April
2008
On the Question of Sweeteners
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Sugar Shock
An inevitable question surfaced this past week regarding the use of artificial sweeteners. When you adopt a low carb, no or next-to-no sugar diet, it’s almost assured that you’ll come up against the question at some point. There are as many perspectives on this issue as there are foods containing these products. And, these days, we even have several choices if we choose to go the alternative sweetener route.
It’s a question, we think, each person has to answer for him/herself. It’s admittedly tough to wade through the hearsay, personal accounts, discredited studies, conflicts of interest, and industry talk. One less complicated criterion we suggest applying to the issue is this: as you look at an artificially sweetened food/drink, does the item offer any real benefit (physical or otherwise) that you couldn’t get from an unsweetened source? Sometimes the answer will be yes, sometimes no. For example, an artificially sweetened soda might seem a better choice than a regular soda. But the best choice, of course, is to nix the soda order completely. If a recipe calls for sugar, you could substitute, say, Splenda, but you might also consider leaving out the sugar/sweetener ingredient entirely, substituting with fruit puree (still fructose but with nutrients) or finding a different recipe. (Quick aside: you can find some interesting substitutes and familiar but low carb adjusted recipes on paleo diet sites.)
Let’s face it. We live in a world that expects birthday cakes, holiday treats, and traditional foods with deep emotional and cultural associations. Some of us are more successful than others at wholly realigning our lifestyles and convincing or “training” (as in children) those around us to enjoy a life (and birthday/holiday) without sugar and carbs. As it is, the rest of us occasionally hit up against the dreaded wall of compromise. What now? Sure, you can bring a no-crust quiche for the work crowd (just deal, people), but if mom and dad always celebrate each anniversary with cherry pie and you’re throwing their 40th bash, what’s a cook to do?
And, yes, there’s always the answer: well, I’ll make it for them but just won’t eat any. But sometimes that solution just doesn’t cut it. Or, the fact is, we want to make a choice that at least seems like a “better” option for the people we cook for.
For a lot of folks, the sweetener solution is sugar/honey or nothing. We understand the perspective of the all-natural crowd. Yet, we also see the point of those who believe that they’d rather incorporate a bit of the artificial realm to stay on track, so to speak. As Mark has mentioned in the past, “cheating” on a low carb lifestyle is not only a temporary compromise, it sets your body’s “acclimatization back a week.” He reminds us that the changes in biochemical rhythms and energy shift, so to speak, take “about three weeks of steady adherence.” So, when the occasion calls for sweet, here’s a brief primer on a few of the most popular choices.
Saccharine (Sweet ‘n Low):
Saccharine, in terms of the artificial set, was truly an original and has been around since the beginning of the 20th Century. The sweetener is an organic molecule made from petroleum. It was hailed as an important development for those with diabetes and was used without much concern until the 1970s when animal studies indicated that it caused cancer of the bladder, skin, uterus and ovaries, among other organs. The USDA moved to ban saccharine, but a compromise was reached that resulted in a warning label that might look familiar: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The warning was removed in 2000. Though the studies were criticized and many claims downshifted in later years, the stigma stuck in many people’s minds. Today the American Medical Association cautions that children and pregnant women should limit their use of the artificial sweetener since not enough information is available to assess risk. Saccharine is known to cross the placenta.
Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal):
Famous for their memorable gumball campaign, aspartame added another choice to the sweetener line after some were scared off by the questions surrounding saccharine. The sweetener combines two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid with methanol. Like saccharine, the sweetener has a distinct taste, which some people like and others don’t. The FDA has done some 26 safety evaluations of the sweetener, and their reports show a clean record. Yet, not everyone agrees with this assessment. Aspartame, like MSG, is thought to be an “excitotoxin,” a compound that overstimulates nerve cells in the brain.
One proven concern is the inability of some people to metabolize phenylalanine, a component in aspartame. The problem is seen with people who have the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU) as well as people with liver disease or women who are pregnant and have a high level of phenylalanine in their blood. High phenylalanine levels can result in brain damage, which is why products with aspartame have an FDA-mandated warning regarding their phenylalanine content.
Sucralose (Splenda, etc.):
Approved by the FDA in 1998, sucralose indeed starts out as sugar but is then chemically adjusted by swapping three hydrogen-oxygen groups with three chlorine molecules. The process makes it into a non-caloric sweetener because we’re unable to metabolize this new form. By most reports, sucralose doesn’t have that artificial aftertaste the earlier substitutes had, although baking results vary considerably despite the sugar cookie and cupcake strewn ads. And don’t let the small box fool you: sucralose has 600 times the sweetening kick that sugar does.
Most researchers, practitioners and other experts suggest that they haven’t seen the same kinds of problems with sucralose that they have with previous artificial sweeteners. It’s true that sucralose is relatively new on the scene, and many are watching for signs of problems past. Nonetheless, in the interest of equal time, we’ll mention a brief caution that is based on a collection of personal accounts rather than scientific evidence. It appears that a small number of people do have experiences resembling allergic reactions to the sweetener. Although we couldn’t find reliable human studies that measured or confirmed these symptoms’ relation to sucralose, there are probably enough stories out there to suggest that people play it safe and “test” their reaction to the sweetener with small doses initially. Also, as we said earlier, if the food or drink isn’t something that offers a real benefit to your body, you’re probably better off finding an alternative.
Stevia:
Stevia is an herb-based non-caloric sweetener that is available in the U.S. as a dietary supplement. Native to Paraguay, you can buy stevia in whole-leaf form or as a powder extract that you dissolve in water. The pull of this “alternative” sweetener is that it’s not part of the artificial crowd. It’s used in many corners of the globe and is considered safe for diabetics. Like sucralose, it packs a powerful punch. A few drops of the liquid have about the same sweetening power as an entire cup of sugar. Also like sucralose, it can be used for baking. The biggest drawback of stevia: many complain that it has a very defined and unappealing underlying flavor. Some say it’s an acquired taste. Others say it’s a taste not worth acquiring.
Ah, to each, his or her own! Meanwhile, anything you can do to wean yourself off that generic craving for sweetness is probably a good thing.
Care to share your thoughts and tips? Pull up a chair and type away, we say.
TheeErin, mgus, canonsnapper, original Mikz Flickr Photos (CC)
Further Reading:
8 “Health Foods” That Contain HFCS
A Cranky Crab Confesses: Yes, I Use Splenda!
FitSugar: Artificial Sweeteners Explained
What about Xylitol?
I was thinking about the whole sugar thing recently. It is not an artificial sweeteners question, but more a question about sugars in general. I’m a triathlete, and I use whey protein shakes with fruit and juice/milk as recovery daily. Is it better to use say an Almond milk (or even Soy) that contains “evaporated cane juice” (long name for sugar) or a juice like fresh pressed apple juice, which has a higher sugar content, but is natural fruit sugar as opposed to a more refined sugar?
I’m a real sugar in moderation kind of girl. I used to consume way too much, and now we really limit refined sugars.
I drink about one Pepsi a week, unless we are traveling, when I usually have more. When we bake, we try to look for alternatives or cut the sugar in half. We eat plain yogurt, don’t add sweeteners to fruit (where did that thing come from - putting sugar on strawberries?), drink water at home.
The only artificial sweeteners I consume regularly are in chewing gum. If I chew gum I eat less, generally, but I don’t want to have sugar sitting on my teeth that much, so I use artifically sweetened gum, a few pieces a day.
Xylitol?- I’ve tried it and i found that it had the strongest “aftertaste” ever. Personally, i don’t like it, i do use Stevia in my morning coffee, and honey in my green tea. As for sugar, saccharine, aspartame,sucralose, i never use it. A friend of mine quit using splenda because it gave her a headache. When she quit splenda headaches left.
If your goal is fat loss, and you are also lifting weights, then “cheating” on your diet can be a good thing.
I followed a carb-cycling approach eating low-carb for three days, followed by one high carb day. This carb load stimulates leptin, T4 and other fat burning hormones.
Simply staying on low carbs all the time is unsustainable for most people, and not wise from a training point of view. Sure, you can lose fat and build muscle without carbohydrates but you can do the same with them, so why cut them out entirely? Besides, muscles that are glycogen depleted look flat and tired.
A full, robust and muscular physique is achieved when glycogen stores are full, and glycogen stores are full when you are eating plenty of carbohydrates.
Say NO to carbophobia!
Another article you might find interesting: http://www.experiencelifemag.com/issues/december-2007/healthy-eating/poor-substitutes.html
A good look into the potential drawbacks of turning to sugar substitutes.
Sure, you can lose fat and build muscle without carbohydrates but you can do the same with them, so why cut them out entirely?
So who said anything about cutting them out entirely? This is about sugar and artificial sweetners. And if you don’t thing you can have a full, robust, and muscular physique on a low-carb diet, then you obviously haven’t seen pictures of Mark or Art Devany. I would be more than happy with matching either of them.
Barry,
Check out Art Devany’s website.
There is a nice picture of his muscled arm, doesn’t look to much like it is glycogen depleted or flat and tired. Esepcially for age 70.
When you say “high carb day” what do you eat?
Marc
Refined sugar is a poison not fit for human consumption.
@ Ear Cannonbeat-Well Said!
Sugar is also “horror”ble for your immune system!
This entry from Art’s site may be of interest:
“Artificial Sweeteners Cause Energy Disregulation”
http://www.arthurdevany.com/?p=940
I hate that I use the splenda sometimes
and the little blue packet.
how do I know I hate it? when I do it (at restaurants only) I try and hide the wrappers.
For shame, MizFit, for SHAME!
I was never a “sweet” eater, rather my weakness WAS salt and salty snacks as far as I remember. Now that I eat Paleo and ingest enormous amounts of greens, I found that I really never desire sweets!! Taste buds can change….
I also find on the rare occasion that I have it–even stevia spikes my blood sugar and sends me looking for more sweets. And once I was at a friends and ate some salmon and immediately had a massive headache. Well, I found out she “spiked” her salmon with splenda!!! Who would have thought that?
I avoid sweeteners. The sweetest food I eat is fruit, which tastes very sweet to me, and so I eat it in moderation and selectively. (Instead of a bowl of grapes, I’ll have a small handful, for instance.) I think that if you use these artificial sweeteners (not to mention sugar, honey, etc.) you end up dulling your taste for sweetness, and then you need and desire more of the stuff to be satisfied. That makes it harder to eat in a healthy, primal fitness way.
This is definetly my achilles heel–I have a hell of a sweet tooth. Between my coffee and my sugar-free popsicles, I consume a fair amount of artificial sweetner. I managed to drop 30 pounds in three months so I’m a little doubtful of some of the claims about it promoting an insulin response; however, I am a little concerned about the long term effects of the chemical cocktail (my daily dose of red #5).
Dave
How timely! I recently blogged a bit about this very topic. I have a horrible sweet tooth, which I am trying to conquer, and right now I use Splenda as a substitute for sugar. I liken my need for sugar to heroin addiction, and for me, Splenda is like methadone. Sure, it isn’t great for me, but I know sugar is awful for me — I’m not someone who can have just a little sugar occasionally; it always eventually leads to a full-on sugar binge.
I found that once before, when I was low-carbing, after I had been off of sugar for a while, using Splenda as a substitute, my sweet cravings actually lessened. I’m hoping that will happen this time around too, and that eventually I’ll wean myself off of the Splenda. But first I have to get off the sugar, and if Splenda helps me do that, then I’m all for it.
I think I use much less Splenda relative to how much sugar I use when I use sugar. And I have had no bad reactions to Splenda, whereas sugar always does a number on me — cravings, sugar “crash”, obviously bad for my pancreas and weight, putting me at risk for diabetes (my mom is diabetic), bloating, tooth decay, etc.
Are artificial sweeteners better than sugar? For me, yes. Would it be better not to use either one? Absolutely, but that just isn’t realistic for me right now. Maybe someday. Until then, moderation is my goal, something much easier for me to achieve with Splenda than with sugar.
“Also, as we said earlier, if the food or drink isn’t something that offers a real benefit to your body, you’re probably better off finding an alternative.”
Just wanted to comment on this as well. It’s true that water is the best thing to drink, but some people won’t consume as much water when it’s just plain water as opposed to say, kool-aid (yikes! I know– horror!) sweetened with Splenda. So the water people get when they drink artificially sweetened drinks can offer a real benefit — adequate hydration.
If a recipe is going to end up containing a teaspoon of added sugar or less per serving (or if I think it will come out OK if I cut it back that far), I’ll just use real sugar (or maple syrup or honey). That’s only 4 g of carbs, and if it’s a recipe like flourless coconut butter cookies that’s loaded with other good things, I think it’s worth it (provided you don’t end up eating 10 cookies and getting the same 10 teaspoons of sugar that are in a soda). And I am really trying to consume no artificial sweeteners at all right now. And after all, a lot of us LC/primal/paleo types eat dark chocolate sweetened with real sugar, right? I absolutely agree that too much sugar is bad news, but a single teaspoon a few times a week is not likely to harm anyone.
And, a thought for Amy - maybe people don’t drink very much water because they aren’t thirsty! Our bodies have this intricately designed system for regulating hydration - it’s called thirst. But for people who really refuse to drink plain water, maybe they just need a Brita filter. Or they could float lemon, lime, orange, or my favorite, cucumber slices and a little mint in their water … in hot weather, I love to fill a pitcher with water and a few fruit slices and leave it to steep in the fridge - flavor without sweetening.
I am very lucky that I haven’t enjoyed sweetened coffee since I was a teenager (half a lifetime ago). When I went LC, it was one less adaptation I had to make.
“And, a thought for Amy - maybe people don’t drink very much water because they aren’t thirsty! Our bodies have this intricately designed system for regulating hydration - it’s called thirst.”
My bad. I was under the impression that a person is already dehydrated before thirst kicks in– meaning thirst is a symptom of dehydration, rather than a preventative body mechanism, and that it was good to stay hydrated to a point where thirst doesn’t kick in — that whole drink 6-8 glasses of water a day thing. Good to know I don’t have to do that after all.
One last thing and then I’ll shut up. Not all of us grew up drinking water. Some of us grew up drinking soda pop and juice and Tang (’cause, you know, the astronauts drank it and everything), and are used to that sweet flavor in the water, and drinking plain water is just unappetizing for us (not me, I happen to like water, but I know people who just don’t like water, filtered or tap, lemon wedge or mint). I was just saying that the water itself in a crap drink can be of some benefit. Pleasure is also a benefit, though it is a benefit that often gets us into trouble.
I just think maybe things aren’t always so black and white, and that’s the point I was trying to make. But I appreciate your response, Migraineur, and I get what you’re saying. As for the sugar, as I said, I can’t seem to have just that one teaspoon, but I can with the Splenda. Glad that you can.
What about “less-processed” sweeteneres like Sucanat and Rapidura, and “natural” ones like honey and agave nectar or even maple syrup? Or do you conclude, like Andrew Weil, that all sweeteners are pretty much the same and to be avoided as much as possible? I still make baked goods for my kids with an occasional bit of Sucanat, and enjoy a touch of honey on my oatmeal. Am I immuno suppressing with this bit of easily avoided sweetening?
[...] On the Question of Sweeteners - Apr. 9 [...]