PDA

View Full Version : Can Sugar Substitutes Make You Fat?


xMenace
02-11-2008, 06:46 AM
Can Sugar Substitutes Make You Fat? - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1711763,00.html?cnn=yes)

Can Sugar Substitutes Make You Fat?
Sunday, Feb. 10, 2008 By ALICE PARK A woman pours Sweet'N Low into Coffee Mug.
Michael A. Keller / CorbisArticle ToolsPrintEmailReprintsSphereAddThisRSS When it comes to dieting, most of us are willing to resort to a trick or two to help us curb our appetite and eat less — drinking water to fill up when we're hungry, for example, or opting for artificial sweeteners instead of sugar to get the same satisfying sweetness without the offending calories. But new research suggests that the body is not so easily fooled, and that sugar substitutes are no key to weight loss — perhaps helping to explain why, despite a plethora of low-calorie food and drink, Americans are heavier than ever.

Related Articles

Do Diet Foods Lead to Weight Gain?
If you think you’re cutting calories by eating diet or low-calorie versions of your favorite foods, ...
One Meal to Good (or Bad) Health
Want to know how many cheeseburgers you’d have to eat before they start doing damage to your body? T...
Next Year’s Diet Books
Low carb. High fiber. No sugar. Reduced fat. Points. Exchanges. "Everything that you can think of ha...
Hyper Kids? Cut Out Preservatives
Parents who suspect that artificial ingredients in food are affecting their children’s behavior can ...


In a series of experiments, scientists at Purdue University compared weight gain and eating habits in rats whose diets were supplemented with sweetened food containing either zero-calorie saccharin or sugar. The report, published in Behavioral Neuroscience, presents some counterintuitive findings: Animals fed with artificially sweetened yogurt over a two-week period consumed more calories and gained more weight — mostly in the form of fat — than animals eating yogurt flavored with glucose, a natural, high-calorie sweetener. It's a continuation of work the Purdue group began in 2004, when they reported that animals consuming saccharin-sweetened liquids and snacks tended to eat more than animals fed high-calorie, sweetened foods. The new study, say the scientists, offers stronger evidence that how we eat may depend on automatic, conditioned responses to food that are beyond our control.

What they mean is that like Pavlov's dog, trained to salivate at the sound of a bell, animals are similarly trained to anticipate lots of calories when they taste something sweet — in nature, sweet foods are usually loaded with calories. When an animal eats a saccharin-flavored food with no calories, however — disrupting the sweetness and calorie link — the animal tends to eat more and gain more weight, the new study shows. The study was even able to document at the physiological level that animals given artificial sweeteners responded differently to their food than those eating high-calorie sweetened foods. The sugar-fed rats, for example, showed the expected uptick in core body temperature at mealtime, corresponding to their anticipation of a bolus of calories that they would need to start burning off — a sort of metabolic revving of the energy engines. The saccharin-fed animals, on the other hand, showed no such rise in temperature. "The animals that had the artificial sweetener appear to have a different anticipatory response," says Susan Swithers, a professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University and a co-author of the study. "They don't anticipate as many calories arriving." The net result is a more sluggish metabolism that stores, rather than burns, incoming excess calories.

Swithers stops short of saying that the animals in her study were compelled to overeat to compensate for phantom calories. But she says that the study does suggest artificial sweeteners somehow disrupt the body's ability to regulate incoming calories. "It's still a bit of a mystery why they are overeating, but we definitely have evidence that the animals getting artificially sweetened yogurt end up eating more calories than the ones getting calorically sweetened yogurt."

Though it's premature to generalize based on animal results that the same phenomena would hold true in people, Swithers says, she notes that other human studies have already shown a similar effect. A University of Texas Health Science Center survey in 2005 found that people who drink diet soft drinks may actually gain weight; in that study, for every can of diet soda people consumed each day, there was a 41% increased risk of being overweight. So even though her findings were in animals, says Swithers, they could lead to a better understanding of how the human body responds to food, and explain why eating low-calorie foods doesn't always lead to weight loss. "There is lots of evidence that we learn about the consequences about eating food," she says. "And we have physiological responses to food that are conditioned."

So does that mean you should ditch the artificial sweeteners and welcome sugar back into your life? Not exactly. Excess sugar in the diet can lead to diabetes and heart disease, even independent of its effect on weight. But it's worth remembering that when it comes to counting calories, it's not just the ones you eat that you have to worry about. The calories you give up matter too, and they may very well reappear in that extra helping of pasta or dessert that your body demands. Your body may actually be keeping better count than you are.

morrisma
02-11-2008, 07:00 AM
Menace,
Just saw this study of 17 mice. Not taking it too seriously just yet. I'm guessing my splenda enhanced oatmeal is far less a factor in gaining weight than would be the extra insulin required to correct for the sugar or (gasp) honey sweetened equivalent.

Nice to know we are refunding this stuff so that we can continue to lead stressed out, confused lives.
Mike

Jan B
02-11-2008, 07:00 AM
What do I know? Who knows, but here's what I think. I have noticed that people who stock up on low calorie items . . . where you see nothing but sugar-free this and sugar free that all over the place are heavier, or have more weight problems than others.

I believe those people feel deprived and have not learned good nutrition and the proper and satisfying way of eating. Nature provided us with fruit, vegetables, and more vegetables, grains, wheat, nuts, etc. And yes, cows and chickens, etc. for the meat eaters. My point is that none of those things come in sugar free or low-cal --

My pump trainer from Medtronic gave me a nice little book called The Calorie King/ Carlorie, Fat & Carbohydrate counter. It's comprised of what people typically eat -- almost the whole book consists of processed foods and restaurant foods. I looked for a long while last evening, and I'm even more disgusted with restaurant food than before. I eat fruit, vegetables and what I consider to be healthy foods. Those foods take up a very small part of the whole book. I drink all different flavors of herbal teas and to be honest, diet carbonated drinks taste like trash. I do not feel deprived at all. When I go to the grocery store, I find all kinds of really cool, "superfoods" and health items.

I do use Splenda and drink a few diet drinks.

I'll quit my own little rant now.

xMenace
02-11-2008, 07:38 AM
I do think artificial sweeteners tend to make over-eaters justify their practices rather than switching to healthy diets: "I can eat at Rotten Ronnies twice a week instead of once because I have diet soda." But it is interesting that mice gained weight. Mice don't make these mental decisions, unless Douglas Adams was right after all. 42?

Evermont
02-11-2008, 07:49 AM
... to correct for the sugar or (gasp) honey sweetened equivalent...

Hey Mike, what are your thoughts on honey vs. sugar? Are you implying that honey is worse than sugar? What little I've read suggests that honey, which can vary a lot, has a similar glycemic index to sugar but honey has a slight edge nutritionally over sugar. Especially raw honey which has trace minerals and other micronutrients as well as a good dose of antioxidants. Processed honey has most of the antioxidants cooked out.

----------------------

We've had threads here about natural versus artificial sweeteners before. I'm on the natural side myself, I don't need anymore reasons to avoid the artificial sweeteners but I do find it interesting.

I'm intrigued by an idea I read here on DF once, I think it was BlueSky who suggested that once a person breaks the habit of eating sweetened things they stop becoming so important. I think that idea deserves much more consideration than it seems to get. I'm not ready to banish all sweets, I think I get less than most people but that's hard to judge. I do stay mindful of the quantity and keep slowly cutting back.

I tend to buy things without added sweeteners and add my own so I can control it. For me, I'm adding agave nectar or raw honey, in the smallest quantity that it takes to make it taste right. For example I used to but Breyers fruit on the bottom yogurt but I switched to plain non-fat yogurt so now I need to add a sweetener. 1 cup of yogurt gets blueberries added and then 1-2 teaspoons of agave nectar, which has a lower glycemic index than sugar or honey and tastes great.

And BTW John, I would never underestimate the wisdom of Douglas Adams or mice, but this study did not use mice.

morrisma
02-11-2008, 08:39 AM
Evermont,
My "gasp" dates back to my high school chemistry & biology days when I learned that honey (glucose) was a monomer and other sugars, sucrose, fructose, etc, were polymers (2 or more monomers stuck together). Fast forward 35 years and I figure sucrose takes a little longer to break down than honey thereby making honey cause a quicker and maybe higher bs spike. This is just a my dim memory and may not face up to modern scrutiny - just something I've lived with seemingly forever. I can still remember the chemical stick drawings showing the extra bonds to break before glucose could be used...

OTOH, I prefer honey for all the reasons you stated and for the fact that on the rare occasions I do use any real sweetener, honey tastes better and seems to sweeten better with less volume.

The real solution I think is to slowly wean off the sweeteners altogether but that's really hard and with insulin and other meds, not as immediate a problem.
Mike

susique333
02-11-2008, 11:14 AM
I was one of the people that didnt have a weight problem until I started drinking the only diet drink available in the 1970s and that was TAB. Im convinced now that my pancreas pumped out insulin from the sweet taste and I feel stupid for not realizing I was feeling more hungry on diet drinks. Hindsite is 20/20 they say. My husband showed me last summer how if you drip diet pop on the patio table, the bees will come drink it, tricks their taste buds too I guess. After reading the above, Im weaning the family off the stuff.

volleyball
02-11-2008, 01:49 PM
I think the diet stuff is "now I can eat twice as much" more than other factors. I too know constant dieters that eat way more than they should still but say its diet this and diet that. I have a friend who worked with a large woman on a no fat diet. Her bag of jelly beans were no fat so she felt she could eat the whole bag. Wonder why her diet failed.
Sweeteners tend to make our taste bud crave more so we consume more, if you cut yourself off, you want it less. I have cut my sweetener intake 70%. I am not willing to go all the way quite yet.

grace girl
02-11-2008, 02:16 PM
I agree with a lot of the others...I think the problem with some people is mentality. I've had relatives who would consume enormous amounts of "diet" foods.
As for myself, I use splenda in coffee and tea, and the only sugar free food I eat is chocolate pudding...it's 1/2 the carbs of the regular. I don't drink sodas very often at all...never have. I think I'll make it.

xMenace
02-11-2008, 02:17 PM
And BTW John, I would never underestimate the wisdom of Douglas Adams or mice, but this study did not use mice.

I knew that. Morrisma's reference to mice must have thrown me off track. I've been working on many threads today :eek:

Evermont
02-11-2008, 02:58 PM
I knew that. Morrisma's reference to mice must have thrown me off track. I've been working on many threads today :eek:

"RATS!" you say. I'm glad you post in so many threads, you're contributions here are priceless. Keep up the good work!

Evermont
02-11-2008, 03:31 PM
Evermont,
My "gasp" dates back to my high school chemistry & biology days when I learned that honey (glucose) was a monomer and other sugars, sucrose, fructose, etc, were polymers (2 or more monomers stuck together). Fast forward 35 years and I figure sucrose takes a little longer to break down than honey thereby making honey cause a quicker and maybe higher bs spike. This is just a my dim memory and may not face up to modern scrutiny - just something I've lived with seemingly forever. I can still remember the chemical stick drawings showing the extra bonds to break before glucose could be used...

OTOH, I prefer honey for all the reasons you stated and for the fact that on the rare occasions I do use any real sweetener, honey tastes better and seems to sweeten better with less volume.

The real solution I think is to slowly wean off the sweeteners altogether but that's really hard and with insulin and other meds, not as immediate a problem.
Mike

Mike, here's something I found on this topic: (link (http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/honey_or_sugar.html))

Is honey more healthful than sugar?

Gabe Mirkin, M.D.

You may have heard that honey is better than sugar because it's a quicker source of energy, a richer source of minerals and less fattening, but actually, honey and table sugar are almost the same. Both contain two simple sugars called glucose and fructose. Table sugar has its sugar bound into one molecule, but it is split immediately in your intestine to two single sugars. Since honey and table sugar are processed the same way, honey is not a quicker source of energy.

They are equally fattening even though ounce for ounce, honey has fewer calories than sugar. Honey contains water which has no calories and refined sugar does not. A tablespoon of table sugar has 64 calories while a tablespoon of honey has 46 calories, but to obtain the same amount of sweetness you must use enough more honey to make the calories equal. Honey does contain iron and calcium while table sugar does not, but to meet your needs for iron, you would have to eat 10 cups of honey a day, and for calcium, you'd need to eat 40 cups.

March 1, 2006

What I take away from this is that sugar and honey are effectively the same. Doc Mirkin left out the antioxidants found in raw honey, and the added risk. I think there are more micronutrients he left out too but it's not like it's a panacea or anything. I too prefer the taste but even that can hide in foods like blueberry yogurt. So it comes down to very minor nutritional concerns and just one more factor. Honey is produced locally. Eat local!

I expect to discover the same things about granulated maple sugar when I get around to studying that, though it does have a stronger flavor.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/57/88/23228857.jpg

Penny
02-11-2008, 03:41 PM
I think the diet stuff is "now I can eat twice as much" more than other factors. I too know constant dieters that eat way more than they should still but say its diet this and diet that. I have a friend who worked with a large woman on a no fat diet. Her bag of jelly beans were no fat so she felt she could eat the whole bag. Wonder why her diet failed.
Sweeteners tend to make our taste bud crave more so we consume more, if you cut yourself off, you want it less. I have cut my sweetener intake 70%. I am not willing to go all the way quite yet.

I hardly ever eat or drink anything with sweetener in it, I probably never eat anything with sugar (OK there is the dark chocolate :) ), but I am still fat. This morning I read that "clutter" makes you fat....so that's my story, I live with a bunch of slobs and it drives me batty....that's why I am fat! :D

Alice
02-11-2008, 03:54 PM
It is still the "extra food" that is causing the weight...not the artificial sweetner products directly...they always seem to leave that fact out of the story. With the exception of diet coke, I never use sweetners anyway...

volleyball
02-11-2008, 05:39 PM
I hardly ever eat or drink anything with sweetener in it, I probably never eat anything with sugar (OK there is the dark chocolate :) ), but I am still fat. This morning I read that "clutter" makes you fat....so that's my story, I live with a bunch of slobs and it drives me batty....that's why I am fat! :D
They only do for you. They figure if you spend all your waking hours picking up after them, you'll get enough exercise to get thinner. If you told them you were thin enough, they'd pick up after themselves.

ant hill
02-11-2008, 07:26 PM
I was one of the people that didnt have a weight problem until I started drinking the only diet drink available in the 1970s and that was TAB.
I can remember when I was diagnosed in the early 70's and come morning tea time was a apple and a can of TAB With all the ingredients and other information took up 70% of the can!! and I was instantly hooked on the stuff. :eek:
My husband showed me last summer how if you drip diet pop on the patio table, the bees will come drink it, tricks their taste buds too I guess.
WOW that's amazing!!
I am begin to think that you are what you eat and low carbing may be the key to weight loss. :D :T

Nikky
02-12-2008, 02:04 AM
Nope. At least not me. I have been using sweetener on a daily basis for the past 27 years (probably more then recommended too), and have never been overweight. As the opposite, I have been underweight under long periods and struggled with gaining weight.