Does erythritol fall under this category? It has effectively zero carbs, and does not spike insulin levels.
It's also naturally occurring
Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased cancer risk
41–49 of 49 posts
Re: Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased cancer risk
#42It's probably worth mentioning that they also cause weight gain (vs a subjectively equivalent amount of sugar). Some are psychoactive and interfere with e.g., seizure drugs. Some cause migraine headaches in a subset of the population. If it weren't for diabetics, I'd argue they all should be summarily banned (even, and especially, the "natural" / "organic" sugar alternatives, since those are mostly being produced in…
How can they cause weight gain when they contain no or a tiny amount of calories?
They still cause insulin release, and a resultant hormonal response
Re: Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased cancer risk
#43It's probably worth mentioning that they also cause weight gain (vs a subjectively equivalent amount of sugar). Some are psychoactive and interfere with e.g., seizure drugs. Some cause migraine headaches in a subset of the population. If it weren't for diabetics, I'd argue they all should be summarily banned (even, and especially, the "natural" / "organic" sugar alternatives, since those are mostly being produced in…
How can they cause weight gain when they contain no or a tiny amount of calories?
In an extreme example, mood stabilizers such as Depakote strongly cause weight gain despite having no calories.
Re: Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased cancer risk
#44Worth noting the artificial sweetners found to have correllations with increased risk of cancer are aspartame and acesulfame-K. Sucralose, stevia, and others were not found to have an increased risk, but they were only present in a much smaller segment of the population (i.e. 10% used Sucralose) so they may not have enough representation to be ruled out.
I was looking for the same point, specifically about Sucralose. Here's the point for anyone else thats curious (from the study itself; not the article):
> In particular, the absence of a relationship between sucralose and cancer risk in this study should be considered with caution since exposure to sucralose was very low compared to the exposures for aspartame and acesulfame-K.
Re: Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased cancer risk
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he compared it with a subjectively equal amount of sugar,so no additional food is eaten.
The involuntary part of your brain gets confused because it received an "I ate" signal from your mouth but not your stomach. It responds by panicking: lowered metabolism and increased appetite. Both effects have been shown separately. For instance, mice on fixed calorie diets become lethargic and gain weight if artificial sweeteners are added to their water.
Has this been shown in humans? A lot of mice results don't replicate in humans.
Re: Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased cancer risk
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can they cause weight gain when they contain no or a tiny amount of calories?
They still cause insulin release, and a resultant hormonal response
I don't think that's true. Here's a recent study disproving that: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29982723/
Re: Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased cancer risk
#47The study appears to focus on aspartame, sucrolose, and acesulfame-k, which to my mind (which is admittedly uneducated in this domain) seem heavily artificial, and the findings are not surprising. What about plant-based sweeteners such as stevia, monkfruit etc, or sugar alcohols?
Isn't this just the appeal to nature fallacy? Assuming that artificial things are bad and natural things are good.
Re: Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased cancer risk
#48It's probably worth mentioning that they also cause weight gain (vs a subjectively equivalent amount of sugar). Some are psychoactive and interfere with e.g., seizure drugs. Some cause migraine headaches in a subset of the population. If it weren't for diabetics, I'd argue they all should be summarily banned (even, and especially, the "natural" / "organic" sugar alternatives, since those are mostly being produced in…
I think the research is mixed on this. Here's one study debunking this theory: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23364015/
Re: Artificial sweeteners are associated with increased cancer risk
#49The study appears to focus on aspartame, sucrolose, and acesulfame-k, which to my mind (which is admittedly uneducated in this domain) seem heavily artificial, and the findings are not surprising. What about plant-based sweeteners such as stevia, monkfruit etc, or sugar alcohols?
Isn't this just the appeal to nature fallacy? Assuming that artificial things are bad and natural things are good.
There’s one sugar the FDA has allowed to stay off the total sugars list
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-brief/fda-brief-fda-allo...