Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#21

Post by asdff »

phil21 wrote: post #8

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 her…

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.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#22

Post by llm_nerd »

EGreg wrote: post #20
llm_nerd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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.n…

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.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#23

Post by aiono »

asdff wrote: post #17

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…

Modern culture seems to encourage "hacking" more than cultivating self-discipline.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#24

Post by FabHK »

asdff wrote: post #17

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…

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.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#25

Post by jauntywundrkind »

asdff wrote: post #17

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…

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

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#26

Post by FabHK »

hungryhobbit wrote: post #4

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 ar…

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.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#28

Post by beAbU »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #12

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…

Why was it pulled?

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#29

Post by phil21 »

asdff wrote: post #21
phil21 wrote: post #8

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 her…

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 chu…

I was off it for 6mo or so while I lost the weight. It wasn’t especially hard to stop, but water is in no way a replacement for it in any way.

It’s the thing I prefer. Don’t like chocolate or really other sweet things in general. Even full sugar soda is far too sugary for me, outside of some niche drinks out of Europe.

The available scientific evidence on fake sugars tends to skew towards “fairly safe, but not entirely so” until you get into observational studies as mentioned in the article. The few everyone loves to continually cite that show otherwise are using mouse or rat models with some absurd 10x safe daily ingestion rates to show what amounts to rather mild impacts.

There really is nothing like an ice cold Diet Coke for me after working hard in the back yard in the summer heat. Or something to sip on during horrible corporate meetings.

I’ve also wore a glucose monitor for fun, and it in no way impacts blood sugar levels - one of the leading bro science hot takes. I definitely can see how it can be involved in habits though and trigger mental signals to overindulge in other substances during and after consumption. Having one certainly begets the impulse to have another I need to watch out for.

I did pick up a (black) coffee habit to reduce consumption a bit, but I’m not convinced that’s any healthier.

Re: Are sugar substitutes healthier than the real thing?

#30

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

beAbU wrote: post #28
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #12

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…

Why was it pulled?

Supply chain issues. The factory that manufactured the raw D-tagatose used in Tagatesse halted production.

But it looks like, these days, others are on it. I just checked and both tagatose and psicose (allulose) are available quite cheaply on Amazon.com. This is something rather new...

Post reply on HN