Potential for reverse causality cannot be eliminated; however, many sensitivity analyses were computed to limit this and other potential biases"
I've actually read the study (given that certain sorts cite it constantly), and do you know what "limited" that bias? Nothing. Literally nothing.
It is a correlation study. People with weight problems are more likely to utilize sugar substitutes. Reversing the causation is the root of an enormous amount of idiot science, though.
And just to be clear, researcher who post this bunk know exactly what they're doing, and usually it is to yield a "more research should be done" conclusion. It's when laymen start building their little notepad.exe listing of everything that supports their nonsense that it becomes a problem.
This slop is what passes for journalism nowadays?
High quality critique. Thanks!
Nowadays? These sorts of tosser articles have been the norm for many decades. And if you think this is bad, boy you should see how wellness influencers twist fact into some massively distorted nonsense to sell gullible rubes their books/powders/etc.
[dead]