A Simple View of Sugar and Sugar Substitutes

By Daniel Miessler on February 16th, 2008: Tagged as Health

There’s talk going around again about the different sugar substitutes. Aspartame, Stevia — are they safe? Which does the most damage? Do they cause cancer?

I have a simple solution.

If someone hacks together an artificial chemical that’s designed to give people something for nothing, don’t eat it. It will probably do bad things to you.

When you spill a coke on the sidewalk ants are on it immediately. When you spill a diet coke on the sidewalk the ants walk around it. That should tell you something.

So, in other words, just about every substance in the world that is sweet is high in calories, but we’re going to be audacious enough to create something in a lab that breaks this rule, and then we’re going to eat it? That’s not so bright.

I’m not one of those people who puts nature on a pedestal of perfection. I’m aware that evolution transmits flaws. But we’re nowhere near the point in our understanding of biology or physiology to be able to mimic natural substances such as sugar. Or, at least not without consequences.

It’s foolish to believe that we can, and greed and gluttony are the only reasons one would even subscribe to the idea. In other words, one has to say, “I don’t care what that is because,

  1. I don’t want to work out in order to offset the sugar I eat.
  2. I don’t want to get fat.
  3. I still want to consume sugar all day.

So these are cheater chemicals designed for lazy people who don’t understand enough about science to realize that they’re likely dangerous.

The Simple Approach

So my answer is simple, and it includes more than just sugar substitutes — eat the natural version of foods. Get the least amount of additives and preservatives possible. Organic if possible, but overall as natural as you can find it. Real sugar. Real butter. Etc.

If it has more sugar in it, or more natural fat, so be it. Eat less of it and/or get more exercise.

I’m overweight myself but I like to take responsibility for my actions. I’m fat because I eat too much and don’t exercise enough. That’s it. Fin. I’m going to eat the foods that I’m supposed to be eating, i.e. the regular and non-hacked versions, and if I can’t do so and stay fit then it’s because I’m not doing it right.

I don’t want crutches created for weak people who can’t control themselves — especially when the crutches themselves are pretty damn suspect.:

  • Carl M

    Daniel,

    This post surprises me coming from you. This is NOT a sentence I’d expect from someone with even a basic understanding of science: “So these are cheater chemicals designed for lazy people who don’t understand enough about science to realize that they’re likely dangerous.” How do you come to the conclusion that they are “likely dangerous.” Because they are artificial? Why not let the science determine whether or not they are dangerous?

    How do you define “eat too much” ? You could eat celery all day long and lose weight. I assume you mean “take in too many calories,” and I assume that “too many” means more than are used in a day at one’s current level of exercise. How does one fix this? Take in fewer calories or burn more calories (or both). Does “take in fewer calories” mean “eat less”? Not necessarily. It means eat differently.

    You realize that most of the fat and sugar “substitutes” have not been created from scratch. In fact, many are just fats and sugars that have been modified (by making them too large or whatever) so they can’t be digested. The contain energy (calories), but our bodies don’t see those calories because they pass through us undigested.

    This isn’t to say that there couldn’t be downsides. I don’t think that there’s any scientific evidence that they are poisonous (alarmist websites to the contrary). But, there does seem to be evidence that the sweet taste of artificial sweeteners has an effect on the body .. preparing it to expect calories. When the calories don’t follow, hunger does .. which can spur excessive eating.

    Two years ago, I would drink between 2 and 3 cans of sugary soda a day. I did the calculation and the excess calories from these drinks were the equivalent of about half a pound of excess body weight a week. That is: If the rest of my diet was in balance with my burned calories, I’d gain about 25 pounds a year! I had gained weight, but not at that rate. I cut out the sugary drinks (replacing them with calorie free diet alternatives with artificial sweeteners). I cut back a bit on portion sizes, and I lost about 50 pounds from my peak weight. When I got to my goal weight, I went back to my usual eating habits (but stayed on the diet drinks) and I’ve been able to keep my weight quite steady for quite a while now.

    Unless you believe the alarmist web sites that claim that 9/11 was secretly plotted by the US government, don’t give such credence to the alarmist web sites that call the artificial sweeteners poison. Stick to science.

  • Carl M

    Daniel,

    This post surprises me coming from you. This is NOT a sentence I’d expect from someone with even a basic understanding of science: “So these are cheater chemicals designed for lazy people who don’t understand enough about science to realize that they’re likely dangerous.” How do you come to the conclusion that they are “likely dangerous.” Because they are artificial? Why not let the science determine whether or not they are dangerous?

    How do you define “eat too much” ? You could eat celery all day long and lose weight. I assume you mean “take in too many calories,” and I assume that “too many” means more than are used in a day at one’s current level of exercise. How does one fix this? Take in fewer calories or burn more calories (or both). Does “take in fewer calories” mean “eat less”? Not necessarily. It means eat differently.

    You realize that most of the fat and sugar “substitutes” have not been created from scratch. In fact, many are just fats and sugars that have been modified (by making them too large or whatever) so they can’t be digested. The contain energy (calories), but our bodies don’t see those calories because they pass through us undigested.

    This isn’t to say that there couldn’t be downsides. I don’t think that there’s any scientific evidence that they are poisonous (alarmist websites to the contrary). But, there does seem to be evidence that the sweet taste of artificial sweeteners has an effect on the body .. preparing it to expect calories. When the calories don’t follow, hunger does .. which can spur excessive eating.

    Two years ago, I would drink between 2 and 3 cans of sugary soda a day. I did the calculation and the excess calories from these drinks were the equivalent of about half a pound of excess body weight a week. That is: If the rest of my diet was in balance with my burned calories, I’d gain about 25 pounds a year! I had gained weight, but not at that rate. I cut out the sugary drinks (replacing them with calorie free diet alternatives with artificial sweeteners). I cut back a bit on portion sizes, and I lost about 50 pounds from my peak weight. When I got to my goal weight, I went back to my usual eating habits (but stayed on the diet drinks) and I’ve been able to keep my weight quite steady for quite a while now.

    Unless you believe the alarmist web sites that claim that 9/11 was secretly plotted by the US government, don’t give such credence to the alarmist web sites that call the artificial sweeteners poison. Stick to science.

  • kickstand

    @Carl: Yes, you could do research and study all the science regarding this artificial ingredient or that one. And you could memorize which highly processed food additives are considered more safe and which ones have less science behind them. And you may or may not be right.

    Or, you could take a simple philosophical approach, one advocated by no less than author Michael Pollan in his new book “In Defense of Food”: Eat food, not too much. The kind of food our grandmothers would recognize. A simple rule that’s easy to remember and follow.

    That’s basically what David Miessler is saying here, I think.

  • kickstand

    @Carl: Yes, you could do research and study all the science regarding this artificial ingredient or that one. And you could memorize which highly processed food additives are considered more safe and which ones have less science behind them. And you may or may not be right.

    Or, you could take a simple philosophical approach, one advocated by no less than author Michael Pollan in his new book “In Defense of Food”: Eat food, not too much. The kind of food our grandmothers would recognize. A simple rule that’s easy to remember and follow.

    That’s basically what David Miessler is saying here, I think.

  • Carl M

    You’re right, kickstand, that’s BASICALLY what Daniel is saying, and if he had said just that, I’d not have posted a reply. I think that when one makes an argument for a position, one should be careful to stick to the facts. If one part of your argument can be struck down, then people are less likely to take the remainder of the argument seriously. I know Daniel and know him to be an intelligent, thoughtful and highly curious person. Really, I’m trying to help him avoid overreaching when he states his opinions (regular readers of this blog will recognize that I most often post [lengthy] replies when I see logical errors in an argument .. I don’t necessarily argue for the other side .. I merely point out flaws that I perceive in an argument).

    For anyone interested in losing weight, there’s an interesting guide to losing weight (pay no attention to the subtitle which is meant to be humorous) available online at: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html It’s called The Hacker’s Diet and contains quite a number of useful ideas. Boiled down to one sentence it says: If you want to lose weight, you must burn more calories than you take in. That’s really all weight loss (or weight gain) is — calorie differential. If all you consider is weight loss/gain, it’s not about anything else. (Of course there’s more to healthy eating than the number of calories.) I highly recommend the computer tools available on that site (for charting weight over time).

  • Carl M

    You’re right, kickstand, that’s BASICALLY what Daniel is saying, and if he had said just that, I’d not have posted a reply. I think that when one makes an argument for a position, one should be careful to stick to the facts. If one part of your argument can be struck down, then people are less likely to take the remainder of the argument seriously. I know Daniel and know him to be an intelligent, thoughtful and highly curious person. Really, I’m trying to help him avoid overreaching when he states his opinions (regular readers of this blog will recognize that I most often post [lengthy] replies when I see logical errors in an argument .. I don’t necessarily argue for the other side .. I merely point out flaws that I perceive in an argument).

    For anyone interested in losing weight, there’s an interesting guide to losing weight (pay no attention to the subtitle which is meant to be humorous) available online at: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html It’s called The Hacker’s Diet and contains quite a number of useful ideas. Boiled down to one sentence it says: If you want to lose weight, you must burn more calories than you take in. That’s really all weight loss (or weight gain) is — calorie differential. If all you consider is weight loss/gain, it’s not about anything else. (Of course there’s more to healthy eating than the number of calories.) I highly recommend the computer tools available on that site (for charting weight over time).

  • http://cooperati.livejournal.com/ TIMM

    @ Carl M.;

    I’m glad you raised the vital statement concerning this issue, “It means eat differently.”

    ! Daniel; this means using all the tools as they can be applied, which means you must completely become both fully educated and updated on the tools available.

    I stopped drinking caloried sodas and switched to diet for the exact reason ants avoid diet sodas, because diet sodas don’t contain sugars/calories(and caloried sodas do in copious amounts). (Notice how ants also avoid plain water.) In the year that followed, I read various reports from many health magazines raising the issues of aspartame, heard them on the news, and even became aware of such a similar issue with Splenda.

    Somewhere in that time I also lost 40 lbs. Since that time I’ve gained alot of it back but the difference is that I’m a little more muscular now. So, it has it’s ups and down.

    But the important thing to do is first recognize that yes we do live in a potentially toxic environment, but also arm yourself with information on techniques to be a survivor, and also one who thrives in this modern, much more artificial world we inhabit. Denying ourselves the chance that we could do good with the lab-created, tasty, happy drugs we put in our bodies, (no that doesn’t sound right, but that’s what science is for), is a denial of the opportunity of the basic right for self improvement I’d rather not advise anyone into doing.

    Yes, I believe, based on current articles, that a specific load of aspartame will be the direct cause of death for a significant portion of people. Exactly how much has been measured, estimated, applied to rats, then humans in not so nearly a lethal dose, and repeated by other laboratories to not only see if the artificial sweetener was economically viable in terms of safety, but also to see if one lab could find a breakaway series that could even be better and worth patenting.

    That why we have government agencies, such as the FDA, (who I will never blindly trust), to follow the adage “everything in moderation”, besides the highly praised marketing motto of “do not kill your customers [until it's more profitable to do so].”

    You’ve given me something to think about, though. I’m reminded that celery is a negative calorie food. I wonder what else is.

    -=T=-

  • http://cooperati.livejournal.com TIMM

    @ Carl M.;

    I’m glad you raised the vital statement concerning this issue, “It means eat differently.”

    ! Daniel; this means using all the tools as they can be applied, which means you must completely become both fully educated and updated on the tools available.

    I stopped drinking caloried sodas and switched to diet for the exact reason ants avoid diet sodas, because diet sodas don’t contain sugars/calories(and caloried sodas do in copious amounts). (Notice how ants also avoid plain water.) In the year that followed, I read various reports from many health magazines raising the issues of aspartame, heard them on the news, and even became aware of such a similar issue with Splenda.

    Somewhere in that time I also lost 40 lbs. Since that time I’ve gained alot of it back but the difference is that I’m a little more muscular now. So, it has it’s ups and down.

    But the important thing to do is first recognize that yes we do live in a potentially toxic environment, but also arm yourself with information on techniques to be a survivor, and also one who thrives in this modern, much more artificial world we inhabit. Denying ourselves the chance that we could do good with the lab-created, tasty, happy drugs we put in our bodies, (no that doesn’t sound right, but that’s what science is for), is a denial of the opportunity of the basic right for self improvement I’d rather not advise anyone into doing.

    Yes, I believe, based on current articles, that a specific load of aspartame will be the direct cause of death for a significant portion of people. Exactly how much has been measured, estimated, applied to rats, then humans in not so nearly a lethal dose, and repeated by other laboratories to not only see if the artificial sweetener was economically viable in terms of safety, but also to see if one lab could find a breakaway series that could even be better and worth patenting.

    That why we have government agencies, such as the FDA, (who I will never blindly trust), to follow the adage “everything in moderation”, besides the highly praised marketing motto of “do not kill your customers [until it's more profitable to do so].”

    You’ve given me something to think about, though. I’m reminded that celery is a negative calorie food. I wonder what else is.

    -=T=-

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    @Carl

    I appreciate your attempts to keep me cautious with my arguments.

    But when I say, “likely dangerous” I do so for a very specific reason. Look at the pharmaceutical industry. The “science” via the FDA says they’re ok. So they’re ok, right?

    Why should I wait 10 or 30 years for the cancer institute to do a study of 100,000 people to tell me that something is safe or not?

    Why not simply realize that there is billions of dollars in creating something dangerous that will be successful yet will still get by the cursory attempts by the FDA to ensure that it’s safe?

    In short, you cant trust “science” to protect you. When you choose to consume chemicals created by companies with something to gain you are likely doing your body a disservice. It’s true that some may prove to be harmless, but I think this is likely the exception rather than the rule.

    Again, that’s not based on any study of mine. It’s based on observing big business willing to do anything to make money. And that’s who’s making these chemicals and pushing them on the public as soon as possible.

  • http://dmiessler.com Daniel Miessler

    @Carl

    I appreciate your attempts to keep me cautious with my arguments.

    But when I say, “likely dangerous” I do so for a very specific reason. Look at the pharmaceutical industry. The “science” via the FDA says they’re ok. So they’re ok, right?

    Why should I wait 10 or 30 years for the cancer institute to do a study of 100,000 people to tell me that something is safe or not?

    Why not simply realize that there is billions of dollars in creating something dangerous that will be successful yet will still get by the cursory attempts by the FDA to ensure that it’s safe?

    In short, you cant trust “science” to protect you. When you choose to consume chemicals created by companies with something to gain you are likely doing your body a disservice. It’s true that some may prove to be harmless, but I think this is likely the exception rather than the rule.

    Again, that’s not based on any study of mine. It’s based on observing big business willing to do anything to make money. And that’s who’s making these chemicals and pushing them on the public as soon as possible.

  • Carl M

    @ Daniel

    Just don’t use the word “likely” .. why not say something like “the science is still out and they MAY be dangerous” ? It’s the word “likely” that hurts your argument. What if someone on the other side of the argument said “they’re likely safe” ? How would you respond?

  • Carl M

    @ Daniel

    Just don’t use the word “likely” .. why not say something like “the science is still out and they MAY be dangerous” ? It’s the word “likely” that hurts your argument. What if someone on the other side of the argument said “they’re likely safe” ? How would you respond?

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    I stand by my use of the word “likely”, but I concede that it needs more support.

    Here’s what I’m saying. It’s not easy to make something that gets consumed by millions every day in a lab that’s safe.

    It’s also not easy to replace natural substances.

    It’s also very lucrative to put something out there that claims to do these things.

    Hence, it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe. Again, see the drug market.

    I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.

  • http://dmiessler.com Daniel Miessler

    I stand by my use of the word “likely”, but I concede that it needs more support.

    Here’s what I’m saying. It’s not easy to make something that gets consumed by millions every day in a lab that’s safe.

    It’s also not easy to replace natural substances.

    It’s also very lucrative to put something out there that claims to do these things.

    Hence, it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe. Again, see the drug market.

    I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.

  • Carl M

    I disagree strenuously.

  • Carl M

    I disagree strenuously.

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Interesting. We should talk more about this in person. :)

  • http://dmiessler.com Daniel Miessler

    Interesting. We should talk more about this in person. :)

  • http://maxolasersquad.com/ Maxo

    A fun fact for Carl: http://www.myaspartameexperiment.com/index.php?page=7 Dr. Ralph Walton compiled a list of all controlled human and animal studies looking for the effects of aspartame. Out of 90 independently-funded studies, 83 of them found one or more problems caused by aspartame. But out of the 74 studies funded by the aspartame industry (e.g., Monsanto, G.D. Searle, etc). every single one of them claimed that no problems were found.

  • http://maxolasersquad.com/ Maxo

    A fun fact for Carl: http://www.myaspartameexperiment.com/index.php?page=7 Dr. Ralph Walton compiled a list of all controlled human and animal studies looking for the effects of aspartame. Out of 90 independently-funded studies, 83 of them found one or more problems caused by aspartame. But out of the 74 studies funded by the aspartame industry (e.g., Monsanto, G.D. Searle, etc). every single one of them claimed that no problems were found.

  • Carl M

    I rushed my reply because I was heading to class. I’m back and will respond to post 7 in more detail.

    • It’s not easy to create an artificial substance that is safe.

    This may or may not be true, but I’m willing to accept this premise for the purposes of this argument. I think that it’s plausible that it’s not easy to create a high-demand artificial substance that is safe.

    • It’s not easy to replace natural substances.

    Again, I’ll accept this premise for the purposes of this argument.

    • It’s lucrative to put something out there that claims to do these things.

    True.

    From these premises you conclude: Hence, it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe. — This conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

    “It’s not easy” means that it will take effort. Do you assert that the companies haven’t put forth the effort to develop such things? If you do not, then your “It’s not easy” statements have no place in your argument.

    “It’s lucrative” means that there is money to be made. This justifies the hard work in overcoming the “it’s not easy” does it not? Are there people out to make a quick buck? Sure. Does this mean that “it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe” ? No. Are you so cynical to believe that every time there is money to be made that those making it are doing so at the expense of others? You make money. Do you try to help your clients or do you just want their money? I make money. Do I want to help my students or do I just want a paycheck? (You’re going to accuse me of having the liberal lens problem again .. I just know it.) :)

    Take a close look at your closing paragraph:

    “I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.”

    This paragraph is devoid of any value as far as supporting your argument is concerned.

    Let me put it in a context you will grasp quickly. Imagine that you are in a conversation with someone and are talking about evolution. He claims that the eye could not have evolved and gives the “Blind Watchmaker” analogy. He then says

    “I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.”

    This is actually not an uncommon sort of statement. Your reply would be … ?

  • Carl M

    I rushed my reply because I was heading to class. I’m back and will respond to post 7 in more detail.

    • It’s not easy to create an artificial substance that is safe.

    This may or may not be true, but I’m willing to accept this premise for the purposes of this argument. I think that it’s plausible that it’s not easy to create a high-demand artificial substance that is safe.

    • It’s not easy to replace natural substances.

    Again, I’ll accept this premise for the purposes of this argument.

    • It’s lucrative to put something out there that claims to do these things.

    True.

    From these premises you conclude: Hence, it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe. — This conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

    “It’s not easy” means that it will take effort. Do you assert that the companies haven’t put forth the effort to develop such things? If you do not, then your “It’s not easy” statements have no place in your argument.

    “It’s lucrative” means that there is money to be made. This justifies the hard work in overcoming the “it’s not easy” does it not? Are there people out to make a quick buck? Sure. Does this mean that “it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe” ? No. Are you so cynical to believe that every time there is money to be made that those making it are doing so at the expense of others? You make money. Do you try to help your clients or do you just want their money? I make money. Do I want to help my students or do I just want a paycheck? (You’re going to accuse me of having the liberal lens problem again .. I just know it.) :)

    Take a close look at your closing paragraph:

    “I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.”

    This paragraph is devoid of any value as far as supporting your argument is concerned.

    Let me put it in a context you will grasp quickly. Imagine that you are in a conversation with someone and are talking about evolution. He claims that the eye could not have evolved and gives the “Blind Watchmaker” analogy. He then says

    “I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.”

    This is actually not an uncommon sort of statement. Your reply would be … ?

  • Carl M

    @ Maxo,

    I’ll look at the link, but right from the start there is a flaw:

    “OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration classifies methanol, formaldehyde and formic acid, components of aspartame as hazardous.”

    Sodium is hazardous. Chlorine is hazardous. Table salt is not.

    That the components of a chemical are hazardous does not imply that the chemical compound is hazardous.

    The fact that this is the leading statement on the page indicates to me that they are grasping at straws. But, as I said, I’ll take a look.

  • Carl M

    @ Maxo,

    I’ll look at the link, but right from the start there is a flaw:

    “OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration classifies methanol, formaldehyde and formic acid, components of aspartame as hazardous.”

    Sodium is hazardous. Chlorine is hazardous. Table salt is not.

    That the components of a chemical are hazardous does not imply that the chemical compound is hazardous.

    The fact that this is the leading statement on the page indicates to me that they are grasping at straws. But, as I said, I’ll take a look.

  • greg

    Why do you assume more natural substances are better for you. Lots of deadly poisons are 100% natural.

  • greg

    Why do you assume more natural substances are better for you. Lots of deadly poisons are 100% natural.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs