Sugar has been around since centuries, and it looks like it’s here to stay. However since the ingestion of sugar was found to be responsible for fat deposition and has been linked with increased risk of lifestyle diseases, we have tried to find alternatives to it. Because, let’s face it. This is one addiction that has plagued the entire world in one swoop. Saccharin was the first artificial sweetener to be discovered, which was purely an accident. This is what led to the revolution to hunt the perfect sugar substitute.
Artificial sweeteners were advertised as a very comfortable way to lose weight in the 19th century. It was used in sodas first, and later trickled down to other sweet foods and beverages. It promised to take away the calories from the sweetness making indulgence completely guilt free. This sounds too good to be true.
After various research and medical organisations put forward their concerns regarding the safety of artificial sweeteners, the government imposed certain regulations on the manufacturers. The companies selling products that used the artificial sweeteners had to clearly specify the chemical contents along with its quantity with respect to the allowed daily intake. This transparency is like a bandaid on an amputation. Quite a few studies cite the risks of development of cancers and other diseases with a long term use of artificial sweeteners. But the research findings are not conclusive.
There are a few artificial sweeteners in today’s day and age. Relatively, they are known to be many hundred times sweeter than straight up sugar. Saccharin, the oldest of them, has one of the lowest acceptable daily intake of 5 mg per kilogram of bodyweight and is 600 times sweeter than sugar. Sucralose, Acesulfame K, and Aspartame are the more commonly used ones. Aspartame has by far the highest acceptable daily intake of 50 mg per kilogram of body weight and is 200 times sweeter than sugar. The content is based in the region but on an average, according to the acceptable daily intake, a person weighing 60 kilograms will need to drink over 10 cans of diet coke in a day for it to be harmful.
People suffering from phenylketonuria, an inherited disease, are sensitive to phenylalanine which is a byproduct of the breakdown of aspartame in the body. An overconsumption of aspartame containing foods may damage the liver cells in them. There are also some case control studies which did not find a link between aspartame and cancer risk.
Acesulfame K is heat stable and is thus used for baking and cooking. Just like Aspartame, it has no calories, and is much sweeter than sugar. Aspartame and Acesulfame K are often used together to cut back on each others’ bitter aftertaste. Many studies for Acesulfame K have also deemed it safe under the acceptable daily intake.
As I mentioned before, nutritional studies always have a bit of ambiguity linked with them. There are drawbacks to both ends of the control spectrum. If the subjects are allowed to live a normal life while using some rules for the study, there will be doubts regarding the influence of many other factors. However this type of a study will be the most practical for real world scenarios as compared to a fully controlled study where everything is measured. In a completely controlled study, despite learning accurately about isolated effects, we fail to record certain human behaviours like self calculation, estimation and rationalisation. What this means is a person tends to justify eating a doughnut later because he made a no calorie beverage earlier in the day.
The example mentioned above is exactly what is the major short term problem with consuming the sugar free counterparts of beverages and snacks. It’s the behaviour that it promotes, which inevitably contradicts the intended purpose. It is not the safety of the sweeteners themselves that is of concern, but our behaviour around its use. As long as you have a positive relationship with it, using it occasionally will not harm you. Instead, it can help keep other temptations at bay if used wisely.
Artificial sweeteners were advertised as a very comfortable way to lose weight in the 19th century. It was used in sodas first, and later trickled down to other sweet foods and beverages. It promised to take away the calories from the sweetness making indulgence completely guilt free. This sounds too good to be true.
After various research and medical organisations put forward their concerns regarding the safety of artificial sweeteners, the government imposed certain regulations on the manufacturers. The companies selling products that used the artificial sweeteners had to clearly specify the chemical contents along with its quantity with respect to the allowed daily intake. This transparency is like a bandaid on an amputation. Quite a few studies cite the risks of development of cancers and other diseases with a long term use of artificial sweeteners. But the research findings are not conclusive.
There are a few artificial sweeteners in today’s day and age. Relatively, they are known to be many hundred times sweeter than straight up sugar. Saccharin, the oldest of them, has one of the lowest acceptable daily intake of 5 mg per kilogram of bodyweight and is 600 times sweeter than sugar. Sucralose, Acesulfame K, and Aspartame are the more commonly used ones. Aspartame has by far the highest acceptable daily intake of 50 mg per kilogram of body weight and is 200 times sweeter than sugar. The content is based in the region but on an average, according to the acceptable daily intake, a person weighing 60 kilograms will need to drink over 10 cans of diet coke in a day for it to be harmful.
People suffering from phenylketonuria, an inherited disease, are sensitive to phenylalanine which is a byproduct of the breakdown of aspartame in the body. An overconsumption of aspartame containing foods may damage the liver cells in them. There are also some case control studies which did not find a link between aspartame and cancer risk.
Acesulfame K is heat stable and is thus used for baking and cooking. Just like Aspartame, it has no calories, and is much sweeter than sugar. Aspartame and Acesulfame K are often used together to cut back on each others’ bitter aftertaste. Many studies for Acesulfame K have also deemed it safe under the acceptable daily intake.
As I mentioned before, nutritional studies always have a bit of ambiguity linked with them. There are drawbacks to both ends of the control spectrum. If the subjects are allowed to live a normal life while using some rules for the study, there will be doubts regarding the influence of many other factors. However this type of a study will be the most practical for real world scenarios as compared to a fully controlled study where everything is measured. In a completely controlled study, despite learning accurately about isolated effects, we fail to record certain human behaviours like self calculation, estimation and rationalisation. What this means is a person tends to justify eating a doughnut later because he made a no calorie beverage earlier in the day.
The example mentioned above is exactly what is the major short term problem with consuming the sugar free counterparts of beverages and snacks. It’s the behaviour that it promotes, which inevitably contradicts the intended purpose. It is not the safety of the sweeteners themselves that is of concern, but our behaviour around its use. As long as you have a positive relationship with it, using it occasionally will not harm you. Instead, it can help keep other temptations at bay if used wisely.
Comments
Post a Comment